alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

SUZANNE A. LUBAN

Attorney at Law

State Bar No.: 120629

3758 Grand Ave. #4

Oakland, California 94610

Telephone 510/832-3555

Fax 510/832-3558

Attorney for Petitioner

MYKEL HAWKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYKEL HAWKINS ) No. Civ. 04-2495-MCE-GGH

)

Petitioner, ) ORDER EXTENDING

) PETITIONER’S TIME TO 

vs. ) FILE TRAVERSE 

)

SCOTT KERNON, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________ )

For Good Cause Shown and pursuant the Stipulation of the parties, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s time to file his Traverse shall be extended

by one week, to July 29, 2005. 

DATED: 7/27/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. Magistrate Judge

hawk2495.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02495-MCE -JFM Document 20 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 10453)

#### Unit Venetian Blind Supply Co. of Ca*l.*James G. Wiley *v.*United States

Entry No. 4416.

Decided February 26, 1963

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*John W. Douglas,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto:

> 1. That the above entitled appeal for reappraisement is limited to the merchandise shipped by Hasegawa Shoten Go. of Japan.

> 2. That the said merchandise was appraised under Section 402(b) of the Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, 2nd Session.

> 3. That at the time of exportation to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, were the unit invoice values plus packing charges as invoiced.

> 4. That the above entitled appeal for reappraisement as heretofore limited, is submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and bold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and *415that such value in each case was the invoice unit value, plus packing charges, as invoiced.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. AD07-7-000] 

Take notice that on February 27, 2007, the first in a series of conferences will be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) to examine the state of competition in wholesale power markets. The first conference will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 pm (EST) at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in the Commission Meeting Room. All interested persons are invited to attend. A further notice with a detailed agenda will be issued in advance of the conference. 

                    A free webcast of this event will be available through                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit                     *http://www.CapitolConnection.org*                     or contact Danelle Perkowski or David Reininger at 703-993-3100.                 

                    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to                     *accessibility@ferc.gov*                     or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.                 

                    For more information about this conference, please contact: Moon Paul, Esq., Office of the General Counsel—Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. (202) 502-6136,                     *Moon.Paul@ferc.gov.*

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary. 

 [FR Doc. E7-449 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
No. 42902.

#### Protests 730624-G, etc., of John Henschel Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32.1 - Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)

                        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 Neighborhood Connections, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
I, Ruth Selmon, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

               (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 Company.

/s/ Ruth Selmon
---------------------------
    Ruth Selmon
    Chief Executive Officer
    Chief Financial Officer

Date  October 26, 2005
      ----------------
<PAGE>
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 General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John Chen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.





Dated:
      November 9, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/
      John ChenJohn
      Chen, Chief Financial
Officer
No. 51453.

#### Protest 38948-K of Goff, Hopkins, Inc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of dog food similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 175, C. A. D. 304). In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as claimed.
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
The X-Change Corporation
File No.  000-53132
Form 10-K
For the year ended December 31, 2009

          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 The X-Change Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2009 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Haviland Wright,
Chief  Executive  Officer and Acting  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,
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 Company.


Date: April 20, 2010                     By: /s/ Haviland Wright
      --------------                         -----------------------------------
                                                                 Haviland Wright
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                  Acting Chief Financial Officer

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

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to The  X-Change  Corporation  and will be  retained  by The  X-Change
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
(Reap. Dec. 8531)

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. J-737; J-22.

(Decided January 27, 1956)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purposes of the steel angles and bars covered by the two above-enumerated appeals for a reappraisement is before the court for determination.

The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed that the value or the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Belgium, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all 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, is shown in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, for each of the several items of merchandise, and that there was no higher foreign value.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the steel angles and bars in issue, and that such value is as shown on schedule *“A,”*attached hereto and made a part hereof.

*519Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Schedule “A”

Reap. No. Merchandise Value

237474-A/396 Steel angles *%”*Hot Rolled Thomas Quality Steel Squares as entered $81,504 per metric ton net packed.

*Yi"*Hot Rolled Thomas Quality Steel Ronds $81,504 per metric ton net packed.

237475-A/397 *Y”*Hot Rolled Intermediate Deformed Reinforcing Bars A 305 Thomas Quality $87,254 per metric ton net packed.

*%"*Hot Rolled Intermediate Deformed Reinforcing Bars A 305 Thomas Quality $85,805 per metric ton net packed.
Before the Second Division,

January 13, 1943

No. 47905.

