alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 45025.

#### Protests 770479-G, etc., of Consumers Import Co. et al. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Peat Import Corp.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 181, C. D. 319) the; claim for free entry under paragraph 1685 was sustained.
No. 61415.

protests 301947-K, etc. (New York).

#### Plus Computing Machines, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of key-driven calculating machines the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Plus Computing Machines, Inc.*v. *United States*(44 C. C. P. A. 160, C. A. D. 655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 10.16


 


AMENDMENT TO TERMINALING SERVICES AGREEMENT


(March 1, 2015)


 


This Amendment to Terminaling Services Agreement
is made as of the 1st day of March, 2015 between Center Point Terminal Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(“Terminal”), and Enjet, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (“Customer”).


 


RECITALS


 


A.           Terminal
and Customer are party to that certain Terminaling Services Agreement dated August 14, 2013, as amended by that certain Amendment
to Terminaling Services Agreement dated March 1, 2014, as further amended by that certain Amendment to Terminaling Services Agreement
dated November 1, 2014 and as further amended by that certain Amendment to Terminaling Services Agreement dated December 1, 2014
(collectively, the “Agreement”), which Agreement provides for the storage and handling of residual petroleum
products as specified therein at the Terminal Facilities.


 


B.           Terminal
and Customer desire to amend the Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions contained herein.


 


AGREEMENT


 


In consideration of the foregoing, the mutual
covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged by the parties by their execution hereof), the parties agree as follows:


 


1.            Definitions.
All capitalized terms not otherwise expressly defined herein shall have the respective meanings given thereto in the Agreement.


 


2.           Amendment.


 


2.1.          Temporary
Relinquishment of a Storage Tank at the Baton Rouge, Louisiana Terminal Facility. Customer agrees, at the request of
Terminal, to relinquish its right to store product in Tank 1901 at the Baton Rouge Terminal Facility for a limited period of thirty
(30) days so that Terminal may accommodate another customer.


 




    	1



    	 



    

  


3.           No
Other Modification. Nothing contained herein in any way impairs the Agreement or alters, waives, annuls, varies or affects
any provision, condition or covenant therein, except as specifically set forth in this Amendment to the Agreement. All other terms
and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
duly executed this Amendment to the Terminaling Services Agreement as of the date first written above.


 


	 	CENTER POINT TERMINAL COMPANY, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Steven G. Twele
	 	Name: Steven G. Twele
	 	Title:   Vice President
	 	 
	 	ENJET, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ L. Peter Byler
	 	Name: L. Peter Byler
	 	Title:   President


 






    	2
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF					CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF					SUNRISE U.S.A. INCORPORATED					PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

I, Omar G. Barrientos, President and Chief Executive Officer of Sunrise U.S.A. Incorporated (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.				I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial operations and results of operations of the Company.

| Date:  August 10, 2006                                                                                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                          |
| By:  /s/ OMAR G. BARRIENTOS                    |
| Omar G. Barrientos                                                                                                                                 |
| Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                        |

----

```

```
#### In the Matter of Aida Quinones, Respondent, v Process Automation et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 425]

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 3, 1994, which ruled that claimant sustained a compensable injury and awarded workers’ compensation benefits.

While traveling to work, claimant injured her back when she slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot across from her place of employment. Although claimant’s employer sold the subject parking lot prior to claimant’s accident and allegedly notified its employees that they could no longer park there, the Board nevertheless concluded that claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of her employment and awarded her workers’ compensation benefits. Claimant’s employer and its insurance carrier appeal this decision. Inasmuch as the employer failed to persuasively establish that claimant was notified prior to the accident that she should no longer park in the subject parking lot, we do not find that the Board erred in concluding that she suffered a compensable injury. Under the circumstances presented, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 

Second Amendment to 

Amended and Restated Rights Agreement 

This Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Rights Agreement, dated as of March 23, 2015 (this
“Amendment”), is made and entered into by and between AEP Industries Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC, a New York limited
liability trust company (the “Rights Agent”). 
 WHEREAS, on March 31, 2011, the
Company and the Rights Agent entered into the Rights Agreement (the “Original Agreement”);  

WHEREAS, on March 28, 2014, the Company and the Rights Agent entered into the Amended and Restated Rights Agreement (the
“Amended and Restated Rights Agreement”), which amended and restated the Original Agreement in its entirety; 

WHEREAS, on April 16, 2014, the Company and the Rights Agent entered into the First Amendment to Amended and Restated
Rights Agreement (the “First Amendment;” and the Amended and Restated Rights Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, the “Rights Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company believes it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to prevent a
Distribution Date under the Rights Agreement in present circumstances. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as set forth below. 

