alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10149)

#### Den Va Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 47046.

(Decided January 23, 1962)

*Siegel, Mwndell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*William H. Orrieh, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

MollisoN, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement for decision upon stipulation reading as follows:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Oourt, that the merchandise involved in the above reappraisement consists of nylon shaving brushes and hairbrushes exported from France on or about September 5th, 1957.

> ¡That the foreign value as defined in Section 402(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as it existed prior to the effective date of the amendment of said Act by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, was the basis of the appraisement in the case at Bar, and is the proper basis for the determination of value of the merchandise involved herein and there was no higher export value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this stipulation is limited to items identified on the invoices as No. 337 1st item, and the last item *525on the invoice No. 208, both of which items were appraised at 191 fcs each brush, less 19.5%, less 2% plus cost of packing as stated on the invoice $43.00 TJ.S. dollars appraised in French francs in Category (2) T.D. 54428.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPUDATED AND AGREED that the prices at the time of exportation of said items to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of France in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade were as follows:

> Item No.

> 337_ 228 French francs category (2) less 19.50% less 2% plus the cost of packing in item marked (x) on invoice.

> 208_ 225 French francs category (2) less 19.50% less 2% plus the cost of packing in item marked (x) on invoice.

On the agreed facts, I find that foreign value, as defined in section 402(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as it existed prior to the effective date of the amendment of the said act by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved and that such value is as set forth in the last paragraph of the stipulation, quoted above.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 47914.

#### Protests 606735-G, etc., of Feltex Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) certain of the harvest hats in question were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and those imported or withdrawn from warehouse subsequent to the Netherlands Trade Agreement were held dutiable at 12)4 percent under paragraph 1504 and said T. D. 48075, as claimed.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of IceWEB, Inc., SEC File No. 333-183917, and the related prospectuses, of our audit report dated January 13, 2014 on the consolidated balance sheets of IceWEB, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 2013 and 2012 and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, changes in stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended September 30, 2013, which is included in Amendment No. 1 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of IceWEB, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2013. We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Experts” in the prospectus.

 

 

/s/ D’Arelli Pruzansky, P.A.

Certified Public Accountants

 

 

Boca Raton, Florida

January 28, 2014
### Issues on Packaged Heating Boilers as Discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

### Definitions and Scope of Coverage ethod ofAssembly - DOE proposes a definition underwhich boilers are covered whetherthey are factory assembled, assembled with manufacturer-specified components, or assembled with components not specified bythe manufacturer. Application - DOE proposes the rule would apply to all commercial boilers distributed, to any significant extent, for use in buildings for heating and space conditioning and service water heating. Capacity - DOE proposes the rule would apply to boilers with rated capacity > 300,000 Btu/h, with no upper limit.

,Operating Characteristics - DOE proposes the rule would include both low pressure and high pressure (operating pressure greaterthan 15 psig) packaged boilers.

### Test Procedure and Test Conditions

Low Pressure Boilers DOE proposes that a manufacturercould choose to use either the Hydronics Institute HI-1989 standard orthe simplified efficiency test method ofASME 

### PTe 4.1, with certain specified inlet and outerwatertemperatures for hotwater boilers.

### Test Procedure and Test Conditions High Pressure Boilers DOE proposes that a manufacturerwould use the simplified efficiencytest method ofASME 

### PTe 4.1, with provisions for steam pressure or hotwater outlettemperature (ofhotwater boilers) as specified by manufacturer's normal design point operating conditions.

### Test Procedure and Test Conditions
Boilers Designed for LowWaterTemperature Applications DOE proposes that a manufacturerwould use the Hydronics Institute HI -1989 standard for all low pressure steam and hot water boilers. No special provision for boilerwater inlet and outlettemperatures.

### Test Procedure and Test Conditions Condensing Boilers DOE proposes that a manufacturerwould use the Hydronics Institute HI -1989 standard for condensing boilers, with special provision made for boilerwatertemperature, and use ofthe steady state test method forflue condensate measurement as specified in ASHRAE standard 103-1993.

### Test Procedure and Test Conditions

Modular Boilers and Multiple Boilers • DOE proposes modular boiler system with identical individual modules/boilers ofless than 400,000 Btu/h inputthat rating be based on test results for one module. • For multiple boiler systems, DOE proposes ifthe individual boilers in the system are ofdifferent design/make/model, each different design is considered to be a separate packaged boiler and rated individually.

### Test Procedure and Test Conditions
Steam and HotWater Boilers • DOE proposes that a manufacturer must rate a boiler designed for both steam and hotwater applications, based on testing as a steam boiler. • As an option, DOE would allow manufacturers to also rate the boiler in the hotwater mode, based on testing as a hotwater boiler.
Exhibit 10.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-73898 and 333-12208) on Form S-8 of our report dated February 24,
2005, (except for Note 22, as which the date is April 14, 2005), (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to
the plan for merger, legal proceeding against the company and the differences in
accounting with US GAAP), relating to the financial statements of Terra
Networks, S.A. and subsidiaries appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of
Terra Networks, S.A. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2004.







