alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DANIEL W. JOHNSON, Jr., Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

16 USCMA 188, 36 CMR 344

No. 19,009

April 8, 1966

*Captain L. G. Bohlen,*USMC, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel J. E. Hanthorn,*USMC, argued the cause for Appellee, United States. *Lieutenant Colonel Daniel F. McConnell,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

The accused was tried by a general court-martial convened in the Third Marine Division and convicted of several violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for three years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction. Reducing the confinement adjudged to a period of two years, the convening authority otherwise approved the sentence. The board of review affirmed, but further reduced the confinement involved to eighteen months. We granted accused’s petition for review on the issue whether Colonel Andrew I. Lyman, in the purported capacity of Commanding Officer, Third Marine Division, was the proper officer to act upon accused’s conviction and sentence.

The question before us is identical to that involved in United States v Kugima, 16 USCMA 183, 36 CMR 339, this day decided. For the reasons set forth in that opinion, we hold that Colonel Lyman was in fact the Commanding Officer, Third Marine Division, at the time of the review of accused’s case and, as such, was entitled to act thereon in accordance with Code, supra, Article 60, 10 USC § 860.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kil-day concur.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Curative Health Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
Axmacher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:

      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/  Thomas Axmacher

                                             -----------------------------
                                             Thomas Axmacher
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             August 9, 2004
EXHIBIT 7

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 40-F of Sun Life Financial Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to his respective knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 12, 2015



/s/ Dean A. ConnorDean A. ConnorPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Date: February 12, 2015



/S/ Colm J. FreyneColm J. FreyneExecutive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer


This certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed to have been, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
# C_2007067EN.01001601.xml

| 23.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/16

---

Corrigendum to the authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Case where the Commission raises no objections

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 30 of 10 February 2007
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 30 of 10 February 2007

(2007/C 67/07)

On page 5, aid N 514/06, against the entry ‘Duration’:

for:

‘1.1.2007-31.12.2007’,

read:

‘1.1.2007-31.12.2012’.

---
No. 57307.

protest 887458-G (New York).

#### Chase National Bank *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

When this case was called for trial, it was submitted on the same basis as the submission in Abstract 57282, namely, that the right to move to reopen or to set aside the submission was abandoned. An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled. *(T. M. Duche & Sons*v. *United States,*39 C. C. P. A. 186, C. A. D. 485, certiorari denied, *T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc.*v. *United States,*344 U. S. 830, followed.)
No. 59601.

protests 264552-K, etc. (New York).

#### Glensder Textile Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, 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.
Before the First Division,

January 7, 1943

No. 47891.

#### Protests 981716-G, etc., of Atlantic Coast Fisheries Corp. (New York).

*369Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish-liver oil concentrate preserved in soya-bean oil, the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Atlantic Coast Fisheries Corp.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 415, C. D. 506), the claim at lO-.pórcent ad valorem under paragraph 34, plus 3 cents per pound under section 601 (c) (8), Revenue Act of 1932, as amended, was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10773)

#### Berben Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 740360, etc.

(Decided June 10, 1964)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*JohnW. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made a part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain pistols and parts thereof and fittings therefor.

The parties hereto have submitted the appeals for decision on a stipulation of fact which reads as follows:

> *590IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court:

> That the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof are limited to the merchandise described on the invoices as pistols, with or without other words of description, and parts thereof and fittings therefor, and exported by the firm of Pietro Beretta, Italy.

> That the issues are similar in all material respects to the issues in *Berten Corporation*v. *United, States,*Reap. Dee. 10552, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

> That at the time of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Italy or for exportation to the United States, and was likewise not freely offered for sale in the United States.

> That at the time of exportation the cost of production of the merchandise involved herein, as defined in Sec. 402(f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the entered value.

> That the instant appeals are submitted for decision on the incorporated record and this stipulation.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined hi section 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(f)), is the proper basis of value for the pistols and parts thereof and fittings therefor in issue and that said value is represented by the entered value.

As to all other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 45001.

