alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006285EN.01000501.xml

| 22.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/5

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 410th meeting on 29 May 2006 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates

(2006/C 285/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the reduction of the basic amount due to attenuating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the reduction of the basic amount due to attenuating circumstances.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fine based on the 2002 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fine based on the 2002 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

| 7. | The Advisory Committee asks the European Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee asks the European Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---
No. 56430.

protests 15259-K, etc. (New York).

#### Chinatown Emporium, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*412Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of mah jong sets composed of synthetic resin similar in all material respects to the synthetic resin articles the subject of Abstract 54651. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained.
No. 46132.

#### Protests 21957-K, etc., of T. D. Downing Co. et al. (Boston and Chicago).

*232Opinion by

Brown, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 52559.

protest 119537-K (Los Angeles).

#### Gonzales & Blanco *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          14,778
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,387,839
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 19,486,058
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,935,513
<PP&E>                                      13,681,609
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,619,078
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,028,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,949,105
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,773
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,996,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,028,769
<SALES>                                     40,638,747
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,638,747
<CGS>                                       24,843,968
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,843,968
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,822,338
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             253,171
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,925,629
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,448,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,477,629
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.65
        

</TABLE>
No. 56425.

protests 174629-K, etc. (New York).

#### J. Finkelstein & Son et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 of PrimeEnergy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Beverly A. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, 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 result of operations of the
Corporation.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|                       
|/s/ Beverly A. Cummings
|Chief Financial Officer

March 27, 2008
No. 64130.

protests 942892-G, etc. (New York and San Francisco).

#### Samuel Aitkin et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Top of page

Skip to main content

Library of Congress

              - Discover
              - Services
              - Visit
              - Education
              - Connect
              - Shop *external link*
              - Donate
              - About
              - Ask a Librarian
              - Help
              - Contact
              - Search Online Catalog
              - Copyright.gov
              - Congress.gov

Library of Congress
Digital Collections
Global Legal Monitor
(Reap. Dec. 9493)

#### Wilbur-Ellis Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 731867; 779254; 727343.

(Decided on rehearing [not published] August 19, 1959)

*Lawrence ■& Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Lout),*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These are appeals for reappraisement filed under the provisions of section 501, as amended, of the Tariff Act of 1930 against the decision of the appraiser as to values of certain canned tuna fish, exported from Japan and entered at the port of New York.

The merchandise was appraised at the invoiced unit values which included, in addition to packing charges, certain additional charges for “freight to shipping port, storage, insurance premium, clearance hauling and lighterage, and petties,” which were incident to transporting the merchandise from the factory of the manufacturer and placing the same free on board the exporting vessel at Yokohama, Japan, all of the latter charges being the so-called “inland” charges. Plaintiff’s appeals are apparently predicated on the claim that the correct value of the involved merchandise is the invoiced unit values, less the so-called “inland” charges.

The present action is before me by virtue of an order wherein a prior dismissal of these appeals was set aside and the cases “suspended under reappraisement 264824A, with the express understanding that they shall be controlled by the final decision in said reappraisement 264824A.” The latter appeal, involving the same question as to the inclusion in the appraisement of merchandise of certain inland charges, was decided by this court in *United States*v. *D. N. & E. Walter & Co.,*41 Cust. Ct. 618, A.R.D. 93.

In the *Walter & Co.*case, supra, an appellant division of the court held that the costs and charges there involved were properly part of the export value of the merchandise, finding, in effect, that the price at which the merchandise in question was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market for exportation to the *481United States was only at the unit price, net, packed, f .o.b. Kobe, which price included charges for storage, hauling, insurance, lighterage, and various miscellaneous costs.

In view of the holding of the court in the *Walter & Co.*case, *supra,*I find and hold that the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question is export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such value is the appraised value in each case.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4416 

To designate the Special Guerilla Unit National Memorial at Veterans 

Memorial Park in Middletown, Connecticut. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2024 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate the Special Guerilla Unit National Memorial 

at Veterans Memorial Park in Middletown, Connecticut. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Special Guerilla Unit 

5 National Memorial Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 

8 (1) from 1961 to 1975, the Special Guerilla 

9 Unit, consisting of approximately 50,000 Hmong 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4416 IS

1 soldiers, fought to defend United States interests 

2 and contain Communist expansion in Laos; 

3 (2) approximately 35,000 members of the Spe4 cial Guerilla Unit died during combat operations in 

5 Laos; 

6 (3) members of the Special Guerilla Unit con7 ducted numerous rescue missions to recover downed 

8 United States pilots; 

9 (4) thousands of veterans of the Special Gue10 rilla Unit resettled with their families in the United 

11 States; and 

12 (5) the veterans of the Special Guerilla Unit 

13 displayed peerless heroism during their operations in 

14 Laos. 

15 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF THE SPECIAL GUERILLA UNIT NA16 TIONAL MEMORIAL. 