#### Protest 69700-K of Strachan Shipping Co. (Tampa).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance wdth stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 47893 the claim for free entry was sustained.
----

**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 

 I, Eric Boehnke, President, Director, and Principal Executive Officer of Huron  Ventures Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that, to the best of  my knowledge and belief: 

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB, of the Company for the six month period  ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  (the "Quarterly Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13  (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

2. The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Company. 

/s/ Eric Boehnke   Eric Boehnke   President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director  February****16, 2004

----
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

McDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN PC

Attorneys at Law

STEVEN A. LAMON (SBN 124853)

STEPHEN M. LERNER (SBN 176688)

555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: 916.444.3900

Fax: 916.444.3249

Attorneys for Plaintiff: QuesTech Financial California, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUESTECH FINANCIAL CALIFORNIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JYM CORPORATION,

Defendant.

v.

BASKIN-ROBBINS USA CO., TOGOS

EATERIES, INC.,

Third-Party Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV. S-04-2553 FCD GGH

STIPULATION OF PARTIAL

DISMISSAL

BASKIN-ROBBINS USA CO., TOGOS

EATERIES, INC.,

Third-Party Defendants/

Counterclaimants/

Counter-Defendants

v.

QUESTECH FINANCIAL CALIFORNIA, LLC,

Counter-Defendant/

Counterclaimant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case 2:04-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 83 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 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

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant/Counterclaimant QuesTech Financial California, LLC

(“QuesTech”) and Counterclaimants/Counter-Defendants Baskin-Robbins USA, Co. and Togos

Eateries, Inc. (collectively, “Baskin/Togos”), by and through their respective counsel of record,

hereby stipulate that:

WHEREAS, Baskin/Togo’s brought certain claims against QuesTech as set forth in that

certain Counterclaim for (1) trespass; (2) declaratory relief; and (3) breach of contract dated August

15, 2005 (the “Baskin/Togos Counterclaim”);

WHEREAS, QuesTech brought certain claims against Baskin/Togos as set forth in that

certain Counterclaim for (1) conversion and (2) unjust enrichment dated September 16, 2005 (the

“QuesTech Counterclaim”); 

WHEREAS, QuesTech and Baskin/Togos desire to dismiss with prejudice all of the claims

asserted in the Baskin/Togos Counterclaim and the QuesTech Counterclaim (collectively, the

“Claims”) without incurring further costs of litigation; and

NOW, THEREFORE, it is stipulated and agreed that the Claims are hereby dismissed with

prejudice, without costs or attorneys’ fees.

Dated: March ___, 2006 McDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN PC

/S/ 

STEPHEN M. LERNER

Attorney for Plaintiff and

Counterclaimant/Counterclaim-Defendant

QuesTech Financial California, LLC

Dated: March 23, 2006 WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, COULD &

BIRNEY, LLP

/S/ 

DANIEL L. EGAN

Attorney for Third-Party Defendants and

Counterclaimants/Counter-Defendants

Baskin-Robbins USA, Co. and Togos

Eateries, Inc.

Case 2:04-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 83 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 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

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: April 20, 2006 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

HON. FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 83 Filed 04/20/06 Page 3 of 3
Delaware’sProposedVisibilityStateImplementationPlan(SIP)DNRECPublicHearing-September23,2008Exhibits1.Delaware’sProposedVisibilityStateImplementationPlan(SIP)andAppendices2.DelawareStateNews-AffidavitofPublicationforLegalNoticeofPublicHearing3.NewsJournal-AffidavitofPublicationforLegalNoticeofPublicHearing4.ProposedVisibilitySIP-RegisterNoticeinDelawareRegisterofRegulations,Vol.12.Issue3,Monday,September1,2008.5.CopyofNoticeofPublicHearingfromtheDelawareStatewideCalendarofMeetingsandEvents6.40CFRPart51,RegionalHazeRegulation—FinalRule,July19997.40CFRPart51,RegionalHazeGuidelinesforBestAvailableRetrofitTechnology(BART)Determinations(AppendixY),July,2005.8.DNREClettertoFederalLandManagers(FLM)requestingcommentonthedraftVisibilitySIPinaccording40CFR51.308(i)9.U.S.DepartmentofInterior(IOI)CommentsonDelaware’sDraftProposedVisibilitySIPinaccording40CFR51.308(1)10.DNRECLettertoDOlAcknowledgingtheReceiptofTheirCommentsonthedraftVisibilitySIP11.DNRECResponseToDOlCommentsOnDelaware’sDraftProposedVisibilitySIP12.August15,2008EmailtoTimAllen,U.S.Fish&WildlifeServicedetailingDNRECrevisionstothedraftSIPBARTdeterminations13.ConectivEdgemoorCommentsonDelaware’sProposedAugust15,2008VisibilityStateImplementationPlan14.MinorGrammaticalandTechnicalChanges,pp.68,70,71and74.
Exhibit 24


