alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(C. D. 351)

#### William J. Oberle, *Inc. v.*United States

United States Customs Court, Third Division

(Decided June 6, 1940)

*E. D. Howald*for the plaintiff.

*Webster J. Oliver,*Assistant Attorney General *(Joseph E. Weil,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Before Cline, Evans, and Keefe, Judges

EvaNS, Judge:

This is an action against the United States in which the plaintiff seeks to recover money claimed to have been paid in excess of the amount due on an importation of okra from Cuba. The plaintiff claims that he should have been allowed the rate of duty provided for in the Cuban Trade Agreement (T. D. 47232). The collector of customs at the port of entry assessed duty at the rate of 50 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 774 of the Tariff Act of 1930 with a reduction of 20 per centum under the terms of the Commercial Reciprocity Treaty between the United States and the Republic of Cuba concluded December 11, 1902.

*320When the case was called for trial the attorney for the plaintiff submitted it on the “papers and collector’s report in evidence,” and requested permission to file a brief, which was granted. However, no brief was filed on the part of the plaintiff, although the Government has filed a brief.

From the entry and invoice in evidence it appears that the importation consisted of olera, tomatoes, and pineapples. The protest covers only the okra. The collector reports that:

> The okra was imported on November 29, 1937, and entry made on December 1, 1937. It was therefore assessed with duty at the rate of 50% ad valorem under Paragraph 774 of the Tariff Act of 1930, less 20% Cuban Reciprocity, instead of at the rate provided in the Cuban Trade Agreement, T. D. 47232.

The provision in the Cuban Trade Agreement under which plaintiff claims is as follows:

> 774. Okra in its natural state, when imported and entered for consumption during the period from December 1 to the following May 31, inclusive, in any years.

It therefore clearly appears that the instant merchandise was not “imported” during the period mentioned in the trade agreement. The fact that it was entered during that period is not sufficient to satisfy the terms of the agreement, i. e., “imported and entered.”

Plaintiff’s claim is therefore overruled. Judgment for defendant. It is so ordered.
Analytics

FLETC All Website Data

All Web Site Data

Go to report 

FLETC.gov Web Performance Metrics May 1, 2020 - May 31, 2020

Total Visits

82,574

% of Total: 100.00% (82,574)

Avg. Visit Duration

00:02:04

Avg for View: 00:02:04 (0.00%)

Pageviews

243,183

% of Total: 100.00% (243,183)

Unique Visitors

61,635

% of Total: 100.00% (61,635)

Avg. Pages / Visit

2.95

Avg for View: 2.95 (0.00%)

Avg. Time on Page

00:01:04

Avg for View: 00:01:04 (0.00%)

Bounce Rate

50.34%

Avg for View: 50.34% (0.00%)

Top Pages

Page Title Pageviews

Bounce

Rate

Search the Training Catalog | FLET

C

39,680 36.21%

Welcome to FLETC | FLETC 29,906 24.72%

FLETC monitoring of Novel Corona

virus (COVID-19) | FLETC

11,379 59.55%

Glynco, Georgia | FLETC 8,662 41.51%

FedBizOpps | FLETC 6,898 48.28%

Locations | FLETC 5,589 50.76%

Federal Law Enforcement Training

Centers to Restart On-Site Training

| FLETC

5,373 83.13%

Basic Programs | FLETC 4,079 39.68%

PEB Scores for Age and Gender | F

LETC

3,942 12.98%

Resources | FLETC 3,874 40.31%

Visits by Social Network

Social Network Sessions

Facebook 1,952

LinkedIn 938

Twitter 521

Instagram 81

YouTube 16

reddit 11

Quora 5

Pinterest 2

Hacker News 1

Visits by Source

New vs. Returned Visitors

google (direct) bing m.facebook.com

search.usa.gov Other

12%

20.5% 60%

New Visitor Returning Visitor

18.1%

81.9%

© 2020 Google

All Users

100.00% Sessions
Analytics

FLETC All Website Data

All Web Site Data

Go to report 

FLETC.gov Search Performance Metrics May 1, 2020 - May 31, 2020

Visits to FLETC.gov

82,574

% of Total: 100.00% (82,574)

Total Internal Searches

0

% of Total: 0.00% (0)

Total External Searches (Google)

53,774

% of Total: 65.12% (82,574)

Top Internal Searches by Search Term

Search Term Total Unique Searches Organic Searches

There is no data for this view.

