alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8562)

#### U. S. Industrial Products Co. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 892168; 851354-1/2; 717455.

(Decided March 16, 1956)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

When these cases were called for hearing, the record indicates that there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff and the cases were submitted “subject to a motion for judgment by defendant.”

*549In conformity with the requirements of the statute (28 U. S. O. § 2631), I have examined the records in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment for defendant will be entered accordingly.
37°N

36.5° N

SW36111E7 —]

>
SE36111E7

112° W UTAH 111.5°W
ARIZONA Glen Canyon | Nw36t11H4 \
Dam
i: i\ »
Paria River " ee ay
\ \
XV] swastens | sesserins
0 10 KILOMETERS
—" SE361 11H6 Swett
SMILES NE36111G6 ;
NW36111G5| NE36111G5
SE36111G6
NW36111F6}
NE36TI1F6
SES6111F7_
4
SW36111F6
NWw36111E7. | 5 Kava
NESBITIET Reservation

igre Grand Canyon

National Park
(Reap. Dec. 9546)

#### C. A. Andres & Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 6557, etc.

(Decided on rehearing [not published] December 2, 1959)

*Broolcs*c6 *Broolcs*for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, were the subject of my decision in *C. A. Andrews & Co. et al.*v. *United States*of August 27, 1959 (not published). They are before me at this time on rehearing, which was granted pursuant to plaintiffs’ motion. *C. A. Andres & Co. et al.*v. *United*States, 43 Cust. Ct. 505, Reap. Dec. 9520.

The cases have been resubmitted on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the Appeals to Reappraisement listed in the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the issues in the case of *UNITED STATES*v. *FREEDMAN*& *SLATER, INC.,*39 Cust. Ct. Reports 717, A.R.D. 77, and that the record in the said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the invoice values of the merchandise, less the nondutiable charges as set forth on the invoices and accordingly marked by the Appraiser with the letter “A” in green ink, involved in the eases listed in the schedulé attached hereto and made a part hereof are equal to the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, 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, packed ready for delivery, and that the foreign values of such or similar merchandise were no higher.

On the agreed facts and following the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the hides in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value for these items is, in each instance, the invoice values, less the nondutiable charges as set forth on the invoices and accordingly marked by the appraiser with the letter “A” in green ink. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8219 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8219

 To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess 
  the suitability and feasibility of designating certain land as the 
        Lahaina National Heritage Area, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2024

Ms. Tokuda (for herself, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Neguse, Mr. Takano, Mr. Case, 
 Mr. Huffman, and Mr. Sablan) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess 
  the suitability and feasibility of designating certain land as the 
        Lahaina National Heritage Area, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Lahaina National Heritage Area 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.
            (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Hawaii.
            (3) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the census-
        designated place of Lahaina in Maui County in the State.

SEC. 3. LAHAINA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA STUDY.

