alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8544)

#### United States v. Air Clearance Ass’n, Inc.

Entry No. 908352.

(Decided February 21, 1956)

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

*John D. Rode*for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The question of the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain merchandise covered by this appeal for a reappraisement is before the court for decision.

The respective parties have submitted said appeal upon a stipulation of fact to the effect that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption 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, including 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, is as follows:

> As to invoice marked in green ink “Inv. #1”

> each.

> 100 Soup Spoons round Ig.- 19.25 D. Kr.

> 24 Cake knives with steel_ 19.50

> 12 Cheese ” ” ” _ 16.35

> 12 Salad sets, large- 83.00

> 48 Oyster forks_ 12.25

> 72 Demitasse spoons_ 6.40

> 12 Sandwich servers (ice spade)_38.25

> 12 Sugar-tongs_18.15

> 48 Dressing ladles (cream)_ 12.00

> 200 Salt spoons_ 3.00

> 24 Vegetable spoons pear shaped_36.00

> all prices, net, packed

> *531As to invoice marked in green ink “Inv. #2” each

> 50 Dinner knives usual_ 16.50 D. Kr.

> 50 Luncheon forks_ 19.15

> 50 Salad forks_ 15.50

> 50 Tea spoons large_ 13.65

> 50 Dessert spoons_ 19.15

> 50 Fruit knives_ 10.35

> 50 Dinner knives large_ 18.00

> 50 Dinner forks_24.15

> 50 Salad forks_ 15.50

> 50 Tea spoons large_ 13.65

> 50 Butter spreaders_ 14.00

> 50 Tea spoons usual_ 10.00

> all prices, net, packed

It was further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation thereof.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the involved merchandise and that such value is as shown in the preceding paragraph of this decision.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3122

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Timothy G. Ossana

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

____________

 Submitted: June 8, 2015

Filed: June 11, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Following a prior felon-in-possession conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1),

Timothy G. Ossana twice appealed a crime-of-violence determination under U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). In United States v. Ossana

(Ossana I), 638 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2011), we held the initial federalsentencing record

insufficient to determine whether a prior Arizona aggravated assault conviction
qualified as a crime of violence. The underlying Arizona statute was overinclusive

and the record did not establish which subpart of the statute supported Ossana's

conviction. On remand, the district court expanded the record, applied the modified

categorical approach, and found the Arizona conviction qualified as a crime of

violence. We affirmed. See United States v. Ossana (Ossana II), 679 F.3d 733 (8th

Cir. 2012). 

After Ossana served his term of incarceration for that initial 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1) conviction, authorities again discovered him in possession of a firearm. 

He pleaded guilty in the present case to another § 922(g)(1) violation and, again,

argued that the same underlying Arizona conviction did not qualify as a crime of

violence. The district court rejected the argument and sentenced him pursuant to

1

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A). Ossana appeals.

Ossana does not rely upon newly developed law nor does he point to a statecourt record different from that presented in Ossana II. We addressed the

2

classification of the same Arizona conviction in depth in Ossana II, and Ossana raises

no new evidence nor arguments to cast doubt upon our prior holding or require a

different result. The district court in the present case properly determined that the

Arizona conviction qualifies as a crime of violence. 

We affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States DistrictJudge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri.

Ossana cites Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), but does not

2

explain how it changes the analysis from that employed in Ossana II. Having

reviewed Descamps, we do not find that it requires a different result in this appeal.

-2-
EX-10.17



 Exhibit 10.17 

THIRD AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of the last date of execution by both parties (the
“Effective Date”), by and between PFENEX INC., a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”), and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (“Bank”). 

RECITALS 
 WHEREAS,
Borrower is currently indebted to Bank pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Credit Agreement between Borrower and Bank dated as of May 1, 2012, as amended from time to time (“Credit Agreement”). 

WHEREAS, Bank and Borrower have agreed to certain changes in the terms and conditions set forth in the Credit Agreement and have agreed to
amend the Credit Agreement to reflect said changes. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree that the Credit Agreement shall be amended as follows: 
 1. Section 2.6 is hereby deleted
in its entirety, and the following substituted therefor: 
 “SECTION 2.6. INCOME TAX RETURNS. Except as disclosed to Bank in writing no
later than November 21, 2014, Borrower has no knowledge of any pending assessments or adjustments of its income tax payable with respect to any year.” 

2. Section 5.3 is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following substituted therefor: 

“SECTION 5.3. LEASE EXPENDITURES. Incur operating lease expense in any fiscal year in excess of an aggregate of $850,000.00.” 