Top External Searches (Google - as reported)

Page Title Sessions

Welcome to FLETC | FLETC 10,536

FedBizOpps | FLETC 5,900

FLETC monitoring of Novel Coronavirus

(COVID-19) | FLETC

2,667

Glynco, Georgia | FLETC 2,004

Search the Training Catalog | FLETC 1,517

Execution of a Search Warrant (I) (MP

3) | FLETC

1,274

Customs and Border Protection, Officer

Basic Training | FLETC

1,066

Physical Efficiency Battery (PEB) | FLET

C

920

Artesia, New Mexico | FLETC 801

PEB Scores for Age and Gender | FLET

C

776

New vs. Returned Visitors

Avg. Visits per Visitor

New Visitor Returning Visitor

18.1%

81.9%

1 2 Other

18.2%

12.3%

69.5%

© 2020 Google

All Users

100.00% Sessions
No. 51705.

Suit 4555.

#### *United States*v. *Gallagher & Ascher Co.*

C. D. 1011 reversed March 25, 1947. C. A. D. 361.
Exhibit 32

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 of Sitestar Corporation. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Frank Erhartic, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Frank Erhartic, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.





/s/ FrankErhartic, Jr.

/s/ FrankErhartic, Jr.

Frank Erhartic, Jr.

Frank Erhartic, Jr.

Chief Executive Officer and President

Chief Financial Officer

April 14, 2004

April 14, 2004
No. 51399.

#### Protests 522384-G, etc., of American Shipping Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15409 the court dismissed the protests.
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

ARNOLD W. LEVI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2423 DFL KJM P

vs.

TERRY ROSARIO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER FOR PAYMENT

 / OF INMATE FILING FEE

To: The Director of the California Department of Corrections, 1515 S Street, Sacramento,

California 95814:

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is obligated to

pay the statutory filing fee in effect at the time of the filing of this action, $150.00. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments in the amount of twenty percent

of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. The California Department

of Corrections is required to send to the Clerk of the Court payments from plaintiff’s account

each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, until the statutory filing fee is paid in full. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02423-DFL -KJM Document 9 Filed 08/04/05 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

 In accordance with the above and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The Director of the California Department of Corrections or a designee shall

collect monthly payments from plaintiff’s prison trust account in an amount equal to twenty

percent (20%) of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's trust account and shall

forward those payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) until a total of $150.00 has been collected and

forwarded to the Clerk of the Court. The payments shall be clearly identified by the name and

number assigned to this action. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of

plaintiff's in forma pauperis affidavit on Director, California Department of Corrections, 1515 S

Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial

Department of the court.

DATED: August 3, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

rosa2423.cdc.a

Case 2:04-cv-02423-DFL -KJM Document 9 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Isaac S. Whitman, *Assignee, versus*Proprietors of Granite Church.

The record books of a corporation, duly authenticated, are evidenoe of its corporate acts. But before they are received as the books of the corporation, there must be proof, that they are the books of that corporation; that they have been kept as its records; and that the entries made therein have been made by the proper acting officer for that purpose.

Where the report of the case states, <£ that all the aforesaid *testimony*and evidence offered are subject to all legal objections,” the opposing party is not precluded ffom objecting to the testimony, on the hearing of the law question, because no specific objection thereto appears to have been made at the trial.

Assumpsit for money had; and received, and money paid, laid out and expended.

*Kent*and *Cutting,*for the plaintiff.

A• *Gilman,*for the defendants.

The opinion of the Court was drawn up b.y

Shepeey J.

The report states, that the plaintiff £< introduced in evidence a book purporting to be the records of the Granite Church.” There does not appear to have been any proof, that it was the book of records of a corporation called the Granite Church, or that it was kept as such, and that *the*entries were made by a proper officer of the corporation. It js contended, that the book was admitted without objection. And if it does not so appear by the case as presented, that the book of records on inspection proves itself. It does not appear, that any specific objection was made to the introduction of the book; but the case states, that ££ all the aforesaid testimony and evidenceoffered are subject to all legal objections.” An inspection of the book can only shew, what the case states, that it purported to be the book of «records. In the case of Sumner v. *Sebec,*3 Greenl. 223, the book, which was decided to have been legal testimony, was produced by the town clerk, who testified, that he received it .from *the*former town clerk, who delivered it to him as the record of births and marriages in that town.

