alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 51745.

#### Protests 56813-K, etc., of Keuffel & Esser Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 63159.

#### D. A. Rosow, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/19974 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 46183.

#### Protests 37710-K, etc., of B. R. Anderson & Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In view of Abstract 45762 and the agreement of counsel that the ginger is not composed in chief value of manufactured sugar it was held not dutiable under the Sugar Act of 1937 as claimed.
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

The undersigned, Terence Yap, the Chief Financial Officer of CHINA SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

|1. | The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.                                                   

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 30th day of April 2009.

/s/ Terence YapTerence Yap 
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and will be retained by China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It 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.



---
April 18, 1946

No. 51033.

C. D. 983.

#### Protest 100610-K (b) of Marshall Field & Co.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.'
(Reap. Dec. 9545)

#### United States *v.*H. A. Gogarty, Inc., a/c A. H. Walter & Co. Inc.

Entry No. 806194.

(Decided November 20, 1959)

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

*Barnes, Richardson <£ Colburn*for tbe defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

This appeal to reappraisement was previously before me on submission by counsel after certain facts had been stipulated of record. The facts then stipulated sufficed to established that there was no foreign, export, or United States value for the merchandise. This made it necessary, under the law, to find that the basis of appraisement was cost of production of such or similar merchandise in the country of exportation, which was the Netherlands. The facts of record did not conform to the statutory requirement for determining cost of production. (Section 402(f), Tariff Act of 1930.) Therefore, I ordered the submission set aside and the case restored to calendar to give the parties opportunity to adduce necessary proofs. *United States*v. *H. A.*Gogarty, *Inc., a/c A. H. Walter & Co., Inc.,*42 Cust. Ct. 680, Reap. Dec. 9468.

The appeal has now been resubmitted on the following stipulation by counsel for the parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, that tbe stipulation heretofore filed herein, on March 9, 1959, be considered withdrawn, null and void.

> IT IS FURTHER HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by tbe undersigned, subject to tbe approval of the Court, that at tbe time of exportation of the involved merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not being freely offered for sale for home consumption in Holland or for export to the United States, or for sale in the United States, in accordance with the provisions of Section 402 (c), (d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

> *556That at the time of exportation thereof, the cost of production of such merchandise, as defined in Section 402(f) of said Act, was as shown in the annexed Schedule A attached hereto and made a part of this stipulation.

> That this appeal for reappraisement is submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Accepting tbis new stipulation as an agreed statement of facts, I find and hold that there is neither a foreign value nor an export value nor a United States value for the merchandise listed in schedule A, attached hereto and made a part of this decision; that cost of production, as defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for appraisement of such merchandise; and that for each of the several items of such merchandise, cost of production value is the value shown for that item on said schedule A.

The appeal is dismissed as to all other merchandise.

Judgment will enter accordingly.

> Schedule A

> Cost op Production Under Section 402(f), Tariff Act 1930

>
446 A.2d 677

#### Commonwealth v. Clemens, Appellant.

Submitted April 21, 1981.

Thomas Moribondo, for appellant; Gaele McLaughlin Barthold, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before WICKERSHAM, MONTEMURO and WATKINS, JJ.

