alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Maria Baluta, Respondent, v David Baluta, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 1011]

—In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the *396former husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), entered March 16, 1994, which, *inter alia,*awarded the former wife a divorce, equitably distributed the parties’ assets, and awarded the former wife the sum of $50 per week in child support.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have examined the appellant’s contentions and find them to be without merit and/or unsupported by the record provided. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 52060.

#### A. Grove Knutsen *v.*United States,

protest 76459-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Exhibit 21
                                                                      ----------

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant





Parent
------

First Mutual Bancshares, Inc.

                                     Percentage             Jurisdiction or
Subsidiaries                        of Ownership         State of Incorporation
------------                        ------------         ----------------------

First Mutual Bank                        100%                   Washington

First Mutual Services (1)                100%                   Washington



(1)      This corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of First Mutual Bank.
         First Mutual Services (FMS) engages in the sale of mutual funds and
         annuities. PRIMEVEST Financial Services functions as the broker dealer
         and is responsible for the sale and delivery of securities. As of
         December 1999, the Company decided to discontinue directly offering
         investment products to its customers. The Bank's investment in First
         Mutual Services at December 31, 2003, was $3,596.
31 May 2013 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re Exemption No. 8801 docket number FAA-2006-261 03 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

rization granted in reference docket be extended.
cclp 2014.12.31 EX 10.8






EXHIBIT 10.8


Summary Description of the Compensation of
Non-Employee Directors of CSI Compressco GP Inc.


As of January 1, 2015, each director who is not an employee of CSI Compressco GP Inc., TETRA Technologies, Inc., or any of its subsidiaries (Non-Employee Directors), receives non-cash compensation of $60,000 per year and cash director fees in the amount of $15,000 per year, paid quarterly, for attending regularly scheduled board meetings. The non-cash compensation is paid for the upcoming service year in the form of phantom unit awards that have an intended value of $60,000, prorated for any newly elected Non-Employee Director to such director's date of election. Non-Employee Directors who are appointed as the chairmen of our Conflicts Committee and Audit Committee receive additional compensation of $5,000 and $10,000 per year, respectively, prorated from their respective dates of appointment, which is also paid in the form of phantom unit awards. All such awards of phantom units are granted under the CSI Compressco LP Amended and Restated 2011 Long Term Incentive Plan. 
 
Directors who are also our officers or employees, or officers or employees of TETRA, do not receive any compensation for duties performed as our directors.  


All Non-Employee Directors are reimbursed for out-of-pocket travel expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board of Directors and committees.
Archive

**NATIONAL GAMBLING IMPACT STUDY COMMISSIONRESEARCH PROGRESS REPORTS- January 21, 1998 , Atlantic City, NJ -- Timothy A. Kelly, Ph.D.,  N.G.I.S.C. Research Director
- March 16, 1998 , Boston, MA -- Timothy A. Kelly, Ph.D.,  N.G.I.S.C. Research Director
- March 16, 1998 , Boston, MA -- Leo McCarthy,  Commissioner
- May 21, 1998 , Chicago, IL -- Timothy A. Kelly, Ph.D.,  N.G.I.S.C. Research Director
- July 30, 1998 , Southwest Site Visit -- Report of the Acting Executive Director
**
Before the Second Division,

July 17, 1943

No. 48567.

#### Protests 958179-G, etc., of American Import Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

A sample tapestry 19 by 39 inches was received in evidence as representative of the weave of all of the merchandise, the only -difference being in color and design. The testimony of th& only witness, a representative of the plaintiff company, was found to be very meager. He stated, however, that the tapestries are used for wall decorations or wall hangings in homes, never as rugs, and that while he has seen them used on end tables and foyer tables, they are principally used on walls. The testimony was held insufficient to support the claims made. On the authority of *Rogers*v. *United States*(T. D. 46174), affirmed in 21 C. C. P. A. 560, T. D. 46989, *Weil*v. *United States*(T. D. 46120), and *Bing*v. *United States*(3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 115, T. D. 32365) the protests were overruled. *Noble*v. *United States*(T. D. 48650) noted.
#### John R. Wurcherer v. Joseph W. Hewitt and others.

Where bill is filed to foreclose a mortgage, and one is made a party defendant who claims the mortgaged premises under a deed given subsequent to the mortgage, but recorded first, the complainant, if he claims this deed to be fraudulent, must set forth in the bill the facts and allegations which show the fraud. Chanoery Rule 91 does not apply to such a case.

And where the only allegation was that suoh defendant claimed an interest in the premises “as subsequent purchaser, incumbrancer or otherwise,” it was held that the Court oould not consider the evidence taken to show the fraudulent character of the deed, as such allegation does not put suoh defendant’s rights in issue.

