alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 10779]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oregon (FEMA-1672-DR), dated 12/29/2006. *Incident:*
                         Severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides. *Incident Period:*
                         11/05/2006 through 11/08/2006. *Effective Date:*
                         12/29/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         02/27/2007.
 ADDRESSES: Submit Completed Loan Applications to: U.S. Small Business 
                        ( print page 2081)
                        Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 12/29/2006, private non-profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Clatsop, Hood River, Lincoln, Tillamook. *The Interest Rates are:* PercentOther (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.250Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10779. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008). Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. E7-482 Filed 1-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### United States *v.*J. C. Chambers

No. 6288.

Entry No. 5414.

Invoice dated Monterrey, Mexico, April 12, 1945.

Certified April 12, 1945.

Entered at Laredo, Tex., April 23, 1945.

(Decided June 27, 1946)

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Joseph E. Weil,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Cline, Judge:

This is a collector’s appeal for reappraisement of certain brooms imported from Mexico on April 21, 1945. The merchandise was invoiced as follows:

> *253Brooms, Type No. 701, 6 threads, painted handle-- 27 pesos per dozen

> Brooms, Type No. 850, 6 threads, painted handle-- 33 pesos per dozen

> Brooms, Type No. 200, 2 threads, painted handle.- 10 pesos per dozen

> Brooms, Type No. 100, 2 threads, painted handle_11 pesos per dozen

Tbe merchandise was entered and appraised at tbe above amounts, plus Mexican revenue and surtax stamps.

At tbe trial it was stipulated tbat tbe dutiable value is tbe export value on tbe date of exportation and tbat tbe export value was bigber tban tbe foreign value. It was further stipulated as follows:

> That the merchandise which appears on the invoice and which was entered and appraised as 5 threads, painted handles, number 701, at 27 pesos per dozen, Mexican currency, and the item 6 threads, painted handle, number 850, which was invoiced, entered and appraised at 33 pesos per dozen, Mexican currency, and the item of 2 threads, painted handle, number 200, invoiced, entered and appraised at 10 pesos per dozen, Mexican currency, and the item number 100, described on the invoice as 2 threads, painted handle, kitchenette, which was invoiced, entered and appraised at 11 pesos per dozen, Mexican currency, that the prices at which these various items at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, of 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 quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, 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: manufacturer’s number 701, at 29 pesos per dozen, Mexican currency; number 850 at 35 pesos per dozen, Mexican currency; number 200 at 11 pesos per dozen, Mexican currency; and number 100 at 12 pesos per dozen, Mexican currency, net, packed, plus .88 per cent tax.

On tbe agreed state of facts, I bold tbat tbe export value is tbe proper basis for appraisement of tbe merchandise and tbat sucb values are as follows:

> Brooms, Type No. 701_29 pesos per dozen, Mexican currency, plus .88 per cent tax

> Brooms, Type No. 850_35 pesos per dozen, Mexican currency, plus .88 per cent tax

> Brooms, Type No. 200_11 pesos per dozen, Mexican currency, plus .88 per cent tax

> Brooms, Type No. 100_12 pesos per dozen, Mexican currency, plus .88 per cent tax

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 58606.

protest 227771-K (New York).

#### Berg, Hedstrom & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
(Reap. Dec. 8248)

#### M. Grumbacher Z. Horikoshi & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 767482; 679.

(Decided August 20, 1953)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Mollison, Judge:

Tbe appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon tbe following stipulation of counsel for tbe parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement enumerated above are the same in all material respects as the issues involved in *UNITED STATES*v. *NEW YORK MERCHANDISE CO., INC.,*A. R. D. 17, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the invoices the subject of the above appeals for reappraisement, less the item of a buying commission of 5 % as shown on the invoice, are equal to the prices at the time- of exportation of the merchandise involved herein at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

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

*396On 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 appraised values, less the items of a buying commission of *5*per centum as shown on the invoices.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### JOHANNA KAPLAN AND SIDNEY KAPLAN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. KEITH HAINES, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued March 18, 1968

Decided April 1, 1968.

*Mr. Jerome S. Lieb*argued the cause for appellants *(Messrs. Harlcavy & Lieb,*attorneys; *Mr. Abraham I. Harlcavy*of counsel).

*Mr. William G. Bischof*argued the cause for respondent *(Messrs. Taylor, Bischof, Neutze & Williams,*attorneys).

Pee Cubiam.

The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons given in the majority opinion of Judge Lewis in the Appellate Division.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weinteatjb and Justices Jacobs, Eeancis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and Hane*man—7.*

*For reversal*— None.
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 Coca-Cola Embonor S.A., a Chilean
company and foreign private issuer (the "Company"), on Form 20-F for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andres Vicuna Garcia-Huidobro,
Corporate General Manager of the Company, do hereby 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) or15(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 Coca-Cola Embonor S.A. and will be retained by Corporate
General Manager and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.