  
 -1- 








 3. Except as specifically provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement
remain in full force and effect, without waiver or modification. All terms defined in the Credit Agreement shall have the same meaning when used in this Amendment. This Amendment and the Credit Agreement shall be read together, as one document. 

4. Borrower hereby remakes all representations and warranties contained in the Credit Agreement and reaffirms all covenants set forth therein.
Borrower further certifies that as of the date of this Amendment there exists no Event of Default as defined in the Credit Agreement, nor any condition, act or event which with the giving of notice or the passage of time or both would constitute any
such Event of Default. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first
written above. 
  

									
	PFENEX INC.				 WELLS FARGO BANK,
 NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION

					
	By:		/s/ Bertrand Liang				By:		/s/ Linda K. Schneider
			BETRAND LIANG,						LINDA K. SCHNEIDER,
			CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER						RELATIONSHIP MANAGER
					
	Date:		12/11/14				Date:		12/11/2014


  
 -2-
#### SPA FLYING SERVICE, INC. and Jess P. Kimball, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, J. Lynn Helms, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Joseph A. Kovarik, Regional Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, John E. Hemmert, Jr., Chief, Little Rock GADO-Federal Aviation Administration, James W. Butler, Inspector, Federal Aviation Administration, Appellees.

No. 83-2106.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 30, 1983.

Decided Jan. 5, 1984.

*96Paul R. Bosson, Hot Springs, Ark., for appellants.

W. Asa Hutchinson, U.S. Atty., Larry R. McCord, Asst. U.S. Atty., Fort Smith, Ark., for appellees.

Before HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and John R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Spa Flying Service, Inc. (“Spa”) appeals from dismissal with prejudice of its complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Federal Aviation Administration had subpoenaed Spa’s financial records from its bank. Suing under the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, 12 U.S.C. § 3401*et seq.,*Spa claimed protection from such governmental intrusion. The district court found, however, that the Act does not protect corporations. The single issue stated on appeal is whether the Act applies to corporations. We affirm.

The Act requires that before financial institutions disclose their customers’ records to the government, a proper administrative subpoena must reasonably describe the records and the customer must authorize disclosure. 12 U.S.C. § 3402. Legislative history of the Act suggests that this provision mediates between society’s interest in law enforcement and customers’ interest in privacy. 1978 U.S.Code, Cong. & Ad.News, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., 9305.

The Act’s definitions preclude protection of corporate financial records. The “Customer” who must authorize disclosure is “any *person*or authorized representative of that person who utilized or is utilizing any service of a financial institution * * 12 U.S.C. § 3401(5). “Person” means “an individual or partnership of 5 or fewer individuals.” 12 U.S.C. § 3401(4) (emphasis added). Thus, the Act unambiguously limits its protection to customers and small partnerships. In response, Spa observes that the presumption governing definitions in the United States Code provides that “person” includes corporations unless the context of the Act requires otherwise. 1 U.S.C. § 1. In this case, however, the negative inference arising from the Act’s definitions is unmistakable: corporations are excluded because they are not specifically enumerated.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23























Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (No. 333-10981) on Form S-3 of Patriot National Bancorp, Inc. of our reports dated March 15, 2010 relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Patriot National Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.  Our report dated March 15, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements includes an emphasis paragraph relating to an uncertainty as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.








/S/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP





New Haven, Connecticut


March 15, 2010
**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 PATRIOT NATIONAL BANCORP, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Michael A. Carrazza and Joseph D. Perillo, the Principal Executive Officer and the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Michael A. Carrazza                                                                            |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael A. Carrazza                                                                                |
|   | Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief

Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
|   |                                                                                               |
|   | /s/ Joseph D. Perillo                                                                              |
|   | Joseph D. Perillo                                                                                  |
|   | Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)                                             |

 

Date: April 29, 2019

 

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.
#### William Hicks v. The People.

The preceding case of *Washburn v. The People,*affirmed.

An information for incest, which charges the crime to have been.committed with one H.} “ she, the said H., being then and there the daughter ” of the accused, is sufficient, without also averring, in the words of the statute, that tlie parties were “within the degrees of consanguinity within which mamage® ure prohibited, or declared by law to be incestuous and void.”

*Heard May 3d.*

*Decided July*18th.

Error to Washtenaw Circuit.

*396*O. ITawMns-,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. JJpson, Attorney General,*for the People.

