alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 49212.

#### Protest 101022-K of Bridgetts & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial various papers were received in evidence, from an examination of which the court was of the opinion that the case of almonds in question was never imported into the United States. The collector was therefore directed to make refund accordingly.
**Exhibit32**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Lpath, Inc. (“the Company”) on Form10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, ScottPancoast, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Gary Atkinson, ChiefFinancial 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 our 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: August 11, 2006 |   |               |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------|
|                   |   |               |
|                   |   |               |
| /s/ Scott Pancoast     |   | /s/ Gary Atkinson  |
|                   |   |               |
| Scott Pancoast, CEO    |   | Gary Atkinson, CFO |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Interline Brands, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2003, 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 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, 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: November 10, 2003            By:  /s/ Michael J. Grebe
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Michael J. Grebe
                                        President and Chief Executive
                                        Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Interline Brands, Inc. and will be retained by Interline Brands,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          14,854
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,528
<ALLOWANCES>                                       971
<INVENTORY>                                     25,162
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,347
<PP&E>                                         100,727
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,054
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 145,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,463
<BONDS>                                         32,840
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,921
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,671
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   145,444
<SALES>                                        195,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               222,246
<CGS>                                          135,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  153,206
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                69,004
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,763)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,838
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,601)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 24,321
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,720
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.00<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.90<F2>
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - BASIC PER SFAS 128
<F2>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - DILUTED PER SFAS 128
</FN>


</TABLE>
<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 HLI Parent Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James A. Yost, Vice President, Finance and 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.




/s/ James A. Yost
--------------------------
James A. Yost
Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
December 10, 2003






                                       56
Exhibit
10.5


 


LEASE
AGREEMENT


 


THIS
LEASE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) made this 1st day of November 2016, by and between Preferred Distribution, Inc.
(herein called the “Landlord”) and Ecosciences, Inc. (herein called the “Tenant”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Landlord desires to rent to the Tenant, and the Tenant desire to rent from the Landlord, the real property located in the
City of Jericho, State of New York, described as follows: office space located at 420 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 110, Jericho, NY
11753 (the “Premises”) on the following terms and conditions.


 


	 	1.	Rent.
    Tenant agrees to pay Landlord as rent the sum of $750.00 per month, due and payable monthly in advance on the first day of
    each month during the term of this agreement.
	 	 	 
	 	2.	Term.
    The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the date above and shall continue on a month-to-month basis until terminated
    pursuant to Section 3 of this Agreement.
	 	 	 
	 	3.	Termination.
    Either Landlord or Tenant may terminate this Agreement by providing 30 days’ prior notice to the other.
	 	 	 
	 	4.	Governing
    Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York.
	 	 	 
	 	5.	Submission
    to Jurisdiction. The parties hereby:


 


	 	a.	Irrevocably
    consents and submits to the jurisdiction of any Federal, state, county or municipal court sitting in the State of New York
    in respect to any action or proceeding brought therein by Landlord against Tenant concerning any matters arising out of or
    in any way relating to this Lease;
	 	 	 
	 	b.	Irrevocably
    waives all objections as to venue and any and all rights it may have to seek a change of venue with respect to any such action
    or proceedings;
	 	 	 
	 	c.	Agrees
    that the laws of the State of New York shall govern in any such action or proceeding and waives any defense to any action
    or proceeding granted by the laws of any other country or jurisdiction unless such defense is also allowed by the laws of
    the State of New York; and
	 	 	 
	 	d.	Agrees
    that any final judgment rendered against it in any such action or proceeding shall be conclusive and may be enforced in any
    other jurisdiction by suit on the judgment or in any other manner provided by law.
	 	 	 
	 	e.	Tenant
    further agrees that any action or proceeding by Tenant against Landlord in respect to any matters arising out of or in any
    way relating to this Lease shall be brought only in the State of New York, County of New York. In furtherance of the foregoing,
    Tenant hereby agrees that its address for notices given by Landlord and service of process under this Lease shall be the Premises.


 




    	 	 	 



    	 



    


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease Agreement as of the date set forth above.