17 (a) DESIGNATION.—The memorial to the members of 

18 the Special Guerilla Unit located at Veterans Memorial 

19 Park in Middletown, Connecticut, is designated as the 

20 ‘‘Special Guerilla Unit National Memorial’’. 

21 (b) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.— 

22 (1) IN GENERAL.—The national memorial des23 ignated by subsection (a) is not a unit of the Na24 tional Park System. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4416 IS

1 (2) FEDERAL FUNDS.—The designation of the 

2 national memorial by subsection (a) shall not require 

3 or permit Federal funds to be expended for any pur4 pose related to the national memorial designated by 

5 that subsection. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 10425)

#### Finwood Industries, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 708060, etc.

(Decided January 14, 1963)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto, consists of birch plywood, exported from Finland in the years 1953,1954, 1955, and 1957.

Counsel for the parties have stipulated and agreed that the merchandise and issues involved in the said appeals are the same in all material respects as those in the case of *United States*v. *Plywood & Door Manufacturers*Corporation, 46 Cust. Ct. 797, A.R.D. 133, decided on remand in *Plywood & Door Manufacturers Corporation*v. *United States,*48 Cust. Ct. 526, Reap. Dec. 10151, and that the record in that case be incorporated as part of the record herein.

The appeals have been submitted for decision on written stipulation, on the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the birch plywood involved and that such values are those set forth in column “4” of said schedule, packed, less the prorated amounts of the nondutiable charges set forth directly after the description of the merchandise in each said reappraisement case set forth in schedule “A.”

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Case 2:04-cv-01158-MCE -KJM   Document 25    Filed 07/20/06   Page 1 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01158-MCE -KJM   Document 25    Filed 07/20/06   Page 2 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01158-MCE -KJM   Document 25    Filed 07/20/06   Page 3 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01158-MCE -KJM   Document 25    Filed 07/20/06   Page 4 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01158-MCE -KJM   Document 25    Filed 07/20/06   Page 5 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01158-MCE -KJM   Document 25    Filed 07/20/06   Page 6 of 6

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-26T17:00:39-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 55932.

protests 123188-K, etc. (New York).

#### American Meshed Fur Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 62554.

#### Applicator Enterprises, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 330477-K, etc. (New York).

*436Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sponges similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61191, the merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, prior to September 10, 1955, was held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1537 (b) and that entered, or withdrawn for consumption, or after September 10, 1955, was held dutiable at 12)4 percent under said paragraph, as modified, *supra,*as claimed.
Exhibit 32.2



STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Computer Graphics International Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30,
2012:



I, Yongqing Ma, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



1.            Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2012, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2012, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: August 20, 2012 | By: | /s/ Yongqing Ma              
|--------------------- | --- | -----------------------------
|                      |     | Yongqing Ma                  
|                      |     | Chief Financial Officer      
|                      |     | (Principal Financial Officer)
Before the Third Division,

April 22, 1948

No. 52281.

protest 133569-K (New York).

#### Umberto Razzaboni *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the hearing it was agreed that the collector admitted error in adopting December 24, 1945, as the date of exportation, whereas the proper date was December 27, 1945, at which time the rate at which the French franc was properly convertible into United States dollars was $.008410 (T. D. 51373). In his memorandum transmitted with the official papers, the collector stated that the time within which he may review his action under section 515 has expired. Upon this state of the record the court sustained the claim of the plaintiff that the liquidation was in error.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Arford, Appellant.

*Criminal law*— Affray—Unlawful *assembly*— Evidence — *Insufficiency.*

In an Indictment charging affray, unlawful assembly and riot a verdict of guilty will be reversed, where there was no evidence to connect the defendant with the offense charged, although he was seen, but not at the place of the affray, with other persons who were properly convicted.

Argued October 20, 1924.

Appeal, No. 82, April T., 1925, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Cambria Co., June Sessions, 1924, No. 65, on verdict of guilty in tbe case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. L. E. Neff et al.

Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Reversed.

Indictment for affray, unlawful assembly and riot. Before Finletter, J., First Judicial District, specially presiding.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

Verdict of guilty on the counts charging affray and unlawful assembly, but not guilty on the count charging riot. Judgment of sentence was passed. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was, among others, the charge of the court.

*Alvin Sherbine,*and with him *Ray Patton*Smith, for appellant.

