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 ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S ACTION - 1

2:04-CV-2557-RRB-PAN-P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:04-CV-2557-RRB-PAN-P

ORDER

Plaintiff Ronald Foster (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner

filing pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

On August 17, 2006, Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds filed

Findings & Recommendations (Docket No. 48) herein, which were

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties

that any objections to the same were to be filed within twenty

days. Neither party has filed objections to the Findings &

Recommendations.

RONALD FOSTER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M.C. McDONALD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 54 Filed 09/14/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S ACTION - 2

2:04-CV-2557-RRB-PAN-P

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the Findings &

Recommendations (Docket No. 48) to be supported by the record and

by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings & Recommendations at Docket No. 48,

filed on August 17, 2006, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s December 8, 2005, Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order at Docket No. 13 is DENIED.

ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2006.

//s//

_______________________________

RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 54 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 2
# C_2007137EN.01000301.xml

| 21.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/3

---

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

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 137/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 22.3.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 652/06 |
| Member State | Cyprus |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Φορολογικές απαλλαγές για τη χρήση βιοκαυσίμων για τις μεταφορές |
| Legal basis | — | Ο περί φόρων κατανάλωσης νόμος του 2004 — Διάταγμα δυνάμει του άρθρου 44(5) |

Date of adoption of the decision

22.3.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 652/06

Member State

Cyprus

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Φορολογικές απαλλαγές για τη χρήση βιοκαυσίμων για τις μεταφορές

Legal basis

—

Ο περί φόρων κατανάλωσης νόμος του 2004 — Διάταγμα δυνάμει του άρθρου 44(5)

| — | Νομοσχέδιο με τίτλο «Νόμος που τροποποιεί τον περί της προώθησης της χρήσης βιοκαυσίμων ή άλλων ανανεώσιμων καυσίμων για τις μεταφορές νόμο του 2005» |
| --- | --- |

—

Νομοσχέδιο με τίτλο «Νόμος που τροποποιεί τον περί της προώθησης της χρήσης βιοκαυσίμων ή άλλων ανανεώσιμων καυσίμων για τις μεταφορές νόμο του 2005»

| — | Ο περί της προώθησης της χρήσης βιοκαυσίμων ή άλλων ανανεώσιμων καυσίμων για τις μεταφορές νόμος του 2005 — 66(Ι) του 2005 |
| --- | --- |

—

Ο περί της προώθησης της χρήσης βιοκαυσίμων ή άλλων ανανεώσιμων καυσίμων για τις μεταφορές νόμος του 2005 — 66(Ι) του 2005

| — | Ο περί φόρων κατανάλωσης νόμος του 2004 — N. 91(I)/2004 |
| --- | --- |

—

Ο περί φόρων κατανάλωσης νόμος του 2004 — N. 91(I)/2004

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Environmental protection

Form of aid

Tax rate reduction

Budget

Annual budget: CYP 2,2 million; Overall budget: CYP 8,8 million

Intensity

—

Duration

31.10.2006-31.12.2010

Economic sectors

Biofuel production

Name and address of the granting authority

| Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism |
| --- |
| A. Araouzou, 13-15 |
| CY-1421 Nicosia |

Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism

A. Araouzou, 13-15

CY-1421 Nicosia

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
# C_2007163EN.01000601.xml

| 17.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/6

---

Statement by the Commission concerning Article 7(4) of Protocol 3 on ACP sugar of Annex V to the ACP-CE Partnership Agreement

(2007/C 163/03)

As a result of a decision taken by the Government of Saint Christopher and Nevis to cease sugar production, 15 590,9 tons of sugar were available for reallocation. The Commission hereby gives notice that, pursuant to the provisions of Article 7(4) of that Protocol, it has allocated by Decision C/2007/3381 of 13 July 2007, 15 590,9 tonnes of sugar (expressed as white sugar), with effect from 1 July 2006, to the countries listed below. This means that, with effect from the 2006/2007 delivery period, the agreed quantities specified in Article 3(1) of the said Protocol will be amended as follows (expressed in tons of white sugar):

