alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Getty Realty Corp. (the “Company”) hereby
certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




(i)  the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (subject to the Company's
position prevailing in regard to the remaining unresolved SEC comment, as more
fully described in the Report); and




(ii)  the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: May
5, 2009





BY:/s/ Leo
      Liebowitz(Signature)LEO
      LIEBOWITZChairman
      and Chief Executive
Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Getty Realty Corp. and will be retained by Getty Realty Corp. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
No. 54018.

#### Louis Meyers & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 945846-G (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
No. 47837.

#### Protest 957042-G of N. Y. Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 607) the brass base shells in question were held dutiable as parts of articles having as an essentia] feature an electrical element or device, such as signs, at 35 percent under paragraph 353. Tape measures, used chiefly in the household for utilitarian purposes, similar to those the subject of Abstract 43372', were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339, as stipulated.
Before the Second Division,

June 22, 1942

No. 47313.

#### Protest 16108-K of J. Elishewitz & Sons Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the merchandise in question consists of knotted sisal hats the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract 46497 the claim at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was sustained as to those items.
B&N Associates, LLC Letter



 Exhibit 10.16 
 cmcdemus@clear-point.com 
 DIRECT DIAL: 215-997-7710 X. 101

 June 25, 2008 
 VIA UPS, OVERNIGHT
DELIVERY 
  

															
	B&N Associates, LLC	  		  		  		  		  		  	
	Attn: Brian Bolcar	  		  		  		  		  		  	
	  
	  		  		  		  		  		  		  	
	  
	  		  		  		  		  		  		  	

 Dear Brian: 
 I am writing in reference to that certain Second Amended and Restated Promissory Note, dated March 31, 2008, payable by ClearPoint Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) in the original principal amount of $100,000 (the
“Note”). By way of this letter, the Company is notifying you that, effective June 20, 2008, it has, in accordance with Section 1 of the Note, exercised the Maturity Date Extension (as defined in the Note). As a result, the
new Maturity Date for the Note is March 31, 2010. The Company exercised the Maturity Date Extension in connection with its recent loan transaction with ComVest Capital, LLC, whereby the Company received a $9 million term loan and $3 million
revolver. 
 As required by Section 3 of the Note, I have enclosed a second Warrant for 15,000 shares of Company Common Stock,
exercisable from June 20, 2008 until March 31, 2011 at an exercise price of $1.55. 
 Feel free to call me with any questions.

  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 CLEARPOINT RESOURCES, INC.

	
	 Christopher D. McDemus

	 Senior V.P. & General Counsel


 Encl.
No. 52233.

Suit 4570.

#### United States *v.*Maurice Lobsitz.

Abstract 51341 affirmed January 27, 1948. C. A. D. 386.
No. 49136.

#### Protests 587495-G, etc., of Olaf Hertzwig Trading Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269. The protests were therefore sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Colin Charles GRANT, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 00-1560.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 13, 2001.

Michael O’Brien, Syosset, N.Y., for appellant.

Assistant United States Attorney Christina B. Dugger; Assistant United States Attorney Jo Ann M. Navickas, on the brief, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellee.

Present LEVAL, SACK, and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant appeals from a sentence entered after a plea of guilty to illegal reentry into the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He contends that the district court erred in calculating his sentence by adding two levels under Section 4Al.l(d) of the Sentencing Guidelines by reason of his being on parole at the time of the offense.

Defendant had been previously convicted in New York State courts, had been placed on parole for purposes of deportation, and remained on parole at the time he was found illegally in the United States. We find no merit in defendant’s contention.

Defendant also contends in a pro se brief (1) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to argue at trial, as defendant allegedly requested, that he was denied counsel in the underlying deportation proceedings, and (2) that his sentence pursuant to the penalty provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is illegal under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We decline to entertain the former contention because it depends on communications between the defendant and his trial attorney that are not matters of record. *See United States v. Workman,*80 F.3d 688, 700-01 (2d Cir.1996). The latter contention lacks merit because the *41Supreme Court in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), held that 1326(b) “does not set out a separate offense but rather is a penalty provision with respect to § 1326(a),” and because the *Ap-prendi*decision expressly declined to overrule the holding of *Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Latorre-Benavides,*241 F.3d 262, 263-64 (2d Cir.2001), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 121 S.Ct. 201, 149 L.Ed.2d 10143 (2001).
The petitioner contests the magistrate judge’s calculation of the limitations period. See Swartz v. 1

Meyers, 204 F.3d 417, 420-22 (3d Cir. 2000). However, he concedes that even under the proper calculation

of the period, his petition is untimely. Accordingly, he invokes the doctrine of equitable tolling to overcome

the time bar. 

