alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 27, 1957

No. 60810.

#### B. R. Anderson & Co. and Hemphill Brothers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 248049-K, etc.

C. D. 1866. Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of Earle M. Jorgensen Company (“EMJ”) for theperiod ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, R. Neil McCaffery, as Chief Executive Officer and President of EMJ,hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:(1) This Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) Information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of EMJ.Date:June 28, 2006     /s/ R. Neil McCaffery       **Chief Executive Officer**  Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EMJ and will be retained by EMJ and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connectionwith the Annual Report of International Aluminum Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Mitchell K. Fogelman, the Senior VicePresident-Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1.                           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

2.                           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Date: September 8, 2006 |   | MITCHELL K.  FOGELMAN                 |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                    |   | Mitchell K.  Fogelman                 |
|                    |   | Senior Vice  President – Finance |
|                    |   | and Chief  Financial Officer          |

 

1

----
(Reap. Dec. 8163)

#### J. B. Roerig and Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 4656; 2768; 3072; 3486; 4357.

(Decided September 15, 1952)

*Martin, Hastings, Snyder & Rockwell (George W. K. Snyder*and *John H.*Rock* *well*of counsel) and *John C. Ray*for the plaintiff.

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

*473OlxvbR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement arises from the decision in *J. B. Roerig and Company*v. *United States,*26 Cust. Ct. 131, C. D. 1313, which held the original appraisement of the so-called darthronol and heptuna capsules in question to he null and void.

In the cited case, the collector had classified the said merchandise as coal-tar products under paragraph 28 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which carries a provision for appraisement on the basis of American selling price of a similar competitive article manufactured in the United States. That classification was overruled in the *Boerig and Company*case, *supra,*and the products were held to he classifiable as drugs in capsule form, under paragraph 23 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which paragraph, unlike said paragraph 28, contains no provision for appraisement on the basis of American selling price.

The conclusion rendered null and void the original appraisement made on the basis of American selling price, section 402 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, and, since that statutory valuation could not be adopted without a Presidential proclamation directing application thereof, the case was remanded for further reappraisement proceedings as provided in 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d) which reads as follows:

> (d) If upon the hearing of a protest, the court declares an appraisement of merchandise made after the effective date of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 to have been invalid or void, it shall remand the matter to a single judge who shall determine *the proper dutiable value of such merchandise*in the manner provided by this chapter. In such proceeding no presumption of correctness shall attach to the invoice or entered values. [Italics added.]

Pursuant thereto, the present case is before me on an agreed set of facts upon which I find export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the darthronol and heptuna capsules in question, and such statutory values are the invoice values.

In a proceeding of this character, the controlling statute, 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d), *supra,*requires the court to “determine the proper dutiable value,” which value, so far as the present case is concerned, “shall be the entered value or the final appraised value, whichever is higher.” (Section 503 of the Tariff Act of 1930.)

Following that formula, I find, from an examination of the official papers, that plaintiff’s entered values are lower than the invoice values. Accordingly, I hold the dutiable values of the products in question to be the invoice values which, as hereinabove stated, are the statutory export values.

Judgment will he rendered accordingly.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Download OTCnet Offline Check Capture Software

To download the OTCnet Offline Check Capture Software in OTCnet Online, complete the 

following steps:

1. From the Administration tab, select Manage Centralized Deployment>Download 

Release. The Download Release page appears. 

2. From the Application drop-down menu, select OTCnet Offline. 

• By default, the Application drop-down menu is set to Firmware.

• The OTCnet application is the OTCnet Offline check capture software. 

• Before a terminal can scan checks in OTCnet Offline, you must download and install 

both the Firmware and OTCnet application.

• If you are upgrading OTCnet Offline, and your Agency manages verification records, 

you do not need to reset and download the Local Verification Database (LVD).

3. Select Next. The Select Application for Download page appears.

4. Select the OTCnet Offline hyperlink to download the software as shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Select Application for Download

Application Tips
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

5. The Review Application Download page appears. Select Download as shown in Figure 2. 

The file downloads to your workstation.

Figure 2. Review Application Download

• Select Previous to return to the previous page.

• Select Return Home to the OTCnet Home page.

Additional Buttons
#### Dismuke *vs.*Eady & Company.

Where, in 1870, a father of minor children obtained a homestead in certain lands, and subsequently, during the minority of the children, he remarried, his wife, by virtue of her marriage, became a beneficiary of the homestead, and it did not terminate upon the arrival of the children at majority, and was not subject to the debt of creditors of the husband to whom he and his wife conveyed the land, with the approval of the ordinary, to secure such indebtedness

February 13, 1888.