DELOITTE, S.L.
Madrid
April 14, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

PAUL NOBLE,

Petitioner

v.

PA BOARD OF PROBATION AND 

PAROLE,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 55 WM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2020, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 13a0662n.06

No. 12-4160

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ROSENDO BELTRAN-RODRIGUEZ;

MARGARITA NUNEZ-BELTRON,

Petitioners,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW

FROM THE UNITED STATES

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION

APPEALS

BEFORE: BOGGS and SILER, Circuit Judges; DOWD, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. Rosendo Beltran-Rodriguez and Margarita Nunez-Beltron petition for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed an immigration judge’s

(IJ) order of removal.

The petitioners are natives and citizens of Mexico. They entered the United States in 1997,

and removal proceedings were initiated against them in 2002. The petitioners moved to suppress

the I-213 forms that set forth the factual basis for their removability. The IJ denied the motion

without a hearing and ordered the petitioners removed to Mexico.

On appeal, the petitioners raise two arguments: (1) the IJ erred by refusing to conduct a

suppression hearing and refusing to exclude the I-213 forms on the basis that the petitioners were

The Honorable David D. Dowd, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District *

of Ohio, sitting by designation.
No. 12-4160

Beltran-Rodriguez v. Holder

interviewed by the arresting officer in violation of both 8 C.F.R. § 287.3(a) and their right to due

process; and (2) the IJ lacked jurisdiction over the case because the notices to appear did not contain

the time and date of the hearing as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). Where, as here, the BIA

does not summarily affirm or adopt the IJ’s reasoning and provides an explanation for its decision,

we review the BIA’s decision as the final agencydetermination. Ilic-Lee v. Mukasey, 507 F.3d 1044,

1047 (6th Cir. 2007). To the extent that the BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning, we also review the IJ’s

decision. Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). We review legal conclusions de

novo. Khozhaynova v. Holder, 641 F.3d 187, 191 (6th Cir. 2011).

The BIA properly affirmed the IJ’s denial of the suppression motion because 8 C.F.R.

§ 287.3(a) does not create any enforceable substantive or procedural rights for a party in a civil or

criminal proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 287.12; Navarro-Chalan v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir.

2004). Further, the arrestingofficer’s interview of the petitioners was not an egregious constitutional

violation that resulted in fundamental unfairness. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1050-

51 & n.5 (1984); Miguel v. INS, 359 F.3d 408, 411 n.3 (6th Cir. 2004). The BIA also properly

determined that the alleged deficiencies in the notices to appear did not deprive the IJ of jurisdiction

because the petitioners were subsequently notified in writing of the time and date of the hearing. See

Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890, 895-96 (9th Cir. 2009); Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 359

(5th Cir. 2009); Dababneh v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 806, 809 (7th Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

-2-
No. 59595.

petition 7174-R (Chicago).

#### Davies, Turner & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

An examination of the official papers showing that the petition was not filed until after the expiration of 60 days from the date of liquidation, the petition was dismissed.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5013 

To make certain modifications to the repayment for the Arkansas Valley 

Conduit in the State of Colorado. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 

Mr. BENNET (for himself and Mr. HICKENLOOPER) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To make certain modifications to the repayment for the 

Arkansas Valley Conduit in the State of Colorado. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Finish the Arkansas 

5 Valley Conduit Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT, COLORADO. 

7 Public Law 87–590 (76 Stat. 389) is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (c) of the first section (76 

9 Stat. 390; 123 Stat. 1320), in the second sentence— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5013 IS

1 (A) by inserting ‘‘, without interest,’’ be2 fore ‘‘in an amount’’; 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘that is comprised of rev4 enue generated by payments’’ and inserting ‘‘, 

5 which payment shall only consist of funding 

6 provided during construction from any person 

7 other than the Secretary’’; 

8 (C) by inserting ‘‘of’’ before ‘‘revenue 

9 that’’; and 

10 (D) by inserting ‘‘over a period of 100 

11 years’’ after ‘‘project facilities’’; and 

12 (2) in section 2(b)(3)(A) (76 Stat. 390; 123 

13 Stat. 1321)— 

14 (A) by striking ‘‘plus interest’’; and 

15 (B) by striking ‘‘this section’’ and insert16 ing ‘‘subsection (c) of the first section’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Tuesday April 28, 2015 meetings with Navajo Nation 2:00 and 3:00 pm 

In person

Navajo Nation/Visitors

Stephen Etsitty

Harrison Tsosie 

April Quinn

Jim Staudt

Jill Grant

Bethany Fisher

Derek Dyson

Greg Jones

Simon Boyce

Anthony Peterman

Eugenia Quintana

Raju Bisht

Kelly Barr – SRP (2:00 pm only)