*D. P.*Weimer, District Attorney, for appellee.

November 17, 1924:

Per Curiam,

Appellant was convicted with appellant in No. 80, April Term, 1925, (Com. v. Neff), in which an opinion *254has this day been filed affirming the conviction. The record shows that appellant was seen in the parade described. in the evidence at a time when there was no disorder of any kind; but the evidence does not connect him with the offenses of which he was convicted; we must therefore sustain his appeal.

Judgment reversed and record remitted with instructions to discharge appellant.
No. 57267.

protests 184295-K, etc. (New York).

#### Curtig Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise-consists-of spark wheels-the same in all,material respects as.those .the subject of *Waterbury Lock & Specialty Co.*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 87, C. D. 1025), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 4.2


 


MICRONET ENERTEC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


 


WARRANT AMENDMENT


 


October 28, 2016


 


Reference is made
to Warrant No. YAII-1 issued by Micronet Enertec Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) to YA II PN, Ltd. (the “Investor”)
on June 30, 2016 granting the Investor the right to purchase 66,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price
of $4.30 (as may be amended or adjusted from time to time, the “Warrant”).


 


The Company and
the Investor have agreed to reduce the Exercise Price (as defined in the Warrant) of the Warrants to $3.00 per share.


 


Accordingly, the
Company, by executing and delivering this Warrant Amendment to the Investor, hereby certifies that from and after the date hereof,
the Exercise Price of the Warrant shall be $3.00 per share.


 


THIS WARRANT AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ATTACHED
THE ORIGINAL WARRANT CERTIFICATE REPRENTING THE WARRANTS. 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company has caused this Global Warrant Amendment to be signed by its duly authorized officer as of the date first written above.


 


	 	
        MICRONET ENERTEC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

        a Delaware Corporation

	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ David Lucatz
	 	 	Name: David Lucatz
	 	 	Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT CREW TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. WITH PREJUDICE 

 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

27

28

Karen K. Brandon (SBN 202436) 

Attorney at Law 

#3 Honeysuckle Lane 

San Carlos, California 94070 

Telephone: (650) 593-4016 

William S. Scott, Esq. (SBN 72581) 

SCOTT, NICHOLS & MATTEUCCI 

120 North Hunter Street (95202) 

Post Office Box 1930 

Stockton, CA 95201 

(209) 942-4300 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, STOCKTON EXECUTIVE 

LIMOUSINES CHARTER SERVICE, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

STOCKTON EXECUTIVE LIMOUSINES 

CHARTER SERVICE, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY; 

CREW TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC.; and 

RENZENBERGER, INC., 

Defendants.

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. CIV.S-04-1999 LKK PAN 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANT CREW TRANSPORT 

SERVICES, INC. WITH PREJUDICE

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff, STOCKON EXECUTIVE LIMOUSINES 

CHARTER SERVICE, INC., and defendants, CREW TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, and RENZENBERGER, INC., hereby stipulate 

and agree as follows: 

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 70 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT CREW TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. WITH PREJUDICE 

 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

27

28

Plaintiff, STOCKTON EXECUTIVE LIMOUSINE CHARTER SERVICES, INC. 

agrees to voluntarily dismiss the entire action as to defendant, CREW TRANSPORT 

SERVICES, INC., with prejudice. 

DATED: February 23, 2006 PARISH & SMALL 

 A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 

 By /s/ Kenneth M. Wentz III ________

 KENNETH M. WENTZ, III 

 Attorneys for Defendant, 

 CREW TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. 

 LAW OFFICES OF KAREN K. BRANDON 

Dated: February 23, 2006 _______ /s/ Karen K. Brandon _________ 

 KAREN K. BRANDON 

 Attorney for Plaintiff, STOCKTON EXECUTIVE 

 LIMOUSINE CHARTER SERVICES, INC. 

 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 

 LAW DEPARTMENT 

Dated: March 1, 2006 ________ /s/ William H. Pohle_________ 

 WILLIAM H. POHLE, ESQ. 

 Attorneys for Defendant, 

 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 70 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT CREW TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC. WITH PREJUDICE 

 3 

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

27

28

 RANDOLPH CREGGER & CHALFANT 

Dated: February 28, 2006 _______ /s/ Demond L. Philson__________ 

 DEMOND L. PHILSON 

 Attorneys for Defendant, 

 RENZENBERGER, INC. 

ORDER 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is so ordered. 

March 6, 2006 

 /s/Lawrence K. Karlton

 Lawrence K. Karlton 

 Senior Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 70 Filed 03/06/06 Page 3 of 3