Homestead. Husband and wife. Before Judge Willis. Harris superior court. April term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

C. J. Thornton and -L. L. Stanford, for plaintiff in error.

J. M. Mobley, Willis & Persons and B. L. Harris, *contra.*

Blandford, Justice.

An execution in favor of Eady & Co. against Dismuke was levied on certain land as the property of Dismuke. Dismuke, as the head of a family, interposed a claim to the same as homestead property. The property levied on was found subject. Dismuke moved for a new trial, which was refused; whereupon he excepted.

It appears from the record that in 1S70, Dismuke, as the *290head of a family of minor children, applied to the ordinary of Harris county to have set apart to Him a home:stead in the land levied upon in this case; upon which land they were then residing. From the papers themselves, it appears that the ordinary had jurisdiction, and that all the necessary allegations were made. When this 'homestead was set apart, Dismuke was unmarried; but after the granting of the homestead, and before the children had come of age, he intermarried with Cornelia O. Dismuke. Afterwards, he and his wife executed to Eady & Co. a deed to a part of the land embraced in the homestead, to secure Eady *&*Co. for a debtwhich he owed them. This deed was approved by the ordinary of Harris county.

The judge in the court below seemed to attach no importance to this homestead, taken out in 1870. And Dismuke himself doubtless thought it had terminated by the coming of age of the children; for in 1886, he applied for another homestead. The court below held that the deed conveyed the title, and that the land was subject. In this we think the court erred. We think that the homestead of 1870 was a good and valid homestead; and that homestead not having expired before Dismuke’s marriage-to his present wife, she, by virtue of her marriage, became a beneficiary and the family continued; and there was, therefore, no expiration of the homestead. The homestead continued, and was in full force and operation at the time Dismuke and his wife executed this deed to secure the debt he owed to Eady & Co.* Under these circumstances, we think the verdict of the jury finding the property subject was contrary to law and to the evidence; and that the court below should have granted a new trial.

The judgment is therefore reversed.

*

 May 1, 1875. This suit was brought March 19,1881; *levy*was *made*July 11, 1885. (Rep.)
Unassociated Document


    EXHIBIT
      4.3

    


    FIRST
      ADDENDUM TO

    PROMISSORY
      NOTE

    


    This
      First Addendum to the Promissory Note dated January 15, 2008 is made as of
      this
      9th
      day of
      July, 2008, by and between ICC WORLDWIDE, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“Maker”)
      and THE ADAMAS FUND, LLLP (formerly The Black Diamond Fund, LLLP), a Minnesota
      limited liability, limited partnership (“Holder”).

    


    Paragraph
      2a(1) is added as follows:

    


    2a(1).
      Notwithstanding the above, starting in June, 2008 and continuing through the
      remaining months during which only payments of interest are otherwise due,
      the
      interest due each month shall accrue if unpaid and shall be added to the
      principal and any accrued but unpaid interest for purposes of calculating the
      amount of interest due each month. 

    


    The
      parties agree that the interest otherwise due on June 15, 2008, which has not
      been paid as Maker and Holder have been considering this Addendum, is not
      considered late or unpaid for purposes of Paragraph 6a of the Note.


    


    


    /s/
      Richard K Lauer

    Richard
      K. Lauer 

    President
      and Chief Executive Officer 

    ICC
      Worldwide, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          32,939
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,588
<ALLOWANCES>                                       725
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,592
<PP&E>                                           2,872
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,859
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           130
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,173
<SALES>                                         18,731
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,731
<CGS>                                           10,891
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,891
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,521
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,022
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,653
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                   CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                              (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)

I, Richard M. Deneau, President and Chief Executive Officer of Anchor Glass
Container Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

         (1)      The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the
                  period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with
                  the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
                  expressed in the Report.

Date:  May 15, 2003




                                  /s/ Richard M. Deneau
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Name: Richard M. Deneau
                                  Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer
# UnknownSheet1

# UnknownSheet2

# UnknownSheet3

# UnknownSheet4

# UnknownSheet5

# UnknownSheet6

# UnknownSheet7
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

RICHARD DENNIS GAMACHE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0859 RRB PAN P

vs.

BRETT WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 22, 2005, plaintiff 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-00859-RRB -PAN Document 49 Filed 02/28/06 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 December 22, 2005

request for the appointment of counsel is denied. 

DATED: February 27, 2006.