Jim Pratt –SRP (2:00 pm only)

Bob Roessel – SRP (2:00 pm only)

EPA

Janet McCabe (3:00 pm only)

William Niebling

Joe Goffman (2:00 pm only)

Pat Childers (2:00 pm only)

Phone

Navajo Nation/Visitors

Greg Kelly

Sam Woods

Martin Ashley

Michelle Henry

Arbin Mitchell

Bidtah Becker

David Palumbo (US BOR) (3:00 pm 

only)

EPA Region 9

Amy Zimpfer

Ann Lyons

Anita Lee

Deborah Jordan

OAR - OAQPS and OGC

Greg Green 

Chebryll Edwards 

Angela Hackel 

Melanie King 

Kevin Culligan 

Nate Topham 

Rick Vetter - OGC
Exhibit 32.1
 
 Certificate of Chief Executive Officer
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As adopted pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American Surgical Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Zak Elgamal, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 the best of his knowledge:
  1.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2.      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition at the end of the period covered by the Report and result of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
  /s/ Zak Elgamal
 Zak Elgamal
 Chief Executive Officer
  November 19, 2010
  This certificate accompanies this Report pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
AFS-13-240-E

March 19, 2013

Exemption No. 10725

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0184

Mr. Jeffrey S. Gruber

Associate Professor/Program Coordinator

Columbus State Community College

5355 Alkire Road

Columbus, OH 43228

Dear Mr. Gruber:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated February 19, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Columbus State Community College (CSCC) for an exemption from § 65.75(a) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would permit 

CSCC to administer the aviation mechanic general (AMG) written test to students immediately 

following successful completion of the general curriculum, prior to meeting the experience 

requirements of 14 CFR § 65.77.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in 

the Federal Register. The requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in 

acting on this petition would be detrimental to Metro Technology.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 6569 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that testing immediately after learning was a universally accepted instructional principle 

that reinforces learning. 

Therefore, we allowed the petitioner to test students immediately after successfully completing 

the general curriculum but before meeting the requirements of § 65.77.
2

AFS-13-240-E

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioners in the enclosed grants of 

exemption;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemptions also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Columbus State Community College an exemption from 

14 CFR § 65.75(a) to the extent necessary to:

Administer the AMG written test to students immediately following successful 

completion of the general curriculum, before meeting the experience requirements 

of § 65.77.

Conditions and Limitations 

Before exercising the privileges of this exemption, Columbus State Community 

College must provide its operations handbook to its certificate holding district 

office (CHDO) and receive approval of the operations handbook from the 

CHDO.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Deputy Director, Flight Standards

 Service

Enclosures
March 2, 1951

No. 55295.

Suit 4621.

#### United States *v.*Charles R. Allen, Inc., et al.

C. D. 1162 reversed February 2, 1950, without approving the collector’s classification. C, A. D. 428.
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent tothe incorporation by reference in Fidelity D & D Bancorp, Inc.’s AnnualReport on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of ourreport dated March 13, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statementsof Fidelity D & D Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2006 and2005, and for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,2006, which report appears in the Registrant’s Annual Report to Shareholdersfor the year ended December 31, 2006.

** **

****

** **

** **

Scranton, Pennsylvania

March 13, 2007

79

----
/Letterhead/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        BIERWOLF NILSON & ASSOCIATES
 A PARTNERSHIP          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 OF PROFESSIONAL          1453 SOUTH MAJOR STREET    NEPHI J. BIERWOLF, CPA
 CORPORATIONS            SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115      TROY NILSON, CPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------





                  Consent of Bierwolf Nilson & Associates
                            Independent Auditors




     We consent to the use, of our report dated September 24, 2001, on the
financial statements of Aden Enterprises, Inc., dated June 30, 2001
included herein and to the reference made to me.





/S/ Bierwolf, Nilson & Associates
Salt Lake City, Utah
September 28, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            1200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1200
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           504
<OTHER-SE>                                        1596
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1667
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   433
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    433
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       433
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Kelly, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 845]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.), rendered November 22, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly refused to charge manslaughter in *662the first degree as a lesser included offense of murder in the second degree since there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support submitting the lesser charge to the jury *(see,*CPL 300.50 [1]; *People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61; *People v Green,*56 NY2d 427). Unrefuted eyewitness testimony established that the defendant pulled out his gun, aimed it at the head of the person with whom he was arguing, and fired a single shot at close range, missing his target but hitting the victim in the head. According to the defendant’s statement to the police, he pulled out his gun, stated “you’re played out” to the person with whom he was arguing, and fired a single shot. Thus, the trial court properly determined that the evidence did not support a finding that the defendant intended to cause serious physical injury rather than death *(see, People v Evans,*192 AD2d 671; *People v Rielly,*190 AD2d 695; *People v Green,*143 AD2d 768; *People v Burke,*73 AD2d 627).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.