1. AMENDMENT. The definition of “Exempt Person” in Section 1(i)(2)(C) of the Rights
Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “or (C) the acquisition of Beneficial
Ownership of additional shares of Common Stock on or prior to April 1, 2014 and the acquisition of Beneficial Ownership of 1,400 additional shares of Common Stock on March 12, 2015; provided, however, this clause
(C) shall only apply to such acquisitions by KSA Capital Management, LLC, Daniel Khoshaba, and Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. Pension Plan, and one or more of their Related Persons.” 

2. CONFLICTS WITH THE RIGHTS
AGREEMENT. The terms and provisions explicitly set forth herein shall modify and supersede all inconsistent provisions set forth in the Rights Agreement. Except as expressly modified and superseded hereby, the terms
and provisions of the Rights Agreement are ratified and confirmed and shall continue in full force and effect and shall continue to be legal, valid, binding and enforceable in accordance with its terms. Further, any references to the “entire
agreement” or similar term in the Rights Agreement shall be deemed to include this Amendment. 
 [SIGNATURES
ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] 

  
 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed, all as of
the day and year first above written. 
  

					
	AEP INDUSTRIES INC.
		
	By:		 /s/ Paul M. Feeney

			Name:		Paul M. Feeney
			Title:		Executive Vice President, Finance, and Chief Financial Officer
	
	AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC, as Rights Agent
		
	By:		 /s/ Mike Nespoli

			Name:		Mike Nespoli
			Title:		Executive Director Relationship Management


 SIGNATURE PAGE TO SECOND
AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED RIGHTS AGREEMENT
No. 64194.

protests 58/25316,etc. (Laredo).

#### L. H. Graves, a/c C. H. Harden & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of carrizo baskets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Chester K. Stoner*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2083), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1988

JOHNNY D. THORNTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 07-2097

JOHNNY D. THORNTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (1:06-cv-00397-GBL)

Submitted: July 2, 2008 Decided: July 21, 2008
- 2 -

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher D. Vaughn, MELVILLE JOHNSON, P.C., Atlanta, Georgia,

for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Dennis C.

Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*The multiple appeals result from the fact that Thornton and

his counsel each filed a separate notice of appeal from the final

order of the district court.

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals,* Johnny D. Thornton

appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to his

former employer in his action alleging violations of § 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (2000), and Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17

(2000). This court reviews a district court’s order granting

summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable

inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Doe v. Kidd, 501 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128

S. Ct. 1483 (2008). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings,

the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322

(1986). With these standards in mind, we have thoroughly reviewed

the briefs and the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court

Thornton v. Mukasey, No. 1:06-cv-00397-GBL (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 27,

2007; entered Aug. 29, 2007). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
- 4 -

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

 AFFIRMED
Subject: Meeting with Holcim Cement to Discuss Portland Cement NESHAP

Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Research Triangle Park, NC Date: November 3, 2009 Participants: Holcim Hector Ybanez, Holcim U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Keith Barnett, SPPD, OAQPS Elineth Torres Representatives of Holcim Cement met with EPA to discuss industry comments on the the IS IS Model.
Before the Second Division,

June 28, 1940

No. 44050.

#### Protests 394950-G, etc., of Central Madeira Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Princess lace similar to that involved in *United States*v. *Case*(20 C. C. P. A. 185, T. D. 45979) was held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CALVIN HORTON, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 98 *N. J. Super.*258.

*Mr. Walter B. Gottsehalle*for the petitioner.

*Mr. James A. Tumulty, Jr.*and *Mr. William J. Gunnane*for the respondent.

March 26, 1968.

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5001]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,499]


Eaton Corporation, Engine Air Management Operations; Belmond, IA; 
Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration

    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative 
reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance for workers at Eaton Corporation, Engine Air 
Management Operations, Belmond, Iowa. The application did not contain 
new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was 
erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration 
of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the 
application was issued.

TA-W-60,499; Eaton Corporation, Engine Air Management Operations, 
Belmond, Iowa (March 8, 2007).

    Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of March 2007.
Ralph DiBattista,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-5001 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
No. 49197.