| State | Agreed quantities | New agreed quantities
  (1.7.2006) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reallocated | Abandoned |
| Barbados | 0 | | 32 097,40 |
| Belize | 6 331,30 | 0 | 46 680,10 |
| Congo | 0 | 0 | 10 186,10 |
| Fiji | 0 | 0 | 165 348,30 |
| Guyana | 5 721,30 | 0 | 165 131,40 |
| Ivory Coast | 0 | 0 | 10 186,10 |
| Jamaica | 3 538,30 | 0 | 122 234,30 |
| Kenya | 0 | 0 | 5 000,00 |
| Madagascar | 0 | 0 | 10 760,00 |
| Malawi | 0 | 0 | 20 824,40 |
| Mauritius | 0 | 0 | 491 030,50 |
| Mozambique | 0 | 0 | 6 000,00 |
| Saint Kitts and Nevis | 0 | 15 590,90 | 0 |
| Suriname | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Swaziland | 0 | 0 | 117 844,50 |
| Tanzania | 0 | 0 | 10 186,10 |
| Trinidad and Tobago | 0 | 0 | 43 751,00 |
| Uganda | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zambia | 0 | 0 | 7 215,00 |
| Zimbabwe | 0 | 0 | 30 224,80 |
| TOTAL | 15 590,90 | 15 590,90 | 1 294 700,00 |

State

Agreed quantities

New agreed quantities

(1.7.2006)

Reallocated

Abandoned

Barbados

0

32 097,40

Belize

6 331,30

0

46 680,10

Congo

0

0

10 186,10

Fiji

0

0

165 348,30

Guyana

5 721,30

0

165 131,40

Ivory Coast

0

0

10 186,10

Jamaica

3 538,30

0

122 234,30

Kenya

0

0

5 000,00

Madagascar

0

0

10 760,00

Malawi

0

0

20 824,40

Mauritius

0

0

491 030,50

Mozambique

0

0

6 000,00

Saint Kitts and Nevis

0

15 590,90

0

Suriname

0

0

0

Swaziland

0

0

117 844,50

Tanzania

0

0

10 186,10

Trinidad and Tobago

0

0

43 751,00

Uganda

0

0

0

Zambia

0

0

7 215,00

Zimbabwe

0

0

30 224,80

TOTAL

15 590,90

15 590,90

1 294 700,00

---
EXHIBIT 32.02








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Spectrum Currency L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer of Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, 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 Partnership.




















By:                     /s/Jennifer Magro





Name:                     Jennifer Magro


Title:                       Chief Financial Officer of Ceres Managed Futures LLC,


general partner of the registrant





Date:                      March 28, 2011
(Reap. Dec. 8547)

#### Liebermann Waelchli & Co. N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 98267; 869095.

(Decided February 21, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated above at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the entered unit values less the additions made under duress.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for the merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> *534IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Re-appraisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the entered unit values, less the additions made under duress.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
June 15, 1964

Reap. Dec. 10778.

reappraisement R63/10606.

#### Glazer Steel Corporation *v.*United States,

Reappraisement dismissed April 21, 1964.

Entered at New Orleans, La. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiff.
EXHIBIT 10.1
EXTENSION OF PROMISSORY NOTE

$9,000.00
Santa Ana, California
September 29, 2000

     THE UNDERSIGNED promises to pay to the order of Mezzanine Capital Ltd. at
1516 Brookhollow Drive, Suite D, Santa Ana, CA 92705, or at such other place
as the holder hereof may designate in writing, the sum of four thousand six
hundred seventeen dollars ($4,617.00), with interest thereon at the rate of
10% per annum from the date of the original promissory note, September 29,
1999.  Principal and interest shall be due and payable one year from the date
hereof.  This note shall replace the promissory note for these funds
originally due on September 29, 2000.

     Prepayment of this note may be made at any time without penalty.

     In the event of commencement of suit to enforce payment of this note, the
undersigned agrees to pay such additional sum as attorney's fees as the court
may adjudge reasonable.

     Mezzanine Investment Corporation

     By: /s/ Eric C. Bronk
             Eric Chess Bronk, President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Ortiz, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 949]

—Judgment, Supreme *177Court, Bronx County (Vincent Quattrochi, J.), rendered April 22, 1994, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of *21⁄2*to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

We find that the court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea where defendant made bare claims of confusion and insufficient information (CPL 220.60 [3]). Defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty (see, *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9), and the court gave defendant ample opportunity to advance his claim *(People v Tinsley,*35 NY2d 926, 927).

Defense counsel’s representation of defendant at the motion to withdraw the plea was not ineffective, given the motion’s lack of merit, and there was no need to appoint new counsel.

Defendant’s attorney was under no obligation to amplify defendant’s unsupported assertion *(People v Rodriguez,*181 AD2d 643, *Iv denied*80 NY2d 909; *People v Burgos,*177 AD2d 587, *Iv denied*79 NY2d 944), and the court’s commendation of defense counsel, made after denying the application, did not transform counsel into defendant’s adversary. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
Exhibit 13

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 City Telecom (H.K.) Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2011, 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 such
officers 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 as of the dates and
for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: December 21, 2011



/s/ Yeung Chu Kwong, WilliamName:

Yeung Chu Kwong, WilliamTitle:

Chief Executive Officer/s/ Lai Ni QuiaqueName:

Lai Ni QuiaqueTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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 Annual Report of Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K/A for the period ended   December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel
Sheng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350 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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.





