alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10401)

Entry No. 29724, etc.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

(Decided December 18, 1962)

*Stein & Shostalc*for the plaintiffs.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*490WilsoN, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following agreement and stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for tbe respective parties hereto, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, that tbe merchandise covered by tbe entries tbe subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in tbe attached Schedule of Cases which is incorporated herein, consists of toys, footwear, etc., exported from Japan, and that, on the dates of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values plus f.o.b. charges set out on the invoices, but not including the buying commission.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that as to any of the merchandise covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases, which is included on the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521 as provided for in See. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, which is subject to appraisement under Sec. 402(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, that there were no higher foreign values for such or similar merchandise on the dates of exportation involved herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the footwear covered by the entries, the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, is unlike any articles manufactured or produced in the United States.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for reap-praisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402a of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value in each case was the invoice unit value, plus f.o.b. charges set out on the invoice, but not including the buying commission.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 59540.

protests 265103-K, etc. (New York).

#### Bemo Shipping Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Foed, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim- of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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 June 30, 2008 (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:
August 7, 2008





BY: /s/ Leo Liebowitz


(Signature)


LEO
LIEBOWITZ


Chairman
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.
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

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN B. JOHNSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0892 DFL DAD P

vs.

JIM HAMLET, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

This matter came before the court for a status conference on December 2, 2005. 

Judy Kaida appeared for respondents. No appearance was made by Victor Haltom, counsel for

petitioner. In response to a telephone inquiry by court staff, counsel made an informal request

for a new deadline to file an amended petition along with a declaration addressing his failure to

comply with court orders. In the interests of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or

before December 30, 2005, petitioner shall file and serve counsel’s declaration together with a

motion for leave to amend and a proposed amended petition; the motion shall be noticed for

hearing before the undersigned and shall be briefed in accordance with Local Rule 78-230.

DATED: December 6, 2005.

DAD:13

john0892.oasc

Case 2:04-cv-00892-MCE -DAD Document 37 Filed 12/07/05 Page 1 of 1
AAM-12-366-E May 29, 2012

Exemption No. 10546 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0531

Mr. Christopher Donovan Boston Executive Helicopters

209 Access Road Norwood, MA 02062

Dear Mr. Donovan:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 3, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Boston Executive Helicopters(BEH) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow BEH to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to BEH.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Boston Executive Helicopters an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow BEH to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations

described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of BEH are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of the BEH part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
Consent of Independent Accountants

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the 
registration statement of IBP, inc. on Form S-3 
(File No. 33-64459) and on Form S-8 (File No. 33-
19441) of our report dated January 22, 1999, on our 
audits of the consolidated financial statements and 
financial statement schedule of IBP, inc. as of 
December 26, 1998 and December 27, 1997 and for each 
of the three years ended December 26, 1998, which 
report is incorporated by reference in the Annual 
Report on Form 10-K.



/s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
-----------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Omaha, Nebraska
March 25, 1999
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.3

                       AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT made and entered into this June
29, 1999, by and between HORIZON MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC., a Georgia
corporation ("Employer"), and WILLIAM E. PETERSON, JR. ("Employee");

         WHEREAS, Employer and Employee entered into that certain Employment
Agreement dated April 3, 1998 ("Employment Agreement"), and the parties desire
to amend the Employment Agreement in the manner set forth below;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual
promises and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto, intending to be
legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

         SECTION 1

                  Section 3.1(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended,
effective as of May 12, 1999, by changing the amount of the Salary to the
amount of Two Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($225,000.00) in
the first sentence in Section 3.1(a). Commencing on May 12, 1999, for all
purposes under the Employment Agreement, the Salary shall be Two Hundred
Twenty-Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($225,000.00).

         SECTION 2

                  Except as expressly amended above, all other provisions in
the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. This
Amendment is intended by the parties hereto to be the final expression of their
agreement with respect to the subject matter hereof and is the complete and
exclusive statement of the terms thereof, notwithstanding any representations,
statements, or agreements to the contrary heretofore made. This Amendment may
be modified only by a written instrument signed by all of the parties hereto.
This Amendment shall be deemed to be made in, and in all respects shall be
interpreted, construed, and governed by and in accordance with, the laws of the
State of Georgia. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed against or
interpreted to the disadvantage of any party hereto by any court or other
governmental or judicial authority or by any board of arbitrators by reason of
such party or its counsel having been deemed to have structured or drafted such
provision. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to
Employment Agreement as of the date first above written.

