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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 09/79-0450]

                    Notice is hereby given that Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P., 2425 Olympic Blvd., Suite 6050W, Santa Monica, CA 90404, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2006)). Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity security financing to Meximerica Media, Inc., 115 E. Travis #800, San Antonio, TX 78205. The financing is contemplated for operating expenses and for general corporate purposes.                          ( print page 13341)    

The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Rustic Canyon Ventures, L.P. and Rustic Canyon/Fontis Partners, L.P., both Associates of Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P., collective own more than ten percent of Meximerica Media, Inc. Therefore, Meximerica Media, Inc. is also considered an Associate of Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P., as defined at 13 CFR 107.50 of the SBIC Regulations.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.

Jaime Guzmán-Fournier,

Associate Administrator for Investment.

 [FR Doc. E7-5082 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Before the First Division,

June 11, 1959

No. 63169.

#### King Shipping Company *v.*United States,

protest 58/18485 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1



FastenTech, Inc. and Subsidiaries



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the FastenTech, Inc. (the Company) Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Ronald B. Kalich, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael R. Elia,
Senior Vice President and Chief 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 our knowledge:



| | (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 results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                 |  |     |  |                        
|----- |  | --------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: |  | August 15, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Ronald B. Kalich   
|      |  |                 |  |     |  | Ronald B. Kalich       
|      |  |                 |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|      |  |                 | 
|Date: |  | August 15, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael R. Elia    
|      |  |                 |  |     |  | Michael R. Elia        
|      |  |                 |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
|      |  |                 |  |     |  | FastenTech, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 491 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 491

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require that online 
contributions to a political organization require a credit verification 
                                 value.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2023

  Mr. Rubio (for himself and Mrs. Blackburn) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require that online 
contributions to a political organization require a credit verification 
                                 value.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Codification of Verified Values 
Act'' or the ``CVV Act''.

SEC. 2. CVV REQUIREMENT FOR ONLINE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL 
              ORGANIZATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(m) CVV Requirement for Online Contributions.--An organization 
shall not be treated as an organization described in this section 
unless, in the case of any internet credit card contribution accepted 
by such organization, the individual or entity making such contribution 
is required, at the time such contribution is made, to disclose the 
credit verification value of such credit card.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to contributions made in taxable years beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 52067.

#### S. S. Kresge Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 952587-G, etc. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5051 

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the 

Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating Washington’s 

Trail—1753 as a national historic trail, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 

Mr. FETTERMAN (for himself, Mr. KAINE, and Mr. WARNER) introduced the 

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

A BILL 

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the 

Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the 

feasibility of designating Washington’s Trail—1753 as 

a national historic trail, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Washington’s Trail— 

5 1753 National Historic Trail Feasibility Study Act of 

6 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5051 IS

1 SEC. 2. WASHINGTON’S TRAIL—1753 NATIONAL HISTORIC 

2 TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY. 

3 Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 

4 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(50) WASHINGTON’S TRAIL—1753.—Washing7 ton’s Trail—1753, extending approximately 500 

8 miles from Williamsburg, Virginia, to Fort LeBoeuf 

9 (now Waterford), Pennsylvania, following the route 

10 taken by George Washington and his party on his 

11 diplomatic mission to the French on behalf of Vir12 ginia Governor Robert Dinwiddie from October 31, 

13 1753, to January 16, 1754, just prior to the start 

14 of the French and Indian War (1754–1763).’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(V. D. 87)

#### E. Leitz, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 907359, etc.

(Decided October 21, 1958)

*E. B. Pichrell*for the plaintiffs.

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

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *E. Leitz, Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*39 Cust. Ct. 358, Abstract 61030, and it has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation reading as follows:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the above remands of protest consists of Microscopes and Parts and Wooden Cabinets, containers for said microscopes and parts, which were the subject of a judgment and decision by the First Division of this Court in the case of *E. Leitz, Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Abstract 61030, on July 10, 1957, wherein it is stated “* * * and remand the matters, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, U. S. C. § 2636 (d), for further proceedings before a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the imported merchandise in the manner provided for by law.”

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the prices at which 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 were as follows:

*E. Leitz, Inc.*— -Remand of Protest 284934AK/5518-55



*465

IT IS PURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above remands of protest may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and I hold such dutiable value for each of the articles to be as hereinabove set forth in the stipulation of submission. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Minnie Gottlieb, Deceased. Lorraine Backal et al., Appellants; Susan G. Duberchin, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 826]

—In an accounting proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2210, the executrices appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Bloom, S.), dated May 8, 1991, as (1) adhered to a determination of the same court dated August 3, 1990, which, *inter alia,*directed them to return unauthorized commissions, limited their commissions to $7,500 each, and limited their compensation for legal services to $25,000, and (2) directed that they would be removed if they failed to comply with certain conditions.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting so much of the first decretal paragraph as adhered to the branches of the August 3, 1990, determination which limited the executrices’ commissions to $7,500 and legal fees to $25,000, and substituting therefor a provision vacating those branches of the August 3, 1990, determination; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, for a hearing and determination as to the amount of the executrices’ commissions, the nature of the legal services performed, and the reasonable value thereof.