Because the magistrate judge’s analysis of the equitable tolling argument and his conclusion that the

petition is time-barred are correct, the petition will be dismissed.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NATHAN BLACKWELL : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 05-1572

:

SUPERINTENDENT GEORGE :

PATRICK, et al :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 2006, upon consideration of the Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 1), the Respondents’ Answer to Application for

Habeas Corpus Relief, the Petitioner’s Response and/or Objections to Respondents

Answer, the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge David

R. Strawbridge (Document No. 14), and the Petitioner’s Statement of Objections to the

Report and Recommendation, and after a thorough and independent review of the record,

it is ORDERED that:

1) The petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation are

OVERRULED;

2) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Strawbridge is 

APPROVED and ADOPTED;

1

3) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and,

4) There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.

 s/ Timothy J. Savage 

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

Case 2:05-cv-01572-TJS Document 19 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

November 9, 1960

No. 64838.

#### M. Adler’s Sons, Inc., and Harper, Robinson & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/13236, etc. (San Francisco).

*360Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress*& *Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 56406.

protest 170466-K (New York).

#### Moosalina Products Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was originally stipulated that certain items of cheese marked “A” on the invoice consist of Romano cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706). It was held that an allowance of 2)4 percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese by the collector in computing the duty thereon to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings on the outside of the cheese. Inasmuch as no Romano cheese appeared under the items marked “A,” the court, in deciding the case, disregarded the trade agreement with Argentina, *supra,*relative to such cheese. A motion for rehearing was granted, and at the trial it was further stipulated that the cheese described on the invoice as Sardo type cheese consists of Romano cheese which was entered for consumption subsequent to the effective date of T. D. 50504. In accordance with stipulations of counsel it was held: (1) That in determining the duty applicable to the items of cheese marked “A” an allowance of 2)4 percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese by the collector in computing the duty thereon to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings od the outside of the cheese; and (2) that the item of merchandise invoiced as Sardo cheese consists of Romano cheese and, as such, is properly dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 710, as modified by T. D. 50504, less such allowance for tare as is applicable to the items marked “A” on the invoice.
fs1a1ex10iii_ea2chnyida.htm


     

    Exhibit 10.8

     

    Leasing
Agreement

     

     

     

    Individual
A:    Fuzhou
Kai Fa Qu Langqi Si Ji Hui Yi Reception Co. Ltd.

     

    Individual
B:    Fujian
Jiaoguang Media Co. Ltd

     

    Upon a
friendly understanding, the following lease agreement is made between the two
individuals:

     

    
      	
              1.  

            	
              Individual
      A agreed to rent the property located at Langqi Town, Lung Kuo Resort ,
      #18 Wang Giang Liu to Individual B to use as office
  space.

            


    

     

    
      	
              2.  

            	
              The
      term of this lease begins from October 8, 2004 to October 8, 2014; a term
      of 10 years.

            


    

     

    
      	
              3.  

            	
              The
      rent is 1500 RMB per year.  Individual B has to pay the full
      rent before July 1 every year.

            


    

     

    
      	
              4.  

            	
              During
      the period of this agreement, Individual B shall not sublease nor assign
      the lease without the written consent of Individual A.  If
      Individual B needs to make alterations, structure or interior changes of
      the building, approval from Individual A is
  needed.

            


    

     

    
      	
              5.  

            	
              Individual
      B shall, upon expiration of this leasing agreement, have the preferred
      right to renew the lease with the same
  condition.

            


    

     

    
      	
              6.  

            	
              Any
      matters not stated in this agreement, will be agreed by friendly terms
      between both individuals.

            


    

     

    
      	
              7.  

            	
              This
      agreement has five copies.  Individual A and Individual B each
      hold two copies, 1 copy in the
file.

            


    

     

     

     

    Signed
on: October 8, 2004
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANTIAGO SOTO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0571 FCD GGH P

vs.

WARDEN D.L. RUNNELS,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 3, 2005, this court ordered defendant to file any

opposition to plaintiff’s March 17, 2005 motion for preliminary injunctive relief, going to the

merits of his complaint, within 15 days. On April 28, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for a

temporary restraining order alleging that defendant Runnels has placed a known enemy of

plaintiff’s in the same housing unit as plaintiff in retaliation for plaintiff’s having brought this

action. Defendant must also file a response to the motion for a TRO by May 20, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 5/6/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

soto0571.rsp2

Case 2:04-cv-00571-FCD-GGH Document 20 Filed 05/06/05 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 81042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25729]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-58-2023]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 57, Notification of Proposed Production 
Activity; M&M Labs LLC; (Packaging of Nutritional Supplements and Skin 
Care Products); Mill Spring, North Carolina

