alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, April 19, 2007, 1 to 4 p.m., Friday, April 20, 2007, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and Saturday, April 21, 2007, 8 to 11 a.m. Central Time. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227, or (414) 231-2360. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, April 19, 2007, from 1 to 4 p.m.; Friday, April 20, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and Saturday, April 21, 2007, from 8 to 11 a.m. Central Time, at 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203. You can submit written comments to the Panel by faxing the comments to (414) 231-2363, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop 1006MIL, PO Box 3205, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3205, or you can contact us at                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     This meeting is not required to be open to the public, but because we are always interested in community input we will accept public comments. Please contact Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227 or (414) 231-2360 for more information.                 

The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues. 

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E7-4966 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Universal Food & Beverage Company (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Duane N. Martin, Director, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(signed) Duane N Martin

Duane N. Martin

Director, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

March 31, 2005
#### In the Matter of Steven Brown, Petitioner, v Kenneth K. Rohl, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 382]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, *inter alia,*(1) to review an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), dated July 18, 1995, which denied the petitioner funds in excess of the statutory limit to hire an expert pursuant to County Law § 722-c, and (2) to compel the court to grant funds consistent with the expert services required.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court’s determination with regard to County Law § 722-c is not reviewable by this Court *(see, Matter of Director of Assigned Counsel Plan of City of N.Y. [Bodek],*207 AB2d 307, *lv granted*85 NY2d 806).

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see, Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the *437relief sought. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
---

Exhibit 32

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

I, Mark Jensen, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal
Accounting Officer of MGN Technologies, Inc., 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 quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of MGN Technologies,
      Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2007 (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 MGN Technologies, Inc.                                                                   

Dated: May 21, 2007

| | /s/
      Mark Jensen               
| | ------------------------------------
| | Mark Jensen, Chief Executive Officer
| | and Principal 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 required by Section 906, has been provided to MGN
Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by MGN Technologies, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Exhibit 32


                Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

         The  undersigned,  who are the chief  executive  officer  and the chief
financial  officer of First South Bancorp,  Inc., each hereby certifies that, to
the best of his  knowledge,  the  accompanying  Form 10-KSB of the issuer  fully
complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934,  and that the  information  contained in the report fairly
presents,  in all  material  aspects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the issuer.

March 24, 2004
                                            s/Barry L. Slider
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Barry L. Slider
                                            Chief Executive Officer


                                           s/V. Lewis Shuler
                                           ---------------------------
                                           V. Lewis Shuler
                                           Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 10.6**

 

January 24, 2006

 

**VIA HAND DELIVERY**

 

Dear Doug,

 

This letter agreement between you and Websense, Inc. (the “Company”)confirms an amendment to the terms of your employment agreement of June 11,1999, between you and the Company (the “Employment Agreement”).  Under this letter agreement, a new paragraph “(d)”is hereby added to Section 5 of the Employment Agreement which paragraphreads as follows:

 

“(d)                           Notwithstandingthe foregoing, if the Company determines that any cash severance payment benefitpayable to you fails to satisfy the distribution requirement of Section 409A(a)(2)(A) ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), as a result of Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) ofthe Code, then the payment schedule will be modified as follows:  If acceleration of the benefit will avoidapplication of Section 409(a)(1) of the Code, then the Company willaccelerate the payment of the benefit to the minimum extent necessary so thatthe benefit is not subject to the provisions of Section 409A(a)(1) ofthe Code.  If acceleration of the benefitwould not avoid the application of Section 409A(a)(1) of the Code,however, then the Company will delay the benefit to the minimum extentnecessary so that the benefit is not subject to the provisions of Section 409A(a)(1) ofthe Code.  If any payments are delayed asa result of the previous sentence, all such delayed payments shall becomepayable in a lump sum on the first day they can be paid following thetermination date.  Thereafter, paymentswill resume in accordance with the payment schedule set forth in thisletter.  The Board may attach conditionsto or adjust the severance amounts paid to preserve, as closely as possible,the economic consequences that would have applied in the absence of these requirements;*provided, however*, that no suchcondition or adjustment shall result in the payments being subject to Section 409A(a)(1) ofthe Code.”