The amount of executrices’ commissions is set by statute *(see,*SCPA 2307) and the statutory amount must be awarded in the absence of mathematical error in the computation or allegations of fiduciary misconduct *(see, Matter of Farone,*162 AD2d 828). In view of the factual issues presented with respect to the executrices’ alleged misconduct and the absence of any findings to support the amount of commissions awarded by the Surrogate, the matter must be remitted for a hearing and new determination of that issue.

*531In addition, a hearing is required on the executrices’ requests for legal fees. The record is inadequate to determine the basis for the Surrogate’s reduction of the legal fees requested. The Surrogate did not determine which of the services performed by the executrices were legal or executorial in nature, nor did he make findings in accordance with the criteria in *Matter of Freeman*(34 NY2d 1) *(see, Matter of Rees,*141 AD2d 649; *cf., Matter of Kelly,*187 AD2d 718).

The executrices’ contention that a hearing is required before they can be removed as fiduciaries is premature on this record as the order appealed from did not remove them as executrices.

We have examined the executrices’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Whiteco Metrocom Division of Whiteco Industries, Inc., Appellant, v Donald Lambert, as Chairman of the Planning Board of the Town of Brunswick, et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 640]

—Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Spain, J.), entered November 17, 1994 in Rensselaer County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition as untimely.

We affirm Supreme Court’s order holding that this CPLR article 78 proceeding, commenced December 30, 1993, was *751untimely. The time limitation for the filing thereof was triggered on August 12, 1992, the date when the minutes of respondents’ Planning Board meeting of June 18, 1992 were filed in the office of the Clerk of the Town of Brunswick in Rensselaer County. It was at this meeting where the pivotal determination herein—conditioning site plan approval for a strip mall to be constructed by a third party upon the removal of petitioners’ billboard—was made. Hence, this proceeding, commenced over a year and four months after the filing of respondents’ decision, was untimely pursuant to Town Law former § 274-a (3) (see, CPLR 217).

We reject petitioner’s contention that Supreme Court erred by failing to hold respondents in contempt of court for violating a temporary restraining order directing that the billboard be left in place pending the outcome of this proceeding. Viewing the record as a whole, it cannot be said that Supreme Court acted injudiciously in declining to sanction respondents *(see, Educational Reading Aids Corp. v Young,*175 AD2d 152; *Matter of Nestler v Nestler,*125 AD2d 836, 837).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
No. 46775.

#### Protests 586065-G, etc., of Ti Hang Lung & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) certain of the merchandise in question was held: (1) entitled to free entry as crude drugs under paragraph 1669, Tariff Act of 1930, or paragraph 1567, Tariff Act of 1922;. and (2) dutiable as drugs advanced at 10 percent ad valorem under paragraph 34, Tariff Act of 1930, or paragraph 34, Tariff Act of 1922. Apricot kernels w'ere held dutiable at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 762, Tariff Act of 1930, or paragraph 760, Tariff Act of 1922, following Abstract 34104. Protests sustained in part.
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 June 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




August 13, 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.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CRAIG R. WAITT, DEFGENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Messrs. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer*and *Mr. Stephen E. Barcón*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Vincent P. Keuper*and *Mr. Thomas L. Yaccarino*for the respondent.

April 30, 1968.

Denied.
Exhibit
31.2





CERTIFICATION





I, Danny
W Weibling, certify that:





1.  I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of International Monetary
Systems, LTD.;





2.  Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;





3.  Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.  The
small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:





a)  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under my supervision, to  ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;





b)  evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and





c)  disclosed
in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial
reporting; and





5.  The
small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





a)  all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design


or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and





b)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.





Date:
March, 31, 2008





By: /s/
Danny W
Weibling


Danny W
Weibling


Chief
Financial Officer
No. 51052.

#### Protests 13443-K, etc., of J. T. Steeb & Co., Inc. (Seattle).

*267Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that a portion of the merchandise in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A. D. 303). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry under paragraph 1705 was sustained.
#### Robert H. Herring v. State.

181 So. 892.

Opinion Filed June 8, 1938.

*Van C. Swearingen,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*659
      *Cary D.*Landis, Attorney General, and *Tyrus A. Nor-wood,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Buford, J.

This cause is before us on petition to define the period of ‘time which the defendant petitioner will be required to serve in the Florida State Prison.

The record shows petitioner was convicted of embezzlement in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County and sentenced on the 29th day of July, 1937, to serve a period of one year in the State Prison. He sued out writ of error to the judgment, but did not give bail, and remained in custody under the judgment and sentence incarcerated in the county jail until the 11th day of April, 1938. Our mandate has gone down to the lower court and has been acted upon there. This Court has completed the exercise of its jurisdiction and the petition presented does not revest jurisdiction here. We cannot consider the petition as one for the writ of habeas corpus because there is no contention that petitioner is *notv*unlawfully deprived of his liberty.

The petition will be denied without prejudice to the petitioner to institute proceedings in habeas corpus, if and when he may be advised that he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty. See Miller v. State, 15 Fla. 575.

So ordered.

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