                                         HORIZON MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.


                                         By:
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Marshall B. Hunt, Chairman of the
                                            Board and Chief Executive Officer


                                            ---------------------------------
                                            WILLIAM E. PETERSON, JR.
Case No. 5,316.

#### The GENERAL McCULLOM.

[Affirming Case No. 5,318. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
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

FRED GRAVES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S 04-1279 LKK GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 September 12, 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. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-01279-LKK -GGH Document 31 Filed 01/12/06 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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 12, 2005, are adopted in

full; and

2. The petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

DATED: January 11, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/grav1279.805h

Case 2:04-cv-01279-LKK -GGH Document 31 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.2








KNIGHT
INC.


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 the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Knight Inc. (the “Company”)
for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





(1)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.





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








Dated:  March
      31, 2009
            
            /s/
      Kimberly A. DangKimberly
      A. Dang
              Vice
      President and Chief Financial
Officer
### In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06

- 10

- 00 072

- CR

______________________________

KYLON JEFFERY HENSON , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Rusk County, Texas

Trial Court No. 08

- 03

- 107

- CR

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kylon Jeffery Henson, appellant, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss his appeal.

The motion is signed by Henson and by his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2, we grant

the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: May 24, 2010

Date Decided: May 25, 2010

Do Not Publish
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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust IV (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P.
for the period ended September 24, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marlene B. Debel,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) 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 Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV


                              By:  /s/ MARLENE B. DEBEL
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Marlene B. Debel *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: November 3, 2004
_______________________

* Marlene B. Debel functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Exhibit 23




               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8, No. 333-45408) pertaining to Journal Employees' Stock Trust submitted to
the Securities and Exchange Commission for filing on September 8, 2000 with
respect to 15,000,000 units of beneficial interest in said trust, and in the
related prospectus of our report dated January 25, 2002 with respect to the
Financial statements of Journal Employees' Stock Trust included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.


ERNST & YOUNG LLP


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 25, 2002



                                       19
No. 43994.

#### Protest 13270-K of Trutex Corp. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 43196 the merchandise in question was held dutiable as wallboard at 10 percent under paragraph 1402 as claimed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0322 IN THE MATTER OF: E.W., Respondent and Appellant. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 30 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 19 2023

04/19/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0322
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

MARK PAYNE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1585 MCE KJM P

vs.

TROY BRIMHALL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to comply with the court's May 3,

2006 order. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's May 19, 2006 motion for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff shall submit the documents described in this court’s May 3, 2006

order by July 2, 2006.

DATED: May 26, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/mp

payn1585.36

Case 2:04-cv-01585-MCE -KJM Document 16 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**ESSEX
      PORTFOLIO, L.P.**


**Certification
      of Chief Financial Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**








Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Michael T. Dance,
      hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form
      10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Essex Portfolio,
      L.P. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and information
      contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of Essex Portfolio, L.P. at the
      dates of and for the periods presented.











Date:
      August 8,
      2007                                                           /s/
      Michael T. Dance


Michael
      T. Dance


Chief
      Financial Officer, Executive
      Vice President,


Essex
      Property Trust, Inc., general partner of


Essex
      Portfolio, L.P.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00102

- CR

Ismael Castillo
v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18FC

- 1930

- H

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
May 26, 2022
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-60088

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIUS ALEXANDER MCBRIDE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:98-CR-83-ALL-S

- - - - - - - - - -

September 2, 1999

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Julius Alexander McBride appeals the sentence that he

received following his guilty plea conviction for uttering and

attempting to utter counterfeit currency. McBride argues that

district court erred when it enhanced his sentence under U.S.S.G.

§ 2B5.1(b)(2) for possessing, having custody, or controlling a

counterfeiting device.

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and hold

that the district court did not clearly err in finding that 
No. 99-60088

-2-

McBride knew that the computer that he had rented and kept in his

home was being used for counterfeiting was not clearly erroneous. 

United States v. Bollman, 141 F.3d 184, 186 (5th Cir. 1998);

United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1575 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.