alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8262)

#### Armour and Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. W. H. 85 and W. H. 86.

(Decided November 25, 1953)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

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

*413Olivee, Chief Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of canned corned beef imported from Argentina;

> That the issues involved in said appeals for reappraisement are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *United States*v. *International Commercial Co., Inc. and Armour and Co.,*Reappraisement Decision 8112.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the value or price, at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of Argentina in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and covering of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was eleven dollars ($11.00) per case of 48 tins of 12 ounces each, f. o. b. Buenos Aires, less 9.4% for non-dutiable charges.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise here involved, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Argentina.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in *United States*v. *International Commercial Co., Inc. and Armour and Co.,*Reappraisement Decision 8112, be incorporated in the record in the appeals for reappraisement set forth in the attached schedule of cases, which are submitted for decision on this stipulation.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals are abandoned as to any other merchandise listed on the invoices in either of these appeals for reappraisement.

On the agreed facts I find the export' value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the canned corned beef here involved, and that such value was $11 per case of 48 tins of 12 ounces each, f. o. b. Buenos Aires, less 9.4 per centum for nondutiable charges.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe period ended JUNE 30, 2005 (the "Report")of TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT CAPITAL CORP. (the"Registrant"), as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, PATRICK F. CONROY, theChief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the bestof my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|  | /s/ Patrick F.Conroy            Name: Patrick F. Conroy Date:August 8, 2005 |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
EX-32.1



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



INFe- HUMAN RESOURCES, INC. 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 quarterly report of INFe- Human Resources, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur Viola, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of INFe- Human Resources, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 INFe-Human Resources, Inc.



/s/    ARTHUR VIOLA

- --------------------

Arthur Viola



Chief Executive Officer and Sole Director

July 21, 2008
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Joseph P. Durrett, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Information Resources, Inc. Litigation Contingent Payment RightsTrust;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport does not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designed such disclosure controls andprocedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;

 

b)             evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 daysprior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c)              presented in this quarterly report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and proceduresbased on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              all significant deficiencies in thedesign or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial dataand have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses ininternal controls; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there weresignificant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our mostrecent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 
| /s/ JOSEPH P. DURRETT |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
| Joseph P. Durrett     |
| Litigation Trustee    |
| August 12, 2004  |

 

----
#### Mary Louise Adams, a widow, v. Alex L. Dommerich, *et al.*

180 So. 519.

Division A.

Opinion Filed March 15, 1938.

Rehearing Denied April 28, 1938.

*783*George P. Garrett,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Warlow & Carpenter*and *Maguire & Voorhis,*for Defendants in Error.

Terrell, J.

The records and the briefs in this case have been examined and questions presented found to be similar to those adjudicated in Mary Louise Adams v. F. E. Adams, decided this date. Both cases grew out of the same transactions, the parties only being different.

The judgment below is accordingly affirmed on authority of the last cited case.

Affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Buford, J.,- concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Before the Third Division,

November 13, 1951

No. 55995.

petition 6816-R (New York).

#### H. B. Rosenberg Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial the import manager of the customs broker testified that prior to entry, he requested the importer to furnish information with’ *348respect to the value of the merchandise, which information was submitted to the appraiser; that the merchandise was first entered as of American origin but it was later entered as foreign merchandise because, being feathers, it was hard to identify; that his office subsequently received a notice from the appraiser to amend the entry with instructions stating: “All 3 cases less nondutiable charges, • as per consular invoice”; that one of his entry clerks made up the amendment on the basis of these instructions, and it was found that there would be a 60-cent refund; that he called the examiner who said to forget about it; and that he later received a notice of advance in value, due to the addition of the so-called non-dutiable charges. On the record presented it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4938 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4938

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 114 Center Street East in Roseau, Minnesota, as the ``Floyd B. Olson 
                             Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2024

  Ms. Klobuchar (for herself and Ms. Smith) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 114 Center Street East in Roseau, Minnesota, as the ``Floyd B. Olson 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. FLOYD B. OLSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 114 Center Street East in Roseau, Minnesota, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Floyd B. Olson Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Floyd B. 
Olson Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### FRANK GRAF, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. THOMAS FOLARNO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 99 *N. J. Super.*173.

*Thomas F. Shebell*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Carton, Nary, Witt & Arvanitis*and *Mr. E. Frank Carpentier*for the respondent.

April 30, 1968.

Denied.
#### Marcia Rafkind et al., Respondents, v Lawrence E. Clark et al., Appellants.