 

If this amendment of the Employment Agreement is acceptable to you,please sign below and return one original to me.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Gene Hodges

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

**AGREED:**

 

 
| Date:  | January 24, 2006 |   |   |   |
|--------|-----------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|   | Douglas  Wride        |   |

 

----
(Reap. Dec. 9540)

#### The American International Product Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 866.

(Decided November 13, 1959)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*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 plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject *545to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise the subject of the above entitled appeal to reappraisement is properly dutiable on the basis of American Selling Price as defined in Section 402(g) Tariff Act of 1930 as amended and that the said American Selling Price was as follows for the export period indicated.

> Item Export period Price

> Pas Sodium 1958 $1.90 per lb. less 1% net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal be deemed submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise herein involved, and that such value for the merchandise covered by the appeal herein, at the time of exportation heretofore indicated, was as hereinabove set forth in the stipulation of submission.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(V. D. 17)

#### Manhattan Novelty Corp. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 56536, etc.

(Decided June 29, 1955)

*Lane,- Young*<fc *Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Olivee, Chief Judge:

These matters are presently before me on a remand from a classification proceeding decided by the first division of this court in *Manhattan Novelty Corp. et al.*v. *United States,*33 Cust. Ct. 423, Abstract 58501. The judgment entered therein stated: “* * * that the matters be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).”

The' matters have been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the involved merchandise and that such values are as set forth in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof.

I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

The actions having been abandoned insofar as all other items of merchandise are concerned, to that extent they are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

> *364Schedule “A”

> 

> *365

> *366
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

THOMAS BURTON WATSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2615 GEB KJM PS

vs.

COUNTY OF SHASTA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee. Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 9,

2004. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that service of process occur

within 120 days of the filing of a complaint. There is no indication in the court’s file that

plaintiff has served his complaint upon defendants. Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

that plaintiff show cause within fifteen days of this order why this action should not be dismissed

without prejudice under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure.

DATED: April 25, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 wats2615.osc

Case 2:04-cv-02615-GEB -KJM Document 2 Filed 04/25/05 Page 1 of 1
SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
Post Office Box 26149
Richmond, VA 23260-6149
1-800-634-7928

SUN TRUST (LOGO)

MTG PRTNRSHP FINANCE CORP
C/O NORWEST BANK, MINN NA
11000 BROKEN LAND PARKWAY
COLUMBlUA, MD. 21044
ATN: LN ACCTING DEPT.
RE:ANNUAL SERVICING CERTIFICATION

In connection with the loans serviced by SunTrust Mortgage Inc. for MTG PRTNRSHP
FINANCE CORP, I, the  undersigned  officer,  hereby  certify the following as of
December 31, 1999:

*    All real estate taxes,  special assessments and any charges that may become
     a lien upon the  property and which  became due in the last  calendar  year
     have been paid.  This also  includes  verification  of payment  with taxing
     authorities for non-impound accounts.

*    For those loans with  escrow/impound  accounts for the payment of taxes and
     insurance,  sufficient  amounts are being collected  monthly to provide for
     payment of future amounts due.

*    All FHA insurance premiums or private mortgage insurance premiums,if
     applicable, have been paid and such coverage is in full force and effect.

*    All  properties  are  adequately  insured  against  casualty  loss and,  if
     applicable,  flood loss and we are in  possession  of the  original  hazard
     insurance and flood insurance policies.

*    Fidelity Bond coverage of $100,000,000  and Errors and Ommissions  coverage
     of $28,500,000  is adequate and in place and the  applicable  premiums have
     been paid.

*    All interest and/or monthly payment  adjustments for ARM and GPM loans have
     been made in accordance with the mortgage  terms.  Timely and proper notice
     of such changes was provided to to the mortgagor.

*    All property inspections have been completed according to the provisions of
     our Servicing Agreement, if applicable.