Order affirmed.
```

[113th Congress Public Law 10]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 127 STAT. 445]]

Public Law 113-10
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To specify the size of the precious-metal blanks that will be used in 
   the production of the National Baseball Hall of Fame commemorative 
              coins. <<NOTE: May 17, 2013 -  [H.R. 1071]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SIZE OF PRECIOUS-METAL BLANKS.

    Section 3(a) of the National Baseball Hall of Fame Commemorative 
Coin Act (Public Law 112-152) <<NOTE: 31 USC 5112 note.>> is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``have'' and inserting 
        ``be struck on a planchet having a''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``have a'' and 
        inserting ``be struck on a planchet having a''.

    Approved May 17, 2013.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1071:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 159 (2013):
            Apr. 24, considered and passed House.
            May 7, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
================================================================================

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  Tamarack  Ventures,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.


Date:  June 23, 2004


/s/ Robert Reukl
----------------------------------
Robert Reukl, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)
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

      The  undersigned  hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that,  to
my  knowledge,  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September
30, 2004 of Universal Communication Systems,  Inc. (the "Company")  fully
complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information  contained in such
periodic report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial
condition and results of  operations  of the  Company as of, and for,  the
periods  presented  in such report.

Date:  January 13, 2005                         /s/ Michael J. Zwebner
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Michael J. Zwebner
                                                Chairman and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.1

                    Form of Section 906 Certification

                CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   AND
                 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


  In connection with the Annual Report of Mezzanine Investment
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Eric C. Bronk, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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.

/S/ Eric C. Bronk
_____________________________
Eric C. Bronk
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  March 27, 2003
Before the First Division,

July 6, 1939

No. 41795.

#### Protest 944177-G of John V. Carr & Son (Detroit).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

From the stipulation it was found that the merchandise is not of the character of blocks or sticks provided for in paragraph 406. The claim for free entry under paragraph 1803 was sustained as to certain items.
#### P. T. Malone, doing business under the name of P. T. Malone Horse Pullman Service, v. Jerry W. Carter, as Chairman and member of, Eugene S. Matthews, as member of, and W. B. Douglass, as member of, the Florida Railroad Commission.

182 So. 214.

Opinion Filed June 15, 1938.

*Julius F. Parker, Wm. J. Pruitt*and *Van C. Swearingen,*for Appellant;

*Theo T. Turnbull, Wm. P. Simmons, Jr., Leo P. Kitchen*and *Dan R. Schwartz,*for Appellees.

Buford, J.

This appeal brings for review order dismissing bill of complaint filed by the appellant against the Railroad Commission to enjoin the Commission from interfering with complainant’s operation as a carrier by truck for hire of race horses between a horse race track located in the City of Hialeah, Dade County, Florida, known as I-Iialeah Race Track, and Tropical Park Race Track located in Dade County, Florida, near the City of Coral Gables, over a route which is entirely within the corporation of Hialeah, Miami and Coral Gables, except a small portion which is in immediately adjacent suburban territory.

Hialeah is adjacent to Miami and Miami is adjacent to *819both Hialeah and Coral Gables. It is shown that each of the above mentioned municipalities by their respective legislative bodies regulate the business of carriage by truck for hire within their respective jurisdictions.

The bill of complaint shows that the principal place of business of the complainant is in Hialeah, Florida.

The order dismissing the bill of complaint was dated the 18th day of March, 1937.

It is not necessary for us to construe the meaning of Section 30, Chapter 14764, as it existed at that time because that section was amended by Chapter 18028, Acts of 1937, and Chapter 18029, Acts of 1937. The amendment to Section 30 of Chapter 14764 by Chapter 18028, *supra,*contained the following:

“Nothing in this Article contained shall be construed or applied to exempt from commission jurisdiction and control, persons, firms or corporations operating motor vehicles transporting race-horses and polo ponies for compensation unless both the point of origin and point of destination are within the corporate limits of the same city or town.”

The amendment to Section 30 of Chapter 14764 appearing in Chapter 18029, *supra,*contained the following:

“Nothing in this Article contained shall be construed or applied to exempt from commission jurisdiction and control, persons, firms or corporations operating motor vehicles transporting race horses and polo ponies for compensation unless both the point of origin and point of destination are within the corporate limits of the same city or town.”

So it appears that a reversal of the order of the Chancellor with directions that he now enter an order in conformity with the statute as it exists would mean that he should enter an order dismissing the bill of complaint, just what he has already done.

*820Other questions présented have been examined and found to be without merit in a case of this sort.

For the reasons stated, the decree will stand affirmed.

So ordered.

W-i-iitfield, Terrell, Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
(Reap. Dec. 10140)

#### S. H. Kress & Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 1006167.

(Decided January 15, 1962)

*Sharretts, Paley & Garter*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise consists of plastic artificial flowers exported from Hong Kong on or about March 10, 1960 and that said merchandise is not on the list of products, T.D. 54521, from which the application of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927 — 84th Congress, Second Session) is withheld.