*Heard July 18th.*

*Decided October 14th.*

Appeal from Clinton Circuit in Chancery.

The bill was filed by Wureherer to foreclose a mortgage given to him by defendant, William A. Hewitt, to sfecure tbe purchase price of the mortgaged premises. The mortgage was dated June 14, 1856, but was not recorded until August 20, 1856. Joseph'W. Hewitt was made a party defendant, together with others, under the general allegation in the bill that be claimed some interest in the premises “as subsequent purchaser, incumbrancer or otherwise.” Joseph W. Hewitt filed an answer, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser of the premises, by deed dated and recorded August 18, 1856. Replication was filed to this answer, and proofs taken to show the fraudulent character of the conveyance. The Court below dismissed the bill, without prejudice, and the complainant appealed.

*O. JL. Spalding*and *T JMJ.*Cooley, for complainant.

*JR.*Strickland., for defendant,

Joseph W. Hewitt, objected that *the*Court could not consider the proofs taken to show *454the fraudulent character of the-deed to him, because there were no allegations in the bill to base the proofs upon. Persons who claim by conveyances recorded before the mortgage which is being foreclosed, cannot be made parties by the general allegation, as provided by Chancery Rule 91. — 10 *N. Y Rep.*509 ; *Wal. Ch.*117; *Ibid.*260.

Martin Ch. J.:

We think the objection that Joseph W. Hewitt was not made a party to the bill in such manner as to put his rights in issue, by the general averment under rule 91 of his being a subsequent purchaser, is well taken. This averment is only to be made where the fact of being a subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer appears by the record. In this case, the record gives the title of Joseph W. Hewitt priority to the mortgage, he having recorded his deed first. In such a case, the rule is that the complainant must file his bill specially — if he seeks to avoid the title thus acquired — with distinct averments of the facts and allegations of the fraud which he claims invalidates such title.

The decree must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.
#### TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MAPLE SHADE, PETITIONER-PETITIONER, v. NOMAT, INC., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

*Messrs. Richman, Berry & F erren*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Arthur J. Sills, Mr. Stephen Slcillman*and *Mr. A. Donald Bigley*for the respondent.

March 26, 1968.

Denied.
No. 53055.

#### H. J. O. Letcher *v.*United States,

protests 112287-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1132). 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 each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HODGES,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-04-2087 MCE KJM P 

vs.

DAVID RUNNELS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file his traverse. Good cause

appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file his

traverse.

DATED: April 4, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

runn2087.111(1)

Case 2:04-cv-02087-MCE -KJM Document 27 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 1
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 01533

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 01533\01533_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

01533\01533_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

01533\01533_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 01533\01533_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01533\01533_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01533\01533_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01533\01533_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01533\01533_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

01533\Certification Statement_01533.pdf Plant certification statement

01533\Supporting Documentation\01533_BC Cobb_SEEG ICR Transmittal Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01533\Supporting Documentation\01533_BCC_Part A_Section 5_A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01533\Supporting Documentation\01533_BCC_Part D_Section 3.1_D3-POND-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01533\Supporting Documentation\01533_BCC_Part D_Section 3.1_D3-RET-POND-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01533\Supporting Documentation\BCC_Part A_Section 5_A5-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT EDWARD HARPER, A/K/A JAMES MCCLAIN, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Peter Murray*and *Mr. Edward J. Insley*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Leo Kaplowitz*and *Mr. Arthur J. Timins*for the respondent.

May 14, 1968.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF

THOMAS E. KIRALY



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350



I, Thomas E. Kiraly, of Concentra Operating
Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



March 25, 2004



/s/ THOMAS E.
KIRALYThomas E. KiralyExecutive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. ER07-169-000; Docket No. ER07-170-000] 

                    Pursuant to the December 26, 2006 order in this proceeding,                     *Ameren Energy Marketing Co.,*                     117 FERC ¶ 61,334 (2006), a staff technical conference was held on Tuesday, March 13, 2006 at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The technical conference addressed issues related to potential affiliate abuse in the sale of ancillary services among Ameren affiliates.                 

Take notice that the Commission will accept post-technical conference comments. Initial comments are due no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 3, 2007. Reply comments are due no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 17, 2007. 

                    For further information please contact Zeny Magos at (202) 502-8244 or e-mail                     *zeny.magos@ferc.gov.*

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-4987 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### E. C. Lineiro *v.*United States

No. 6292.

Entry No. 1501.

Invoice dated Guadalajara, Mexico, March 12, 1944.

Certified March 13, 1944.

Entered at Nogales, Ariz., April 24, 1944.