    The Secretary, in consultation with State and local historic 
preservation officers, State and local historical societies, State and 
local tourism offices, and other appropriate organizations and 
governmental agencies, shall carry out, in accordance with section 
120103(a) of title 54, United States Code, a study to assess the 
suitability and feasibility of designating the study area as a National 
Heritage Area, to be known as the ``Lahaina National Heritage Area''.
                                 <all>
```
(LOGO) ORIX

ORIX Real Estate
Capital Markets, LLC
Paul Smyth
1717 Main Street, 12th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
214-237-2010

March 24, 2000


                        ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE
                            Servicer/Master Servicer

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This  Officer's  Certificate  is  provided to you by ORIX Real  Estate  Capital
Markets, LLC ("ORECM") pursuant to the terms outlined in the applicable sections
of certain Agreements as referenced in the attached  Exhibit A, relative to the
securitization for which ORECM serves as Servicer/Master Servicer.

The  undersigned  officer,  on behalf of ORECM,  hereby  informs you (i) that, a
review  of the  activities  of  ORECM  as  Servicer/Master  Servicer  and of its
performance   under  each   respective   agreement   has  been  made  under  the
undersigned's  supervision  for the  period of time  commencing  January 1, 1999
through December 31, 1999 or a portion  thereof,  (ii) that, to the best of such
undersigned's  knowledge,  based on such  review,  it has  fulfilled  all of its
obligations under the agreement and has maintained an effective internal control
system  relating  to  its  servicing  of  the  Mortgage  Loans  serviced  by it,
throughout  such period,  and (iii) that, the undersigned has received no notice
regarding qualification,  nor challenging the status of the REMIC's from the IRS
or  any  other  governmental  body.

Also,  please  find  attached,   an  Annual Independent  Public  Accountant's
Servicing Report performed by Pricewaterhouse Coopers,  L.L.P.  relative to the
assets being  serviced by ORECM for the period beginning January 1, 1999
through December 31, 1999.

Duplicates  of these  documents  are being  simultaneously  sent to all  parties
listed on Exhibit B for receipt by March 31, 2000.

If you have any questions or comments relative to the attached documents, please
call me at 214-237-2010.

Sincerely,

ORIX Real Estate
Capital Markets, LLC,Servicer/Master Servicer

By:
    Paul Smyth
    Managing Director, Servicing

Attachments: Annual Independent Public Accountant Servicing Report
             Exhibit A
             Exhibit B
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  annual  report of Pacific  Fuel Cell  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
the  undersigned,  in the capacity  and on the date  indicated  below,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C./  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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.



Dated: April 18, 2006                     s/George Suzuki
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          George Suzuki, Chief Executive Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Programs, activities, andaccomplishments [electronic resource]**
 
2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2005 | 2007
 
SuDoc Number:C 13.1/12-1:
Item Number:0247-D-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000551114
 
February 5, 2020
No. 46190.

#### Protests 922612-G/87348, etc., of Norris Grain Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 57342.

protest 182535-K (New York).

#### Art & Sign Brush Mfg. Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hair pencils similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Solo Horton Brush Co. (Inc.)*v. *United States*(63 Treas. Dec. 143, T. D. 46123), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

June 11, 1947

No. 51778.

#### Protests 50815-K/90087, etc., of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago)

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Before the First Division,

April 16, 1945

No. 50125.

#### Protests 112990-K, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New-York).

*237Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 34593 and *United States*v. *Heinrich Herrmann & Weiss*(26 C. C. P. A. 292, C. A. D. 30), the claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1506 was sustained.
#### In the Matter of Joseph Greany, Appellant, v Frank E. Irvin, as Superintendent of Wende Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 287]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The contention of petitioner that he was denied due process as well as the right to call witnesses is without merit. At petitioner’s rehearing, the Hearing Officer was unable to obtain the presence of two persons petitioner had requested as witnesses but was unable to identify. The Hearing Officer advised petitioner that he was unable to ascertain the identities of those witnesses because the Department of Correctional Services lacked a tracking mechanism to determine who was in a particular cell on a given day and further stated that the prisoner log book did not contain the names or current location of those witnesses. Thus, the record establishes that a sufficient attempt was made to identify the witnesses: "[n]either the departmental regulations nor due process require[s] a more extensive search” *(Matter of Law v Racette,*120 AD2d 846, 848).

We reject the contention of petitioner that respondent violated 7 NYCRR 254.5 (b) by taking a witness’s testimony via speaker-phone. There is no requirement that a witness be physically present when testifying at a Tier III disciplinary hearing. Petitioner’s speculation that the person on the speaker-phone was not the witness that he had requested has no support in the record.

The further contention of petitioner that his hearing was untimely because it was not held in accordance with 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 is without merit. Supreme Court directed that the rehearing be commenced within 14 days of its order and completed within seven days thereafter *(cf, Matter of Hawkins*
      *1028
      *v Scully,*146 AD2d 627), and it is uncontested that the hearing was commenced and completed within that time frame.

With respect to petitioner’s five remaining contentions, petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding three of them by not raising them at the Superintendent’s hearing *(see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin,*188 AD2d 1071, *appeal dismissed*81 NY2d*834),*and the others were rendered moot when the determination in the first hearing was reversed and the penalty expunged *(see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.—CPLR art 78.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Wesley, Balio, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