By: /s/ Andres Vicuna Garcia-Huidobro
   -----------------------------------
   Name:  Andres Vicuna Garcia-Huidobro
   Title:  Corporate General Manager


June 25, 2004
(Reap. Dec. 9519)

#### E. Dillingham, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 0-1606.

(Decided October 7, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Speetor,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

This case came before me at Alexandria Bay, JST. Y. Plaintiff was not represented ¡by counsel. The president of the plaintiff corporation was in court and heard the proceedings.

*505Counsel for defendant caused the official papers to be introduced into evidence and stipulated that the merchandise of this appeal is the same as the 8-inch recorder paper of *E.*Dillingham, *Inc.*v. *United States,*41 Cust. Ct. 568, Reap. Dec. 9241, and similarly is packed 1,000 sheets to a box. It appearing that the issue here is the same in all material respects as the issue in the *E. Dillingham, Inc.,*case, *supra,*that record was incorporated in the record here.

On the basis of the facts in the incorporated case, the trial judge there held that 8-inch recorder paper, packed 1,000 sheets to a box, was freely offered for sale in Canada, and that the merchandise should be appraised on the basis of foreign value; that such foreign value for the 8-inch recorder paper, net, packed in boxes of 1,000 sheets each, f.o.b. Gananoque, Ontario, was $2.98, Canadian funds.

On authority of the decision in the incorporated case and the facts here of record, I find and hold that foreign value, as defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for appraisement of this merchandise, which is 8-inch recorder paper, packed 1,000 sheets per box; and that such value is $2.98, Canadian funds, per box of 1,000 sheets, net, packed, f.o.b. Gananoque, Ontario.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global Agri-Med Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Fleming, Acting Chief Executive 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, thatto 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/ Roger L. Fidler------------------------------------Roger L. Fidler,Chief Executive Officer

 

Date: September 1, 2005

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.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Motorvehicle use map. Colville National Forest, southwest area, Washington**
 
2011 | 2013| 2017
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28:C 72/8/SOUTHW./
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000906226
 
July 2, 2018
Exhibit 10.52

 

Schedule of Signatories to a Director Indemnification Agreement

 

	
Director
    	
 
    	
Effective Date
    
	
Affeldt,   Kathleen J.*
    	
 
    	
09/01/2014
    
	
Alden,   John W. *
    	
 
    	
04/03/2014
    
	
Atkins,   Betsy S. *
    	
 
    	
09/01/2013
    
	
Berges,   James G. *
    	
 
    	
07/02/2013
    
	
Bernasek,   Brian A.
    	
 
    	
07/02/2013
    
	
DeAngelo,   Joseph J. *
    	
 
    	
07/02/2013
    
	
Edgerley,   Paul B. *
    	
 
    	
07/02/2013
    
	
Jacobson,   Mitchell
    	
 
    	
07/02/2013
    
	
Klessel,   Lew
    	
 
    	
07/02/2013
    
	
Leav,   Peter A. *
    	
 
    	
09/05/2014
    
	
Ledford,   Gregory S.
    	
 
    	
07/02/2013
    
	
McNamee,   Patrick R. *
    	
 
    	
09/01/2013
    
	
Peffer,   Charles W. *
    	
 
    	
07/02/2013
    
	
Rubright,   James A. *
    	
 
    	
09/05/2014
    
	
Sleeper,   Nathan K.
    	
 
    	
07/02/2013
    
	
Zide,   Stephen M.
    	
 
    	
07/02/2013
    


 




*Current Board Member as of 03-17-2015
EX-10.1B



 Exhibit 10.1(b) 

June 1, 2014 
 J. E. Moody & Company LLC 

245 SW Birds Hill Road 
 Portland, Oregon 97219-8503 

Attention: John E. Moody 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear Mr. Moody: 

We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management
Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2015 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	JEM Master Fund L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	Commodity Advisors Portfolio L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 

 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of
this letter and returning it to the attention of Mrs. Alice Lonero at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any questions I can be reached at 212-296-1304. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:		 /s/ Alice Lonero

			 Alice Lonero

			Chief Financial Officer 
	
	J.E. MOODY & COMPANY LLC
		
	By:		 /s/ John E. Moody



			
		
	Print Name:		 John E. Moody


 AL/sr
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Rodriguez, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 506]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered August 24, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the court improperly refused to redact his statement to delete his three references to his having been previously incarcerated is without merit. Such references were inextricably interwoven with the defendant’s description of the events, and were necessary to complete the narrative of his version of the incident *(see, People v Cook,*42 NY2d 204; *People v Gines,*36 NY2d 932; *People v Rodriguez,*207 AD2d 917; *People v Campbell,*204 AD2d 474; *People v Lemma,*201 AD2d 669).

Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.
1

Appendix C3 TIMSS 2015 Main Study Added Survey Items

During the August 2014 international meeting of TIMSS National Research Coordinators, representatives from the 

participating countries agreed that additional questions would be added to the TIMSS student, teacher, and 

school background questionnaires. The general contents of these additional questions are summarized below, 

and the final wording will be released by the TIMSS International Study Center in September 2014 for 

incorporation into all main study TIMSS 2015 background questionnaires. 