*237The general rule appears to be, that the record books of a corporation duly authenticated are evidence of its corporate acts. But before they are received as such, there must be proof, that they arc the books of the corporation; that they have been kept as its records, and that the entries made therein have been made by the proper acting officer for that purpose. *Rex*v. *Mothersell,*1 Strange, 93; *Turnpike Company*v. *McKean,*10 Johns. R. 154. There is nothing in this case indicating, that it should form an exception to the general rule.

In case the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, the report states, that the default is to be taken off and a nonsuit is to be entered ; blit as there is apparently only a technical difficulty, which may be easily removed, the default is taken off and a new trial is granted.
Exhibit



        



Exhibit 10(c)


PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION 


SUMMARY OF THE COMPENSATION OF THE NON-EMPLOYEE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Adopted August 17, 2016, effective October 26, 2016






Annual retainer for Corporate Governance and Nominating
Committee Chair:                            $170,000


Annual retainer for Audit Committee Chair:                $150,000


Annual retainer for Human Resources and Compensation
Committee Chair:                            $150,000


Annual retainer for Finance Committee Chair:            $145,000


Annual retainer for non-chair committee members:            $130,000


Meeting fees of $2,000 for attending each Board of Directors or Committee meeting that exceeds the number of regularly-scheduled meetings of the Board and relevant Committee in a fiscal year by more than two.


Annual restricted stock unit grant
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

LARRY D. EDWARDS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1164 FCD GGH P

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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, and at this

time, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied without prejudice.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01164-FCD-GGH Document 17 Filed 07/21/05 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 July 6, 2005 request for

the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: 7/20/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

edwa1164.31 

Case 2:04-cv-01164-FCD-GGH Document 17 Filed 07/21/05 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**INTERLINE BRANDS, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Interline Brands, Inc., a NewJersey Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Michael J. Grebe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| /S/ MICHAEL J. GREBE                  |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael J. Grebe                      |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| November 10, 2005                |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Katy Industries, Inc.
(the registrant) for the year ended December 31, 2006;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)
for the registrant and we have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [Omitted in reliance on SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986 Section III.E];
 (c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in the annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report; and
 (d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: August 17, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Amir RosenthalAmir RosenthalChief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 10(b)**

DISCRETIONARY COMPENSATION

Because special situations occur where individual achievement may not be adequatelyrecognized under a single incentive plan, the Compensation and Governance Committee (the "Committee"), at thebeginning of each fiscal year, grants authority to the Chairman of theBoard ("Chairman") and/or the President/Chief Executive Officer to distributeadditional discretionary cash and/or stock compensation up to an aggregatemaximum amount to eligible participants for each particular fiscal year. For fiscal year2011, the aggregate amount of cash compensation approved by the Committee was $500,000, andthe maximum number of shares approved by the Committee was 600,000shares of Class A or Class B Common Stock. The stock compensation may be in theform of performance share award opportunities and/or outright grants of sharesof Common Stock, all to be awarded under the Company's 2003 Stock Option andIncentive Plan.  Discretionary compensation is awardedbased upon individual effort and is paid in amounts and at such times as theChairman and/or President/Chief Executive Officer determine, in their solediscretion. No employee has a guaranteed right to discretionary compensation inthe event that performance targets are not met.

Eligible participants include any employee of theCompany, excluding the Chairman and President/Chief Executive Officer for cashor stock compensation, and excluding executive officers of the Company for stockcompensation.

|   |
|--------|
|   |
Case No. 13,777,'

#### TAYLOR v. The ANN D. RICHARDSON.

[See Case No. 410.]
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Anthony L. Patton,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1893 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

R. S. Johnson, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoFebruary 8, 2006, the court issued findings and

recommendations stating plaintiff failed to file an amended

complaint. This is in error, plaintiff filed an amended

complaint February 2, 2006. Good cause appearing, the findings

and recommendations are vacated. The court will screen

plaintiff’s amended complaint and determine whether it is

appropriate for service. So ordered.

Dated: February 9, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01893-FCD-EFB Document 24 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 1
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

CARL DAVID WHITE,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-2276-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, 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 November 2, 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-02276-GEB-GGH Document 72 Filed 01/26/06 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 2, 2005, are adopted in

full; and 

2. Defendants’ May 19, 2005, motion to dismiss on grounds that plaintiff failed

to exhaust administrative remedies is denied;

3. Defendants’ May 19, 2005, motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is

granted with respect to the following claims: 1) imposition of the R suffix caused plaintiff to not

earn appropriate time credits; 2) the claims against defendant Prosper.

Dated: January 26, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 72 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 2