Christiancy J.:

The same objections are urged to the information and' its verification in this case as in the case of *Washburn v. The People*argued and submitted with this. The opinion in that case- decides the present,, so far as these questions are involved.

The information is for incest, and charges that the defendant “did commit the crime of fornication with one Harriet A. Hicks, by having carnal knowledge- of the body of her, the said Harriet A. Hicks, she the said Harriet A. Hicks being then and there the daughter of the said William Hicks.”

It is assigned as error that the information does not allege, in the language of the statute creating the offense *{Comp. L.*§5870), that the defendant and the said Harriet A. Hicks were “ within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are prohibited, or declared by law to be incestuous and void.” This was clearly unnecessary. It being charged that the offense was committed with a daughter of the defendant, it is but a conclusion of law that the parties were within the prohibited degrees of relationship. By reference to Compiled Laws §.3206, it will be seen that no man is allowed to marry his daughter; and by the next section, that no woman is permitted to marry her father. This is a public law of which courts are bound to take notice. The statute creating the offense here charged uses-the words “ within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are prohibited,” &c., as descriptive of the class of persons to whom it applies,-, and- merely for the sake of brevity, to avoid the necessity of' enumerating specifically all the different degrees of relationship to- which the provision is intended to apply.

*397There is no error in the judgment or proceedings of the Circuit Court, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Martin Ch. J. and Mannn<j J. concurred.

Campbell J.

dissented on the same grounds as in the case of *Washburn v. The*People, but concurred upon the other point.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Elderwatch, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Allan Weiss, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



By/s/ Brant Hodyno

Brant Hodyno

Chief Financial Officer



Date:  May 12, 2006
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                            |  |               
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|Legal Name                                                  |  | Country       
|Websense International Limited                              |  | Ireland       
|Websense Holdings International Limited                     |  | Ireland       
|Websense Japan K.K.                                         |  | Japan         
|Websense Canada, Inc.                                       |  | Canada        
|Websense Mauritius                                          |  | Mauritius     
|Websense SC Holdings Limited                                |  | United Kingdom
|Websense SC Operations Limited                              |  | United Kingdom
|Websense UK Limited                                         |  | United Kingdom
|Websense France S.A.R.L.                                    |  | France        
|Websense Italy S.r.l.                                       |  | Italy         
|Websense Brazil Gerenciamento e Segurance de Internet Ltda. |  | Brazil        
|Websense Deutschland GmbH                                   |  | Germany       
|Websense (Australia) Pty. Ltd.                              |  | Australia     
|Websense Software Services India Private Limited            |  | India         
|Websense Network Security Technology R&D (Beijing) Co. Ltd. |  | China         
|Websense BV                                                 |  | Netherlands   
|PortAuthority Technologies, Inc.                            |  | United States 
|Security Software Websense Israel Ltd.                      |  | Israel        
|SurfControl, Inc.                                           |  | United States 
|SurfControl Limited                                         |  | United Kingdom
|SurfControl China Limited                                   |  | United Kingdom
|SurfControl GmbH (Austria)                                  |  | Austria       
|SurfControl (Israel) Limited                                |  | United Kingdom
|SurfControl (Canada) Limited                                |  | United Kingdom
|SurfControl (Japan) Limited                                 |  | United Kingdom
|Websense Hosted R&D Limited                                 |  | United Kingdom
|SurfControl (UK) Limited                                    |  | United Kingdom
|SurfControl Pty. Ltd.                                       |  | Australia     
|Websense Overseas Limited                                   |  | United Kingdom
|Beijing SurfControl Network Security Co. Ltd.               |  | China         
|SurfControl S.A.R.L.                                        |  | France        
|Karabunga, Inc.                                             |  | United States
No. 51467.

#### Protests 116023-K, etc., of General Fire Extinguisher Co., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 64180.

protests 59/13242 and 59/21863 (San Francisco).

#### N. E. Vacakis Company and Criterion Bead & Novelty Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The protests were dismissed.
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 Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Liu Bo, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.





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.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and 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.





Date:
      January 15, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Liu BoLiu
      Bo
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              (principal
      executive officer)
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

JAMES ARTHUR HAROLSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2068 DFL KJM P

vs.

 CLAIRE TESKE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 6, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither party has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02068-DFL -KJM Document 35 Filed 08/04/06 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 6, 2006 are adopted in full; and 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: 8/3/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02068-DFL -KJM Document 35 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: February 1, 2010
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) and Chairman/s/ Brenda AgiusBrenda AgiusChief Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer) and Secretary