 


	 	PREFERRED
    DISTRIBUTION, INC. 
	 	(as
    Landlord)
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Joel Falitz
	 	Name:	Joel
    Falitz
	 	Title:	President
	 	 	 
	 	ECOSCIENCES,
    INC.
	 	(as
    Tenant)
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Joel Falitz
	 	Name:	Joel
    Falitz
	 	Title:	President,
    Chief Executive Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40267 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

− Appellee ,

v ersus ARNULFO ZEPEDA, JR. , Defendant

− Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 5:16

- CR

- 1088

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Arnulfo Zepeda, Jr., pleaded guilty of c onspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of mari hu ana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Count 1) and possession with intent to distribute
50 kilograms or more of mari h uana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 5, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40267 Document: 00514261007 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2017No. 17

- 40267

2 (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 2). The district court sentenced Zepeda to 96 months of imprisonment concurrently on each cou nt. Zepeda contends that his within

- guideline sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and is therefore substantivel y unreasonable. He claims that the district court placed too much emphasis on his criminal history whil e ignor

ing hi s limited role in the offense. This court reviews the substantive reason

a bleness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Though Zepeda never urged a mitigating

- role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, the district court heard his theory that a lower sentence was

war ranted because he was a “mere carrier” rather than a leader or organizer and because his crime involved a relatively small amount of mari h uana. Zepeda’s mere belief that the mitiga ting factors should have been balanced dif

ferently is insufficient to disturb the presumption that the within

- guideline sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Alvarado , 691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th Cir. 2012).

Because his criminal history significantly increased the guideline range, Z epeda claims that the criminal history overstated the seriousness of his past criminal conduct. The significant impact that Zepeda’s criminal history had on his sentence , however, does not make the sentence unreasonable. S ee United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 530 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the court’s consideration of Zepeda’s arrest record, which was sufficiently corrobor

ated and reliable, was authorized under this court’s precedent. See United States v. Harris , 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012). Zepeda has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness

. See United States v. Cooks , 58 9 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED. Case: 17-40267 Document: 00514261007 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2017
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4617 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4617

 To exempt National Guard Bilateral Affairs Officers from active-duty 
  end strength limits and to clarify the congressional committees to 
    which the Secretary of Defense shall submit an annual report on 
                    security cooperation activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 20, 2024

  Mr. Peters introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To exempt National Guard Bilateral Affairs Officers from active-duty 
  end strength limits and to clarify the congressional committees to 
    which the Secretary of Defense shall submit an annual report on 
                    security cooperation activities.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF NATIONAL GUARD BILATERAL AFFAIRS OFFICERS FROM 
              ACTIVE-DUTY END STRENGTH LIMITS AND MODIFICATION OF 
              ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT REGARDING SECURITY 
              COOPERATION ACTIVITIES.

    (a) Exemption of National Guard Bilateral Affairs Officers From 
Active-Duty End Strength Limits.--Section 115(i) of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(14) Members of the National Guard on active duty or 
        full-time National Guard duty serving as Bilateral Affairs 
        Officers as part of the National Guard State Partnership 
        Program.''.
    (b) Modification of Annual Reporting Requirement Regarding Security 
Cooperation Activities.--Section 386(a) of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
and inserting ``congressional defense committees''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Curtis J. Clawson, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HLI Operating Company, Inc;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting that are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       /s/ Curtis J. Clawson Curtis J. Clawson
EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Paul L. Berns, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Allos Therapeutics, Inc., and David C. Clark, the Vice President, Finance of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:

Dated:
March 3, 2009

/s/ PAUL L. BERNS Paul L. Berns President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ DAVID C. CLARK David C. Clark Vice President, Finance
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon
request. This certification "accompanies" the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the annual report of Clamshell Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the
period ending December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Martin Berns, President and Chief Executive 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Martin Berns



 Martin Berns,

 President and Chief Executive Officer

August 9, 2004
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30011

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SHANNON DWAYNE NELSON, also known as Dawayne Anderson

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:05-CR-20207-1

Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shannon Dwayne Nelson appeals his guilty-plea conviction for possession

of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924.

He argues that the district court erred in accepting his guilty plea because the

factual basis was not sufficient to establish that he knowingly possessed the

firearm.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 2, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30011

2

Our review of the record is for plain error only. United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993). Although Nelson denied knowledge of possession

of the firearm subsequent to his arrest and prior to his mistrial, he knowingly

and voluntarily admitted guilt of the elements of the crime, including knowing

possession of the firearm at the rearraignment hearing. Our review of the

record, including the indictment, the factual stipulation, the rearraignment

transcript, and the presentence report, demonstrates that Nelson’s guilty plea

was supported by a sufficient factual basis, and the district court’s acceptance

of his plea was not plainly erroneous. See United States v. Reasor, 418 F.3d 466,

470 (5th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 425 n.13

(5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Ammirato, 670 F.2d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1982). 

AFFIRMED.