(Decided July 17, 1946)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Joseph E. Weil,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of leather sandals imported from Mexico on April 24, 1942. The importation consisted of 100 pairs invoiced at $142.50, including packing, cartage, Mexican Inv. stamps, consular invoice, express to Nogales, 12 per centum aforo tax, broker’s commission, United States duties, and freight to Santa Ana. They were entered at 5.50 Mexican pesos per pair, plus packing charges of 3 pesos, plus a sales tax of 4.24 pesos. They were appraised at the invoice unit value, i. e., $1.425, or 6.92588 pesos, per pair plus stamp tax of 8.80 pesos per 1,000, plus packing at 5 centavos per pair.

At the trial it was stipulated as follows:

> Mr. Tuttle. * * *

> I offer to stipulate that the values at which this merchandise was entered represent the price at the time of exportation at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered to all purchasers in usual wholesale quantities, in the ordinary course of trade in the principal markets in Mexico, for exportation to the United States.

> That is the end of the offer.

> *259Mr, Weil. Well, I think the only objection I have, Mr. Tuttle, would be I think it would be much simpler for the court in deciding this if we stipulate that the value at which the merchandise, which consisted of Mexican leather sandals, huaraches, Oaxaca style, were freely offered for sale, etc., was, and specifically recite 5.50 pesos per pair, plus packing at 5 centavos per pair, plus sales tax of 88/100 per cent.

> Mr. Tuttle. That is acceptable.

> Also, that the foreign value was not higher than the amount just described.

> Mr, Weil. That if there was a foreign value it was not higher.

> Mr. Tuttle. All right.

> Mr. Weil. With that correction, I will so stipulate.

On the agreed state of facts, I hold that the export value is the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise and that such value is 5.50 Mexican pesos per pair, plus packing at 5 centavos per pair, plus sales tax of 0.88 per centum. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Samuel J. Seaman, *Deceased.*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Daniels, J.
**CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CUSTODIAN
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of *Austin
Chalk Oil and Gas, Ltd.* a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on 10-KSB for the December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
 
 We, Darrel
Figg and Marlen L.
Roepke ,
Officers/Directors of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my knowledge:
 
 (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.
 
 
 Dated:
March 31, 2005
 
 /s/
      Darrel Figg
      Darrel
      Figg
      President
    /s/
      Marlen L. Roepke
      Marlen
      L. Roepke
      Secretary
No. 54725.

#### Waste Fibres Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 155071-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protest was dismissed.
#### HARRY DVORKEN, TRUSTEE, *ETC.,*PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. BARBARA BARRETT, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Mr. Harry DvorTcen*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Peter A. Benz*for the respondents.

May 28, 1968.

Granted.
EXHIBIT 13.1




Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to 18 USC §1350,


as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 of Metalink Ltd. (the “Company”) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Tzvika Shukhman, Chief Executive Officer, certify 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 results of operations of the Company.




Date: July 15, 2011
 By: /s/ Tzvika Shukhman



Name: Tzvika Shukhman

Title:   Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 IPEX, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Russell Ingledew,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result 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.


June 2, 2005                            /s/ Russell Ingledew
                                        ----------------------------------
                                        Russell Ingledew
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### Henrietta Helmrich, *Respondent, v.*William T. A. Hart, *Appel*lant.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
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

MATTHEW VAUGHN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2528 LKK KJM PS

vs.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

A status conference was held in this matter on April 27, 2005 before the

undersigned. Plaintiff appeared in propria persona. Steven Browne appeared for defendant. 

Upon consideration of the status report on file in this action, discussion of plaintiff and counsel

and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) shall be

made no later than May 6, 2005.

2. Simultaneous disclosures of experts shall be made no later than August 1,

2005.

3. Rebuttal expert disclosure shall be made by September 1, 2005.

4. Discovery, including the hearing of discovery motions, shall be completed by

October 5, 2005. Discovery motions, if needed, shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 37-

Case 2:04-cv-02528-LKK -KJM Document 20 Filed 04/29/05 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

1

 The pretrial date has been modified from the date proposed from the bench, in light of a

court holiday on the date originally proposed.

2

251.

5. Dispositive motions, other than discovery motions, shall be noticed to be

heard by October 27, 2005.

6. The pretrial conference is set for January 17, 20061 at 2:30 p.m. before the

Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton. Pretrial statements shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule

16-281.

7. Trial of this matter is set for April 11, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. before the Honorable

Lawrence K. Karlton. The parties shall file trial briefs in accordance with Local Rule 16-285.

DATED: April 29, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

vaughn.oas

Case 2:04-cv-02528-LKK -KJM Document 20 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2004, (the "Report") of Technology Investment Capital Corp. (the
"Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof; I, Jonathan H. Cohen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities 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 Registrant.


                                                 /s/ Jonathan H. Cohen
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Name: Jonathan H. Cohen
                                                 Date: August 10, 2004