[634 NYS2d 494]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.), dated August 25, 1994, which granted the motion of the plaintiff Marcia Rafkind for summary judgment dismissing their counterclaim and granted the plaintiffs’ separate motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is undisputed that the plaintiffs were stopped in traffic on the Cross Bronx Expressway when their car was hit from the rear by a van driven by the defendant Lawrence E. Clark and owned by the defendant Thomas Young Trucking. This Court *612has previously held that such a rear-end collision creates a prima facie case of liability on the part of the defendant, imposing a duty of explanation on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle *(Young v City of New York,*113 AD2d 833, 834; *see, Benyarko v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*162 AD2d 572, 573; *O’Callaghan v Flitter,*112 AD2d 1030). The defendants’ conclusory speculations in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment were insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence and to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to liability *(see, Young v City of New York, supra; Benyarko v Avis Rent A Car Sys., supra).*Thus, the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment *(see, Andre v Pomeroy,*35 NY2d 361; *O’Callaghan v Flitter, supra).*Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: May 10, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2015-1326 Justin Leighton Stanley 

### ) ) 

### ) ) ) Case No. 2015WP010044 Respondent
DISMISSAL ORDER On May 9, 2016, the Respondent filed a Notice ofWithdrawal ofRequest for Hearing, stating that the parties hadreached a settlement in this matter. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. 

### § 13.215, a party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the consent ofthe administrative lawjudge at any time before or during a hearing. Upon such withdrawal, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the case with prejudice. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that these proceedings are dismissed withprejudice.

Administrative LawJudge
Attachment: Service ListSERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1ONE COPY
Robert M. Helfend, Respondent's Counsel Law Offices ofRobert M. Helfend 23838 Pacific Coast Highway No. 309 Malibu, CA 90265 TEL: 818-591-2809 FAX: 818-222-1530 Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel Office oftheRegional Counsel, AWP-7.6 Western-Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration P. 

### 0. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7117 FAX: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2015-1326 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
753 A.2d 16

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Petitioner, v. Gregory L.A. THOMAS, Respondent.

Misc. AG No. 4,

Sept. Term, 2000.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 7, 2000.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the Consent to Disbarment from the practice of law filed by Gregory L.A. Thomas in accordance *56with Maryland Rule 16-712d2, and the 'written recommendation of Bar Counsel, it is this 7th day of June, 2000

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Gregory L.A. Thomas, be, and he is hereby, disbarred by consent from the further practice of law in the State of Maryland, and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Gregory L.A. Thomas from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-713, shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Clients’ Security Trust Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State.
No. 44074.

#### Protests 19178-K, etc., of Pratt & Farmer Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on •the authority of Abstract 43372 the tape measures in question were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
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

ROBIN S. MARTIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2435 FCD CMK P

vs.

CHIEF DEPUTY WARDEN, 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 March 22, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not 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-02435-FCD-CMK Document 6 Filed 04/28/05 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 March 22, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: April 27, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

/mart2435.800

Case 2:04-cv-02435-FCD-CMK Document 6 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Heath B. Clarke, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Interchange
Corporation, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Interchange
Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuer 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 registrant and have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the small business issuer, is made known to us by
others within the small business issuer, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business
issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our 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; andc)
    
    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 most recent 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 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 controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial data; andb)
    
    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: November 19, 2004
    
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer and Chairman(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Richard S. Couse, Appellant, v La Torre Orthopedic Laboratory, Inc., Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 240]

—Mercure, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ingraham, J.), entered June 14, 1994 in Otsego County, which granted *710defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Following the surgical removal of plaintiffs left leg in June 1987, plaintiffs physician referred him to defendant for the fitting and installation of a prosthesis. Defendant furnished plaintiff first with a temporary and then with a permanent leg prosthesis. In November 1989, plaintiff sustained a fractured vertebra when he leaned over to pick up an object on his lawn. Plaintiff commenced this action in January 1993, alleging that the fracture and subsequent back problems were caused by defendant’s negligence in preparing and installing a prosthesis of incorrect length. Following joinder of issue, service of a bill of particulars and discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment upon the merits and based upon the defense of the Statute of Limitations. Finding in favor of defendant on both grounds, Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff now appeals.

We affirm. Even assuming, *arguendo,*that the complaint asserts a malpractice cause of action and that plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that the Statute of Limitations was tolled by virtue of the continuous treatment doctrine *(see,*CPLR 214-a; *Baker’s Serv. v Robinson,*85 AD2d 811), we agree with Supreme Court’s determination on the merits. Defendant sustained its initial burden on the summary judgment motion by coming forward with sworn statements of an orthopedic surgeon and a certified prosthetist, setting forth the opinions that defendant’s sizing of the prosthesis did not deviate from accepted practice and was not the proximate cause of his injuries *(see, Bloom v City of New York,*202 AD2d 465). Plaintiffs response consisted only of his own affidavit, stating the belief that the prosthesis fabricated by defendant caused his 1989 back injury, unsworn physicians’ examination notations and reports, and sworn office records of M & M Prosthetic Associates, Inc. Notably absent is any competent medical opinion that defendant was guilty of malpractice. Plaintiff having proffered no excuse for his failure to produce sworn expert opinion, his showing will not give rise to a material issue of fact *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 327; *Conti v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp.,*159 AD2d 772, 775,. *Iv denied*76 NY2d 702). We expressly reject the contention that plaintiff could satisfy his burden without the opinion of a qualified expert *(see, supra).*

Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.