#### Protest 882929-G of S. Lisk & Bro. (New York).

*475Opinion by

Oliveb, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on "the authority of Abstract 37637 the metal daggers in question were held dutiable .at 45 percent under paragraph 397 as claimed.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v TOMMIE L. GIBSON, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

21 USCMA 276, 45 CMR 50

No. 24,948

March 24, 1972

*Colonel George J. McCartin, Jr., Lieutenant Colonel Joseph E. Donahue, Captain Gary W. Allman, Captain James D. Mogridge, Captain Terrence Ahern,*and *Captain James K. Stewart*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway, Captain Richard L. Menson, Captain Benjamin P. Fishburne, III, Captain David E. Wilson,*and *Captain Thomas B. McCullough, Jr.,*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

*277Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Judge:

We granted the accused’s petition for review because it presented an issue within the compass of a question certified for review in United States v Johnson, 21 USCMA 270, 45 CMR 44, decided this date. A comparison of the operative facts in both cases reveals a substantial difference.

In *Johnson,*the trial judge considered the evidence of mitigation in the record and made a specific recommendation to the convening authority for suspension of parts of the sentence he had adjudged. Without mention of any matter pertinent to the issue, the convening authority approved the sentence without suspension. We noted that the conflict between the record and the convening authority’s action gave rise to “at least a nagging doubt” that the convening authority was unaware of the recommendation at the time of his action, and that the doubt was sufficiently strengthened by other evidence to justify the Court of Military Review’s conclusion that the presumption of the regularity of official action had been overcome.

Here, the trial judge made no direct recommendation for suspension. On the contrary, he indicated that on the evidence before him, he did “not believe . . . [he could] recommend that the BCD ... be suspended.” However, he went on to observe that the accused apparently had “two quite varying records,” the formal and the informal. He noted that he could not determine the latter from the information before him, and, therefore, he could “only recommend that the convening authority seriously consider the desirability of suspending the discharge, because he is in a better position than I to determine what that record is.” It further appears that in his post-trial advice to the convening authority, the staff judge advocate indicated he had evaluated the accused’s record and considered suspension of the discharge “in accordance with the Military Judge’s suggestion” and had concluded such clemency was “not warranted.” All the facts of record, therefore, are consistent with the presumption of the regularity of the convening authority’s action. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review.

Chief Judge Darden and Judge Duncan concur.
No. 66847.

#### S. H. Pomerance Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/3626, etc. (New York).

*478Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the applicable regulations have now been complied with, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained, except as to protest 59/10698, wherein only pattern design No. 17358 was claimed entitled to free entry.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10709-10710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4316]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Mission Statement

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

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

Healthcare Technologies Trade Mission to Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt

October 24 to November 1, 2007

I. Mission Description

    The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Commercial Service, Office of Global Trade 
Programs, in conjunction with the Global Healthcare Team, will lead a 
healthcare technologies trade mission to Istanbul, Turkey; Amman, 
Jordan; and Cairo, Egypt from October 24 to November 1, 2007. This 
mission will allow representatives of U.S. medical equipment and 
healthcare technology firms interested in entering or expanding 
existing business in these

[[Page 10710]]

markets. Companies can choose the stops they wish to visit. However, 
preference will be given to participants selecting two or more stops.

II. Mission Objective

    This U.S. Department of Commerce trade mission is the ideal way for 
small and mid-sized companies to evaluate these markets and make 
important business contacts.
    During the trade mission participants will receive:
    (A) Briefings on local medical markets;
    (B) Introductions to potential distributors, facility 
administrators, and purchasing managers through group events;
    (C) Hospital and other site visits, if applicable;
    (D) One-on-one meetings tailored to each firm's interests; and
    (E) Meetings with local business representatives and government 
officials, as suitable.
    The precise schedule will depend on the availability of local 
government and business officials, specific goals of mission 
participants, and air travel schedules.
    Applications for this Mission are available, and may be obtained by 
contacting: Lisa Huot, USDOC/CS--Room 2118, 1401 Constitution Ave., 
NW., Washington, DC 20230. Tel: 202-482-2796; Fax 202-482-0115. E-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f09c998391de98859f84b09d91999cde949f93de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ee2e7fdefa0e6fbe1facee3efe7e2a0eae1eda0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>.

Lisa Huot,
International Trade Specialist, Global Trade Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-4316 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-25-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
126 STAT. 2410 PUBLIC LAW 112–254—JAN. 10, 2013 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6260: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

Dec. 19, 20, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 27, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–254 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 211 Hope 

Street in Mountain View, California, as the ‘‘Lieutenant Kenneth M. Ballard 

Memorial Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT KENNETH M. BALLARD MEMORIAL POST 

OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 211 Hope Street in Mountain View, California, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lieutenant Kenneth M. 

Ballard Memorial Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Lieutenant Kenneth M. Ballard Memorial Post Office’’. 

Approved January 10, 2013. 

Jan. 10, 2013 

[H.R. 6260] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
No. 63141.