#### Protest 103427-K of Leo Uhlfelder Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the hearing the collector’s reply to the protest was received in evidence. From an examination of the record it was found no evidence was presented to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action. The protest was therefore overruled.
EXHIBIT 32  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 Annualy  Report of Crown Marketing   (the "Company") on Form  10-K for the year ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof  (the "Report"),  I, Learned Hand, Chief Executive and 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 and 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.   September 28, 2012 /s/ Learned Hand Learned Hand Chief Executive and Financial Officer (Principal Executive Financial Officer)  Date
#### In Re: Petition of Electors of Armstrong County. Henry Livengood et al., Appellants. In Re: Petition of Electors of Armstrong County.

Argued November 18, 1980,

before President Judge Crumlish and Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Rogers, Blatt and Palladino. Judges Mencer, Craig, MacPhail and Williams, Jr. did not participate.

*Robert J. Donahoe,*with him *Joseph D. Talarico, Manifesto, Doherty, Love*& *Talarico,*for appellants.

*201*John B. McCue, McCue, Bertocchi*& *Heim,*for appellees.

April 2, 1981:

Opinion by

President Judge Crumlish,

This is an appeal from an order of the Common Pleas Court of Armstrong County, In Re: Petition of Electors of Armstrong County (No. 1979-2126-Civil), ordering the Armstrong County Board of Elections to certify to the Court of Common Pleas for the purpose of audit, the pre-election campaign expense reports filed by the Democratic Election Campaign Committee on October 24, 1979 and the post-election campaign reports filed on November 30, 1979. (Docketed at 763 C.D. 1980.)

On November 6, 1979, there was an election in Armstrong County for a number of offices. A group of candidates from one party formed the Democratic Election Campaign Committee (DECC). After the election, a group of individuals, including certain unsuccessful candidates seeking offices won by individuals supported by DECC, filed a petition for audit and rule for an audit of the reports filed by DECC pursuant to the Campaign Expense Reporting Act (Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, *as amended,*added by Section 2 of the Act of October 4, 1978, P.L. 893, *as amended,*25 P.S. §3241 *et seq.).*

Having granted appellant permission to appeal pursuant to 42 Pa C. S. §702 (Docketed at No. 344 Misc. Dkt. No. 2), the above appeals were consolidated and the motion to quash was argued at the same time as the arguments on the merits.

After hearing, we deny appellee’s motion to quash. In .addition, we agree with the decision of the court below in finding good cause for an audit. Unable to improve upon the analysis provided by President Judge House, we adopt his able opinion.

Affirmed.

*202Order

The Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County Order of March 20, 1980 (No. 1979-2126-civil) is affirmed, and the case remanded to the court below for further proceedings pursuant to the campaign Expense Reporting Act, 25 P.S. §3541 *et seq.*

Judge Wilkinson, Jr., concurs in the result only.

This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge Wilkinson, Jr.
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Rio Vista Energy Partners L.P. ("Rio
Vista")  on  Form  10-Q  for  the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned,  Richard  Shore,  Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Rio Vista GP LLC,
the  general  partner  of  Rio  Vista  and Ian T. Bothwell, Treasurer (Principal
Accounting  and Finance Officer) of Rio Vista GP LLC, the general partner of Rio
Vista,  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 Rio Vista.

                                              /s/  Richard  Shore,  Jr.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Richard  Shore,  Jr., Chief Executive
                                        Officer of Rio Vista GP LLC, the
                                        general partner of Rio Vista Energy L.P.
                                        May 20, 2005


                                              /s/  Ian  T.  Bothwell
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Ian T. Bothwell, Treasurer (principal
                                        accounting and financial officer) of Rio
                                        Vista GP LLC, the general partner of Rio
                                        Vista Energy L.P.
                                        May 20, 2005
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 10797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4231]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7805]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Loans From the Tsolozidis Collection''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Loans from the Tsolozidis Collection'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a 
loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine 
that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, from on or about March 12, 
2012, until on or about March 12, 2013, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: February 10, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-4231 Filed 2-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4644 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4644

   To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to increase 
 funding for stormwater management for Atlanta, Georgia, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 9, 2024

Mr. Ossoff (for himself and Mr. Warnock) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to increase 
 funding for stormwater management for Atlanta, Georgia, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``City of Atlanta Water Infrastructure 
Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, ATLANTA, GEORGIA.

    Section 219(e)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334; 136 Stat. 3817) is 
amended by striking ``$75,000,000'' and inserting ``$100,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```