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------


     The undersigned, a member of the Board of Directors and/or as Officer of CE
GENERATION,  LLC,  a  corporation  registered  in the  State  of  Delaware  (the
"Company"),  hereby  constitutes  and appoints  Douglas L.  Anderson and Paul J.
Leighton  and each of them,  as  his/her  true and lawful  attorney-in-fact  and
agent,  with full power of substitution and  resubstitution,  for and in his/her
stead, in any and all  capacities,  to sign on his/her behalf the Company's Form
10-K Annual  Report for the fiscal year ending  December 31, 2001 and to execute
any amendments thereto and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto,  and all
other documents in connection  therewith,  with the United States Securities and
Exchange  Commission and  applicable  stock  exchanges,  with the full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing  necessary or advisable
to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person,  hereby ratifying
and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent or his/her substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Dated as of March 28, 2002

/s/ Patrick J. Goodman                               /s/ Joseph M. Lillo
----------------------                               -------------------
Patrick J. Goodman                                   Joseph M. Lillo


/s/ Stefan Bird
---------------
Stefan Bird
October 9, 1975

The Honorable Richard W. Carter Office ofthe County Attorney Hunt County Third Floor, Courthouse Building Greenville, Texas 75401 Dear Mr. Carter: Opinion No. H- 713 Re: Validity of oaths administered by notaries who are between the ages of eighteen andtwenty-one.

You ask whether oaths administered by notaries public eighteen years ofage or older but under the age,of tw~enty-one are valid ifthey were administered between August 27, 1973 and June 19, 19751 Until recently the language of article 5949 provided that anotary public was required to be atleast twenty-one ~years of age. Se;;a5”;Ae*;t,* ;J;;; ,4-8ttih,;eg. r ch. 309, p. 459 (codified as V. T.C.S. art. 5949). 5949 was amended to expressly provide that aperson need be only eighteen years ofage to be appointed a notary public. Previously, however, onAugust 27, 1973, article 5923b, V. T. C.S., hadbecome effective. Itprovides inpart: Section 1. The purpose ofthis Act is to extend all the rights, privileges, and obligations bfmajority to all persons who are at least 18years of age. It shall be construed liberally to accomplish that purpose. Section 2. Notwithstanding any statutory & decisional law, or any rule, regulation, or ordinance ofthis state or of any political subdivision orincorporated city or town of this state, a person who is atleast 18years of age has the rights, privileges, and obligations of aperson who is 21 years of age. A law, rule, regulation, or ordinance which extends a right, privilege, or obligation to aperson onthe basis of aminimum age of 21, 20, or 19years shall be interpreted as prescribing aminimum age of 18years. . . .. The issue is whether this statute effectively lowered the qualifying age for notaries public from twenty-one to eighteen as ofAugust 27, 1973. We have previously said that the clear language ofthat article indicates that any law extending a right, privilege or obligation to aperson on the basis of aminimum

p. 3066The Honorable Richard W. Carter - page 2 (H-713)

age oftwenty-one is tobe interpreted as prescribing a minimum age of eighteen. Attorney General Opinions H-687(1975); H-301(1974); H-82(1973). Accordingly, it is our opinion that beginning August 27, 1973, aperson whowas efghteen years ofage could be appointed as a notary public and that any oaths he might administer would not be subject to challenge onthe basis ofhis age. And see Freeman v. Port Arthur Rice and Irrigation Co., 188 S.

### W. 444 (Tex. civ. App. --Beaumont 1916, nowrit) which indicated that an affidavit was not defective because the notary before whom itwas administered was under twenty-one years of age. SUMMARY Beginning August 27, 1973, persons who were at least eighteen years of age were eligible for appointment as a notary public. ery truly yours,
F% L. HILL orney General of Texas

Opinion Committee jad:

p. 3067
Before the Second Division,

January 26, 1944

No. 49160.

#### Protests 556483-G, etc., of Genuine Panama Hat Works, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The testimony showed that certain of the items consist .of hats similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), the record in which was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith those hats imported and withdrawn for consumption prior to the date of the Netherlands Trade Agreement were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and those subsequent to said date at 12)4 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and the said trade agreement. Protests sustained to this extent.