#### Gahna Import *&*Export Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 58/16910 (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Land, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 407]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered November 4, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover,, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 51434.

#### Protests 41534-K, etc., of Products from Sweden, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Cape Wind Associates, LLC (CWA) Cons truction and Operations Plan (COP) Renewable Energy Lease OCS-A-0478

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regu lation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) (formerly Minerals Management Service) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) for CWA’s COP to construct, operate, and eventually decommission an offshore wind power facility on Horseshoe Shoal on the OCS in Nantucket Sound, offshore Massachuse tts. The Proposed Action calls for 130, 3.6 megawatt wind turbine generators, each with a maximum blade heig ht of 440 feet, to be arranged in a grid pattern on the OCS in Nantucket Sound, just offshore Cape C od, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket Island. The COP can be found at: http://www.boemre .gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/CapeWind.htm

.

BOEMRE published the Cape Wind Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on January 16, 2009,
and an EA on April 28, 2010. The Proposed Action, includin g project location and extent, remain the same as described for the Proposed Action in the FEIS. This EA will be used for the purpose of determining whether a supplemental EIS is necessa ry before BOEMRE decides to approve, approve with modification, or deny CWA’s COP. To that end, BOEMRE is soliciting public comment to determine whether there are any significant new circum stances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed Cape Wind Projec t or its impacts as described in the FEIS or the April 28, 2010, EA.

The following issues have been identified by BOEMRE for consideration in this EA:

 Consideration of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (N MFS) Biological opinion, which
was the result of re-initiated c onsultation under Section 7 of th e Endangered Species Act (ESA) (12/30/10);

 Consideration of civili an air space conflicts, including pot ential noise and economic impacts from flight diversions;

 Consideration of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Air Act (CAA) permit;

 Consideration of the Federal Aviation Administ ration’s (FAA) Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation (5/17/2010);

 Consideration of impacts including air emissions from incr eased vessel trips due to G&G surveys; and

 Consideration of the U.S. Army Corps of Engin eers’ Permits, issued pur suant to Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act and Sect ion 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (01/05/11).

COMMENTS

This notice provides an opportunity for public input prior to completion of the EA and a decision by the responsible official. Public input may inform the decisionmaking process by suggesting new issues or contributing information with regard to potential environmental effects in one of the following ways:

1. Electronically: http://www.regulations.gov. In th e entry titled ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter BOEM2011-0007, then click search. Follow the instructions to submit public comments and view supporting and
related materials available for this document.
(Reap. Dec. 10077)

#### Chain Bike Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 725164.

(Decided September 7, 1961)

*Barnes, Richardson & Golburn*for the plaintiff.

*William S. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement presents the question of the proper dutiable value of certain bicycles and parts thereof imported from France.

The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed as follows:

1. That on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation to all purchasers for home consumption or for exportation to the United States.

2. That on or about the said date of exportation, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the United States.

3. That the cost of production, as defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(f)), is equal to the invoice price, less the proportionate part of items of ocean freight and insurance, as invoiced.

Upon the agreed facts, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f), *supra,*is the proper basis of value for the bicycles and parts in issue, and that said value is the invoice price, less the proportionate part of items of ocean freight and insurance, as invoiced.

As to all other merchandise, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### In the Matter of Regina YY., Appellant, v Broome County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

[633 *743NYS2d 651]

—Casey, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Ray, J.), entered October 18, 1994, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, to modify the terms of custody of petitioner’s children.

In February 1994, Family Court adjudged petitioner’s four children to be neglected within the meaning of Family Court Act article 10 and extended for an additional 12 months a prior order which had awarded custody of three of the children to respondent and had placed the fourth child in the custody of a maternal aunt. Petitioner’s subsequent application to modify the order of Family Court by returning custody of the children to her was dismissed, without a hearing. We affirm based on petitioner’s failure to demonstrate "a sufficient change in circumstances to show a real need for the proposed change to insure the welfare of the child[ren]” *(Matter of Boedecker-Frey v Boedecker-Frey,*176 AD2d 392, 393; *see, Matter of Katz v Evans,*199 AD2d 940, 941).

We reject respondent’s contention that this appeal has been rendered moot by a pending proceeding before Family Court for an extension of placement / custody of petitioner’s children in foster care. The issue raised therein is that of temporary custody while petitioner in the context of the instant proceeding seeks permanent custody of her children *{see, Matter of Karen PP. v Clyde QQ.,*197 AD2d 753).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.