001/gama0859.31

Case 2:04-cv-00859-RRB -PAN Document 49 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Ahmad Clarence GARLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director, SCDC; C. Rushton, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; L. Cartledge, Associate Warden, MCCI, C. Kendall, Associate Warden, MCCI; S. Lewis, Major, MCCI; I. Culbreath, IGC, MCCI; George Long, MCCI; J. Reed, MCCI; Richard P. Strokes; Philip Morris, USA, Defendants-Appellees. Ahmad Clarence Garland, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William D. Catoe, Director, SCDC; C. Rushton, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution; L. Cartledge, Associate Warden, MCCI; C. Kendall, Associate Warden, MCCI; S. Lewis, Major, MCCI; I. Culbreath, IGC, MCCI; George Long, MCCI; J. Reed, MCCI; Richard P. Strokes; Philip Morris, USA, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 00-7794, 01-6091.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 22, 2001.

Decided March 29, 2001.

Ahmad Clarence Garland, pro se.

Steven Michael Pruitt, McDonald, Patrick, Tinsley, Baggett *&*Poston, Greenwood, SC, for appellees.

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

*103PER CURIAM.

Ahmad Clarence Garland filed a civil action against Defendants alleging that they violated Garland’s civil rights. Garland now appeals the district court’s order clarifying its intent to dismiss only Phillip Morris as a Defendant in the action (Appeal No. 00-7794), and a separate order by the magistrate judge denying Garland’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Appeal No. 01-6091). We dismiss these consolidated appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the subject orders are not appeal-able.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U .S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appeal-able interlocutory or collateral orders.

We therefore grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss in Appeal No. 01-6091, and we dismiss these appeals as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
# sec6

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2017-06	&"Arial,Bold"&10VI RSNC - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2017
Advantages of Mediation

Free

Mediation is available at no cost to the parties.

Fair and Neutral

Parties have an equal say in the process and decide settlement
terms, not the mediator. There is no determination of guilt or
innocence in the process.

Saves Time and Money

Mediation usually occurs early in the charge process, and many
mediations are completed in one meeting. Legal or other
representation is optional but not required.

Confidential

All parties sign a confidentiality agreement. Information
disclosed during mediation will not be revealed.

Avoids Litigation
Lengthy litigation CAN be avoided. Mediation costs less than a
lawsuit and avoids the uncertainty of judicial outcome.

Mediation fosters a problem solving approach to complaints

and workplace disruptions are reduced. With investigation, even if

the charge is dismissed, the underlying problems may remain,
affecting others in the workforce and human resources staff.

Improves Communication

Mediation provides a neutral and confidential setting where both
parties can openly discuss their views on the underlying dispute.
Enhanced communication can lead to mutually satisfactory
resolutions. Parties share information, which can lead to a better
understanding of issues affecting the workplace.

Design your own Solution

A neutral third party assists the parties in reaching a voluntary,
mutually beneficial resolution. Mediation can resolve all issues
important to the parties, not just the underlying legal dispute.

Everyone Wins
<PAGE>
                                                               Exhibit 24(b)

               AMERIPRISE CERTIFICATE COMPANY
                     POWER OF ATTORNEY

City of Minneapolis

State of Minnesota

The undersigned as a director and officer of Ameriprise Certificate Company,
a face-amount certificate company registered under the Investment Company
Act of 1940, hereby constitutes and appoints Brian J. McGrane, David K.
Stewart, Scott R. Plummer, and Christopher O. Petersen or any one of them,
as her attorney-in-fact and agent, to sign for her in her name, place and
stead any and all registration statements and amendments thereto (with all
exhibits and other documents required or desirable in connection therewith)
that may be prepared from time to time in connection with said Company's
existing or future face-amount certificate products - whether pursuant to
the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, the Investment Company Act
of 1940 or otherwise - and periodic reports on Form 10-K, Form 10-Q and Form
8-K required pursuant to provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and any necessary or appropriate filings with states or other jurisdictions,
and grants to any or all of them the full power and authority to do and
perform each and every act required or necessary or appropriate in
connection with such signatures or filings.

Signed on this 9th day of February, 2006
               ---




/s/ Paula R. Meyer
-----------------------------
Paula R. Meyer
Before the Third Division,

October 23, 1947

No. 51975.

#### Paispearl Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 113993-K, etc. (Portland, Maine).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise consists of fish scales similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Edward I. Petow & Son*(34 C. C. P. A. 55, C. A. D. 343). In accordance *155with, stipulation, and following the decision cited the claim for free entry under paragraph 1677 was sustained.
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

LEE ANDREW REED,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0936 LKK GGH P

vs.

S. HAFERKAMP, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On April 4, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither party has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00936-LKK -GGH Document 29 Filed 07/22/05 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 4, 2005, are adopted in full; and 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed December 22, 2004, is denied as to the

Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Penner.

DATED: July 22, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/reed0936.801

Case 2:04-cv-00936-LKK -GGH Document 29 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 2