(Reap. Dec. 10480)

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 777837-1/2.

(Decided April 8, 1963)

*438
      *BrooJcs é BrooJcs*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement for decision upon stipulation, on the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the tires, imported from Holland, here involved.

On the basis of said stipulation, I find the export values of the following merchandise identified on the invoices to be as follows:

> Invoice No. 1

> Tikes Pek 100 Tikes

> 4,000 26 x 1.75 $79. 00

> Invoice No. 2

> 840 26 1.75 black $64. 82

> 420 24 1.75 $58.47

> 480 20 1.75 $49.20

> 1,320 26 1.75 $64. 82

> 660 24 1.75 $58.47

> 15 20 1.75 $49. 20

> 285 26 1.75 $64. 82

> 75 24 1.75 $58.47

> 570 20 1.75 $49.20

> Less 30% discount for beauty spots (packed)

As to the remainder of the merchandise specified on the invoices, I find the export values to be the invoiced unit prices, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-89,569-01, -02, A ND -03

EX P ARTE DERRICK

BRANNON SULLIVAN, Applicant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. W13-24555-S (A), W13-24563- S (A), AND W13-25621-S (A) IN THE 282ND DIST RICT COURT F ROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court t ra n s m i t ted to this Court these applications for writs of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). A jury convicted Applicant of three offe nses of indec ency

with a child by

contac t, and he wa s sentence d to incarc era tion. Applicant raises sever al claims in his habea s applications, including claims of i n ef fe ctive assistance of trial counsel. He has alleg ed fa cts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland

v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (198 4 ); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). There is no response from trial counsel in the habea s rec ord provided to this Court, and there

are no finding s from the trial court. In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held-2-

i n E x p a r t e Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate for

um for finding s of fa ct. The trial court shall order t ri al co u n sel to respond to Applicant’s claims of ineffe ctive assistance by explaining counsel’s repr esentation of Applicant, including applicable st ra t egy and tactica l decisions. To obtain the re sponse, the trial c ourt may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hearing, it sha ll de termine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repr esent Applicant at the hearing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law reg arding the claims raised in the habea s applications. The trial court may also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law it deems rele vant and appropriate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claims for habea s corpus relief

. These applications will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be r esolved within 90 day s of this order

. A s upplemental transcript containingall aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of the court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be forwa rded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order

. Any extensions of time shall be obtained fr om this C ourt. Filed: April 3, 2019 Do not publish
May 28, 1982.

446 A.2d 697

#### Beaver v. Sabo, Appellants.

Argued February 10, 1982.

Samuel C. Holland, for appellants; Robert E. Kunselman, for appellee.

Before BROSKY, CIRILLO and POPOVICH, JJ.

Judgment affirmed.
[No.

In Chambers.

April 18, 1892.]

#### Ex parte AMOS ABBOTT, on Habeas Corpus.

Contempt — Jurisdiction of Superior Court—Imprisonment for Nonpayment of Pine. — A superior court imposing a fine for contempt has the power to make and enforce a judgment that in default of payment the party in contempt be imprisoned in satisfaction of the fine until the fine is satisfied, at the rate of one day for every two dollars of the fine unpaid.

Id. — Construction of Codes. — Section 1205 of the Penal Code as amended in 1891 does not apply to cases of contempt; but the power to punish therefor, and its limitations, are prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.

Application to the Supreme Court for a discharge upon a writ of *habeas corpus.*The facts are stated in tne opinion of the court.

*C. G. Stephens,*for Petitioner.

*Waldo*if. *York, contra.*

Beatty, C. J.

Petitioner was duly convicted in the superior court of Los Angeles of a contempt of its authority, and sentenced to pay a fine of four hundred dollars, and in default of payment, to be imprisoned in satisfaction of the fine one day for every two dollars of the fine unpaid. In pursuance of said judgment, he has been committed to and is imprisoned in the county jail. He asks to be discharged, upon the ground that since the recent amendment of section 1205 of the Penal Code (Stats. 1891, p. 52),the superior courts have no power in contempt cases to imprison the defendant in satisfaction of a fine for a longer period than five days.

The whole question to be decided is, whether this amendment to the Penal Code applies to cases of contempt.

In my opinion, it does not. Section 1205 of the Penal Code, since the amendment referred to, is, as it was before, to be read in connection with section 11 of the same code, which expressly declares that “ this code does not affect any power conferred by law upon any *334. . . . tribunal, or officer, to impose or inflict punishment for a contempt.”

The power to punish for contempt of court, and its limitations, must therefore be sought elsewhere than in the Penal Code, and they are found in the Code of Civil Procedure, sections 1209 et seq. The limit of punishment there prescribed is a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding five days, or both. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1218.) The power conferred by this section is not affected by any of the provisions of the Penal Code. In *Ex parte Crittenden,*62 Cal. 535, it was held that the court imposing a fine for contempt has the power to make and enforce a judgment such as that in question here, and that, as I understand the decision, without reference to or aid from section 1205, or any other provision of the Penal Code. That decision has never been overruled or questioned, to my knowledge, and remains the law by which I must be bound in deciding this application.

The prisoner is remanded.
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 Form10-Q for the period ended MARCH 31, 2005 (the"Report") of TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT CAPITALCORP. (the "Registrant"), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, PATRICK F.CONROY, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify,to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|  | /s/ Patrick F.Conroy             Name: Patrick F. Conroy Date:May 9, 2005 |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----