*    The P&I  custodial  account and any clearing  accounts are  maintained in a
     depository  institution  the  deposits  of which  are  insured  by the Bank
     Insurance Fund. The depository institution meets or exceeds the most recent
     financial rating requirements set forth by FNMA.

*    We have complied with all other provisions of the Servicing Agreement.

*    We are in compliance  with IRS  requirements  and all federal,  state,  and
     local laws for  reporting  the  receipt of  interest,  payment of fees,  or
     acquisition of properties.

*    To  the  best  of my  knowledge  and  upon  reasonable  investigation,  the
     servicing  of the  Mortgage  Loans  during  the  preceding  year  has  been
     conducted  in  compliance  with  all  other  provisions  of  the  Servicing
     Agreement(s)/Purchase  and  SaleAgreement(s)  barring  such  exceptions  as
     listed.  Any exceptions to this  certification  are listed on an attachment
     along with explanations concerning their completion. If none are listed, it
     should be considered that there are no exceptions.


BY:  Deborah D. Mobley
     (signature)


    DATE: March 23,2000

    Deborah D. Mobley, VP
    (name and title)
#### Rosa De Simone, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Frank De Simone, Deceased, Respondent, v Carl Frosina, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 1012]

—In an action to recover damages, *inter alia,*for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated December 19, 1994, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

This action, commenced more than three years after the causes of action accrued, should have been dismissed as time barred. Because statutory authorization existed for obtaining jurisdiction over the defendant by means other than personal delivery of the summons within this State, the tolling provi*411sion of CPLR 207 was unavailable to salvage the plaintiffs action *(see, Yarusso v Arbotowicz,*41 NY2d 516; *Rachlin v Ortiz,*133 AD2d 76). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Form 10-KSB/A1 of MEDIANET GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A1 for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James Dyas, Principle Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.


/s/ James Dyas
James Dyas
Director and
Principle Financial Officer


April 21, 2005
No. 49239.

#### Protest 74151-K of Philipp Bros., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was established at the trial that the drums in question were in bad condition at the time of importation and holes in same had been plugged with rags on the inside, that they were badly bent in handling, and that in removing the contents the heads of the drums were chopped off. It was further testified that the drums were, not capable of use again as drums and had no commercial value. From the testimony presented and following *Foster*v. *United States*(T. D. 47922) it was held that the metal drums in question are entitled to free entry as the usual containers of duty-free merchandise.
No. 60902.

#### Olympia Merchandising Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 290129-K (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
#### C. Richard Gardner et al., Appellants, v U.S. Air, Inc., Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 499]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated April 18, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, a New York City firefighter, injured his knee while participating in a rescue operation following the crash of U.S. Air flight 5050 at LaGuardia Airport on September 20, 1989.

*590The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff’s action is barred by New York’s so-called Fireman’s Rule *(see, e.g., Cooper v City of New York,*81 NY2d 584, 588-589; *Santangelo v State of New York,*71 NY2d 393, 396; *Kenavan v City of New York,*70 NY2d 558, 566; *Cottone v City of New York,*206 AD2d 345; *Billups v Wickers,*205 AD2d 723).

In addition, General Business Law § 245 (1), which provides, "No person shall operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of others,” does not trigger the statutory exception to the Fireman’s Rule contained in General Municipal Law § 205-a because General Business Law § 245 (1) is not concerned with the safety of premises, the avoidance of fire hazards, or the enhancement of building safety. Moreover, its violation, even if established, would not create more hazards than those that firefighters already face in performance of their profession *(see, e.g., Kenavan v City of New York, supra; June v Laris,*205 AD2d 166; *Myers v Watral,*191 AD2d 542; *Fióla v Korman,*189 AD2d 798; *Sutherland v Hallen Constr. Co.,*183 AD2d 887; *Lusenskas v Axelrod,*183 AD2d 244; *Johnson v Riggio Realty Corp.,*153 AD2d 485). Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Placeholder: confidential business information item

Arkema CBI Comment on 12-17-10

For more information please contact Da vid Donaldson by phone at 202-343-9086 or by email at donaldson.david@epa.gov

.