Student Questionnaire – grades 4 and 8

About how often are you absent from school? Fill one circle only.

 Once a week 

 Once every two weeks

 Once a month

 Never or almost never

How often do you eat breakfast on school days? Fill one circle only

 Every day

 Most days

 Sometimes

 Never or almost never

Teacher Questionnaire – grade 4 and 8

Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Check one 

circle for each line. Agree a lot/Agree a little/Disagree a little/ Disagree a lot 

 There are too many students in the classes

 I have too much material to cover in class

 I have too many teaching hours

 I need more time to prepare for class

 I need more time to assist individual students

 I feel too much pressure from parents

 I have difficulty keeping up with all of the changes to the curriculum

 I have too many administrative tasks

School Questionnaire – grades 4 and 8

Does your school provide free breakfast for students? Check one circle only. 

 Yes, for all students

 Yes, for some students

 No, free breakfast is not provided

Does your school provide free lunch for students? Check one circle only. 

 Yes, for all students

 Yes, for some students

 No, free lunch is not provided 
2

A. Does your school provide a place where students can work on their schoolwork before or after 

school? Check one circle only. Yes/ No 

If Yes,

B. Is someone available to assist them with their schoolwork? Check one circle only.

School Questionnaire – grade 4 only

To what degree are the following health topics emphasized in your school?

Check one circle for each line. Very high/ High/ Medium/Low

 Washing hands

 Brushing teeth

 A healthy diet/nutrition

 Disease prevention

Asked of school principal:

What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? Check one circle only.

 Did not complete <Bachelor's or equivalent level—ISCED Level 6>

 <Bachelor's or equivalent level—ISCED Level 6>

 <Master's or equivalent level—ISCED Level 7>

 <Doctor or equivalent level—ISCED Level 8>

Do you hold the following degrees in educational leadership? Check one circle for each line.

Yes/No

 <Master's or equivalent level—ISCED Level 7>

 <Doctor or equivalent level—ISCED Level 8>
1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-2089

___________ Kenneth Bell; Cleophus Mack, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. State of Missouri, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 31, 2007 Filed: November 5, 2007

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Missouri prisoners Kenneth Bell and Cleophus Mack appeal the district court’s 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) preservice dismissal of their complaint. Upon de novo review, Cooper v. Schriro , 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (standard of review), we conclude dism issal was proper because the five-year limitations period had expired. SeeMo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4); Wallace v. Kato , 127 S. Ct. 1091, 1094 (2007) (holding § 1983 actions are character ized as personal-injury actions for purposes of determining which state statute of limitations to apply). However, we-2- modify the judgment to be with prejudice, see Botten v. Shorma , 440 F.3d 979, 980- 81 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice on statute of limitations grounds), and we a ffirm the judgment as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
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

PAUL LOUTZENHISER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1937 LKK PAN P

vs.

ALVARO C. TRAQUINA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. In view of the district court’s January 4, 2006, order staying this action as to

plaintiff’s claims against defendant Franklin, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that defendant Franklin’s December 20, 2005, motion to compel is denied without

prejudice. 

DATED: March 1, 2006. 

12

lout1937.mtcd

Case 2:04-cv-01937-LKK -PAN Document 70 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 4.2




	
  

  	
  Name of
  Company: WOWO LIMITED Number: Ordinary Share(s): -[no. of shares]- Issued to:
  [name of shareholder] Dated Transferred from: WOWO LIMITED Number Ordinary
  Share(s) -[no. of shares]- Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands
  Share capital is US$50,000 divided into 5,000,000,000 Ordinary Shares of a
  par value of US$0.00001 each THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT [name of shareholder] is
  the registered holder of [no. of shares] Ordinary Share(s) in the above-named
  Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof.
  Specimen GIVEN UNDER the common seal of the said Company on 2015. THE COMMON
  SEAL of the said Company was hereunto affixed in the presence of:
  DIRECTOR  

  






 












	
  

  	
  TRANSFER I (the
  Transferor) for the value received DO HEREBY transfer to (the Transferee) the
  shares standing in my name in the undertaking called WOWO LIMITED To hold the
  same unto the Transferee Specimen Dated Signed by the Transferor in the
  presence of: Witness Transferor
#### Robert Allred v. State.

182 So. 591.

Opinion Filed June 28, 1938.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1938.

*Thos. D. Beasley,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Cary D. Landis, Attorney General,*and *Tyrus A. Nor-wood,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

*658Per Curiam.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of manslaughter under an indictment charging him with the offense of murder in the first degree.

We have carefully considered the record filed here in the light of the arguments presented in the brief filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error and find no reversible error disclosed thereby. The indictment sufficiently charged murder in the first degree. The evidence was amply sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. The charges given by the court and complained of were without error.

So, the judgment should be, and is, affirmed.

So ordered.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.