> *514IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the price at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing appraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States was 44$ per dozen.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold 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 herein involved and that such value is 44 cents per dozen, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 10475)

#### The Tupman Thurlow Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 854.

(Decided April 4, 1963)

*G-lact & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

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

Olxvee, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement is before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

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

> 1. That the involved merchandise consists of beef in natural juices in 6 pound tins, exported from Argentina on October 1,1959.

> 2. That the involved merchandise is not identified on the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521) and accordingly appraisement was made under Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by said Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> 3. That on or about the date of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely sold or offered in the country of exportation for exportation to the United States; that on or about said date of exportation, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely sold or offered in the United States; that accordingly appraisement was made on the basis of constructed value as defined in Section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by said Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> 4. That the constructed value, as such value is defined in said Section 402(d) is $23.1934 per dozen tins, net packed.

> 5. That the above-entitled appeal may be submitted upon this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and issues described! hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove described, is constructed value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165), and hold that such statutory value for the merchandise is $23.1934 per dozen tins, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 59614.

protest 163390-K (St. Louis).

#### F. H. Kaysing *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures, valued at $2.50 or more each, the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 23.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of IceWEB, Inc., SEC File No. 333-162,393, and the related prospectuses of our audit report dated December 20, 2010 on the consolidated balance sheets of IceWEB, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 2010 and 2009 and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders deficit and cash flows for the years then ended which is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of IceWEB, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2010.   /s/ Sherb & Co., LLP Certified Public Accountants   Boca Raton, Florida December 29, 2010
EXHIBIT 32

 

Section 1350 Certifications

 

 

	I, Andrew K. Walker, certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Allied Bancshares, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 containing financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Allied Bancshares, Inc.

 

 

s/Andrew K. Walker                                                                  

President and Chief Executive Officer 

 

Date: May 14, 2004 

	I, Richard E. Bell, certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of Allied Bancshares, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 containing financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Allied Bancshares, Inc. 

 

s/Richard E. Bell                                                                       

Chief Accounting Officer and Chief Financial Officer 
Date: May 14, 2004

 

					

 

14

<PAGE>
#### EUGENE ALAN BUSH, Jr., *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. IRVING RIKER, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Messrs. Wise, Wise, Wichmann & Merich*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Riher, Danzig, Marsh & Scherer, Mr. Howard F. Casselman, Messrs. Stout & O’Hagan*and *Mr. D. Joseph DeVito*for the respondents.

March 12, 1962.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CHARLES THATCHER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2547 MCE CMK P

vs.

M. PENNER, MD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

By an order filed March 23, 2005, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and

return to the court, within thirty days, the USM-285 forms and copies of his complaint which are

required to effect service on the defendants. On April 12, 2005, plaintiff submitted the

completed summons, the completed USM-285 forms for M. Penner and Scott Kernan but failed

to file the completed USM-285 form for CSP Sacramento and four copies of the complaint filed

December 1, 2004. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the copy of the complaint

submitted by plaintiff on December 1, 2004; and

Case 2:04-cv-02547-MCE -CMK Document 7 Filed 04/27/05 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

2

2. Within thirty days, plaintiff shall submit to the court the completed USM-285

form for CSP Sacramento and four copies of the complaint filed December 1, 2004 required to

effect service. Failure to return the copies within the specified time period will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: April 22, 2005

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

/kf

that2547.8f 

Case 2:04-cv-02547-MCE -CMK Document 7 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 2
10_41DirectorCompPolicy




Exhibit 10.41
Compensation of Non-Employee Directors  
(currently consisting of all members of the Board of Directors other than Dave Davis) 
 
	
				
	 
	•
	 
	Each non-employee director will be paid annual cash compensation of $75,000.




 
	
				
	 
	•
	 
	The Lead Director will be paid additional annual cash compensation of $25,000.




 
	
				
	 
	•
	 
	The chair of the Audit Committee will receive additional annual cash compensation of $25,000.




 
	
				
	 
	•
	 
	All of these amounts are paid quarterly on or before the end of the quarter.
No. 47408.

#### Protest 983348-G of May Co. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

The testimony of the appraiser showed that the merchandise was entered July 19, 1938, and therefore should have been assessed as claimed. The protest was therefore sustained.