    M&M Labs LLC submitted a notification of proposed production 
activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Mill Spring, 
North Carolina within FTZ 57. The notification conforming to the 
requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on 
November 15, 2023.
    Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be 
limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and 
specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification 
(summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The 
benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ 
procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's 
website--accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    The proposed finished products include packaged nutritional 
supplements and packaged skin care products (duty rate ranges from 
duty-free to 6.4%).
    The proposed foreign-status materials and components include 
folding cardboard boxes; plastic components (bottles, lids, labels); 
silica gel desiccant packs; paper labels; glass components (bottles, 
spray bottles); metal lids; skin moisturizers; eye serums; night 
creams; scent sprayers; and, spraying apparatuses (duty rate ranges 
from duty-free to 6.5%). The request indicates that certain materials/
components are subject to duties under section 301 of the Trade Act of 
1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable 
section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to 
FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#284e5c52685c5a494c4d064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c1a08063c080e1d1819521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>. The closing period for their receipt is January 2, 2024.
    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection 
in the ``Online FTZ Information System'' section of the Board's 
website.
    For further information, contact Juanita Chen at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d17081c1314091c531e1518133d090f1c1918531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ed87988c8384998cc38e858883ad999f8c8988c38a829b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: November 16, 2023.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25729 Filed 11-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
(Reap. Dec. 8143)

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 729314, etc.

(Decided July 24, 1952)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement set forth in the attached schedule, which schedule is made a part of this stipulation, consists of Bentwood furniture imported from Czechoslovakia.

> That the merchandise and issues involved in the appeals to reappraisement set forth in the attached schedule are similar in all material respects to the merchandise and issues involved in *R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*Reapt. Dec. 7973.

> That on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise herein involved, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the principal markets of Czechoslovakia either for home consumption or for export. Neither on the date of exportation was such or similar merchandise freely offered for sale in the principal market of the United States.

> That the cost of production, as such cost is defined in Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the appraised unit of value, less Cz. Kc. 1.38 each.

> *450That the record in *R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*Reapt. Dec. 7973, be incorporated in the record in the appeals to reappraisement set forth in the attached schedule and such cases are submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, fand that such values were the appraised units of value, less Cz. Kc. 1.38 each.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# United Stat es Court of A ppeals For the First C ircuit

No. 02-2701 CHRISTOPHER MUNOZ, Petitioner, Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES, Respondent, Appellee. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on May 29, 2003 is corrected as follows: On page 3, line 14, change "F.2d" to "F.3d"
Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 47-4 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 47-4 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 47-4 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 47-4 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 47-4 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 47-4 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 47-4 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 47-4 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 47-4 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 9 of 9
Exhibit 10(n)





SUPPLEMENTAL TAX SHARING AGREEMENT


BETWEEN


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC. AND AMERIPRISE CERTIFICATE COMPANY





This Supplemental Tax Sharing Agreement (the “Agreement”), effective December 10, 2013, allocates deferred tax between Ameriprise Financial, Inc. and Ameriprise Certificate Company (collectively the “Parties”).





1.  Allocation and Settlement of Deferred Tax .  The Parties agree to allocate and settle deferred tax consistent with the settlement of current tax under the Federal Income Tax Sharing Agreement, dated December 10, 2013.  The Parties agree to settle Ameriprise Certificate Company’s deferred tax balance in the month in which this Agreement is executed, and thereafter, agree to settle subsequent changes in Ameriprise Certificate Company’s deferred tax balance within thirty (30) days of Ameriprise Financial Inc.’s next payment of estimated federal income tax.  For purposes of settling deferred tax, the Parties may net deferred tax with other intercompany payables and receivables between the Parties.





2.  Definitions .





A.  “Deferred tax” means deferred federal income tax for purposes of United States generally accepted accounting principles.





B.  “Current tax” means federal income tax for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the United States Code) and the corresponding Treasury Regulations (Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations).





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties execute this Agreement as of this 10th day of December, 2013.











Ameriprise Certificate Company,





Signature/s/ Mike GilmoreName & TitleMike Gilmore - Assistant Treasurer











Ameriprise Financial, Inc.,





Signature/s/ Mike GilmoreName & TitleMike Gilmore - Assistant Treasurer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN A. MARTIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0756 LKK JFM P

vs.

L. VILES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00756-LKK -JFM Document 27 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 16, 2005 motion for

the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: June 27, 2005.

/kf

mart0756.31 

Case 2:04-cv-00756-LKK -JFM Document 27 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 2