Date:
      March 6, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/
      Samuel ShengSamuel
      ShengChief
      Financial Officer (principal financial andaccounting
      officer)
Before the Second Division,

May 9, 1958

No. 61902.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 306106-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of boxes similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59557, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 54070.

#### J. & J. Distributing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 96623-K, etc. (New York).

*381Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
. m

1r - Operations, M-30 

U.S. Department • Transportation (DOT) 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 

RE: Amendment to StraightEdge Aero, LLC Exemption No. 12205 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1873 

StraightEdge Aero, LLC re quested aerial photo graphyand videographyservices to 

laomeowners, realtors, builders, contractors, and/or inspectors for use in., but not 

limited to, real estate marketin gand safer inspections of home and buildin g 

exteriors.Strai ghtEdge Aero, LLC respectfull yrequests to expand our approved 

operations for thef•llowin gcategories: 

1. Aerial filming. 

2. Aerial imagery. 

3. Aerial inspections. 

4. Aerial photo graphy 

S. Aerial surveying 

6. Aerial videogr aphy 

Examples include but are not limited to: 

1. Agriculture 

2. Air qualitymonitoring 

3. Athletic performances 

4. Bridges 

S. Buildingand construction zone 

6. Construction sites 

7. Crop surveying 

8. Education 

9. Electric grids 

10. Electric utilityindustry, oil and pipelines 

11. Emer9 encymanagement assistance 

p 
a. Search and rescue, hazmat/ chemical, biological, radiological and 

nuclear management, and emergency and disaster response 

12. Establish a UAS Flight Instruction Program 

13. Flare stacks 

14. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 

15. Geologic hazard assessment 

16. Image mapping 

17. Mapping and survey applications 

18. Market research 

19. Media and advertising 

20. Mines 

21. Petroleum and mining industry 

22. Power lines 

23. Pipeline patrol 

24. Precision aerial surveys 

25. Professional marketing 

26. Railroad infrastructure and operations 

27. Remote sensing 

28. Research and development 

29. Security services 

30. Student instruction 

31. Telecommunication/cell tower sites 

32. Wildlife and natural resource 

33. Disasters and catastrophe events 

As indicated above, there is good cause for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemptions would not set precedent, 

and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. 

There has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest 

and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

Thank you for your time and consideration with our request. Feel free to contact us 

with any additional questions. 

Sincerely, 

Nicholas Flom Managing Partner, StraightEdge Aero, LLC 

2
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 Annual Report of IceWEB, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB
for the year ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, Mark B. Lucky, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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 Company.





December
      29, 2008
              /s/ Mark B. LuckyMark
      B. Lucky, Chief Financial Officer and
                principal
      financial and accounting
officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version 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.
#### Robert Serrano, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Sylvia T. Serrano, Deceased, Respondent, v Eugene J. Donohue et al., Defendants, and Chemlease Worldwide, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 360]

—In an ac*331tion to recover damages for, *inter alia,*wrongful death, the defendants Chemlease Worldwide, Inc., and World Omni Financial Corp. a/k/a World Omni Leasing Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated June 6, 1994, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Subdivision (a) of section 15-108 of the General Obligations Law states, in pertinent part, that "[w]hen a release * * * is given to one of two or more persons liable or claimed to be liable in tort for the same injury * * * it does not discharge any of the other tortfeasors from liability for the injury * * * unless its terms expressly so provide”. In this case, which arises out of an automobile accident, the plaintiff executed a release which was given to the driver of the subject vehicle in consideration of a $250,000 settlement amount paid to the plaintiffs by the driver’s insurer. Significantly, that release contained no provision for the release of the appellants, who are the owners of the subject vehicle and had leased the vehicle to the driver. Accordingly, since the release does not expressly provide for the release of the appellants, they remain liable for injuries resulting from the negligence of any person operating their automobile with their permission *(see, McDaniel v Gordon,*99 AD2d 826; *see also,*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
(Reap. Dec. 8259)

#### E. Fougera & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 807082.

(Decided November 25, 1953)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for tbe plaintiff.

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

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States, of the merchandise covered by the above appeal for reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus 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, was the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases, plus 4)4% Transmission Tax, and that there is no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above appeal for reappraisement may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe export value, as tbat value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of the merchandise here involved, and tbat such value was tbe appraised value, less tbe amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases, plus 4% per centum transmission tax.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.