alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John H. Faunce N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7292.

Invoices dated Hayes, England, June 18, 1946, etc.

Certified June 24, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 8, 1946, etc.

Entry No. 701994, etc.

(Decided June 18, 1947)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Maxwell Palmer*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(V. D. 83)

#### Hensel, Bruckmann *&*Lorbacher, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 809310.

(Decided September 11, 1958)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

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

Laweence, Judge:

This is a valuation proceeding which arose by reason of a judgment rendered by the second division of this court in the case of *Gramercy Import Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*38 Cust. Ct. 480, Abstract 60688.

The cause of action, having been formally abandoned, is dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Case No. 7,917.

#### KOCH v. OREGON STEAMSHIP CO.

[The ease reported under above title in 2 Am. L. Times Rep. (N. S.) 381; 7 Chi. Leg. News, 347: 2 Cent. Law J. 473; and 21 Int. Rev. Rec. 237, — is the same as Case No. 10,572.]
(Reap. Dec. 10139)

#### Bohemian Biscuit Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 11334.

(Decided January 9, 1962)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*WUUam H. OrricJc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *(Morris Braverman,*trial attorney), for tbe defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

The merchandise covered by this appeal for re-appraisement consists of chocolate and confectionery, imported from Germany on or about December 5, 1954. It was entered at the unit invoice values in United States dollars, less nondutiable charges, and was appraised in German deutsche marks at the home market value shown in column 11 of the consular invoices, plus packing, which resulted in advances in value.

*513When this case was called for trial, Stein & Shostak withdrew as counsel for the plaintiff and Simon Younger of the plaintiff company appeared and testified as follows:

> The Witness : In this case I would like to make a statement that the merchandise which I have received from overseas is a special manufacture for us, and does not consist of the same merchandise which is sold at the home domestic value. That is the reason why we have the cheaper price charged as the home domestic value.

> Judge Johnson : Is that all the statement you wish to make?

> The Witness : Yes.

This testimony is insufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the appraiser’s valuation and to establish some other value as the proper dutiable value for the merchandise, in accordance with the provisions of section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

On the record presented, I find that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein and that such values are the appraised values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN LOUIS MERTZ, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Charles T. Murphy, Jr.*for the petitioner.

*Mr. James A. Tumulty, Jr.*and *Mr. Abel Goldstein*for the respondent.

May 14, 1968.

Denied.
#### Rikki S. Cee, Appellant, v Kristian Cee, Jr., Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 3]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered May 12, 1995, which, denied plaintiff’s motion to, *inter alia,*vacate the child custody stipulation entered into by the parties, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the child custody stipulation, which granted the parties joint legal custody of their son, was properly denied. Plaintiff failed to substantiate her claim that she was fraudulently induced to enter the agreement by virtue of the defendant’s concealment of his sexual relationship with the child’s former nanny from both the court and the court appointed expert. Although defendant conceded that a sexual relationship existed with the nanny subsequent to the execution of the stipulation, plaintiff was unable to establish that a sexual relationship existed prior to the expert’s evaluation and the execution of the stipulation.

*243In any event, the IAS Court properly concluded that the expert’s recommendation was not significantly influenced by the alleged taint. There are numerous indications in the expert’s report that both parties are devoted parents. A sound basis in the record exists for the court’s determination that joint custody was in the child’s best interests. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Ross and Williams, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.;
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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant'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 registrant and have:



1. 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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; and
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



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



1. 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 registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





|November 14, 2005 | /s/ Marc N. Teal       
|----------------- | -----------------------
|                  | Marc N. Teal           
|                  | Chief Financial Officer
|                  |
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDGAR M. COLLINS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-04-2243 LKK KJM P 

vs.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT,

 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff has filed two documents

alleging violations of his civil rights resulting from the conditions of his confinement. Both

documents were filed on forms used by California State Courts, including one form for use in

filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Good cause appearing, the court will send plaintiff a

copy of the court’s form-complaint for violations of civil rights alleged by prisoners and plaintiff

will be granted thirty days within which to file a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The court also will send plaintiff an application to proceed in forma pauperis as

plaintiff has neither filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis nor paid the $150.00 filing fee in

effect at the time of the filing of his action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). Plaintiff will be

provided the opportunity either to submit the appropriate affidavit in support of a request to

proceed in forma pauperis or to submit the appropriate filing fee. 

Case 2:04-cv-02243-LKK -KJM Document 3 Filed 05/16/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s “complaint” and “petition for writ of habeas corpus” are dismissed.

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days within which to file a complaint under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Plaintiff shall also submit, within thirty days, an application to proceed in forma

pauperis on the form provided by the Clerk of Court, or the $150.00 filing fee. Plaintiff’s failure

to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

4 The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court's form-complaint

for violations of civil rights alleged by prisoners and an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

DATED: May 13, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

coll2243.114

Case 2:04-cv-02243-LKK -KJM Document 3 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Guoshen Tu, certify that:



1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc.;



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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.     The registrant'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 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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; and



(c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



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



(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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date: November
1, 2007

|                                   |  |  | 
|---------------------------------- |  |  | 
|/s/ Guoshen Tu                     |  |  | 
|Guoshen Tu
Chief Executive Officer |  |  | 
|                                   |  |  | 

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


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

         In connection with the Annual Report of ATNG Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Simpson,
Chief Executive 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:

         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 and results of operations of the
Company.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



                                         /s/ Robert Simpson
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Robert Simpson, Chief Executive Officer
                                         Date: March 30, 2004
No. 64909.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/14728, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorative after-dinner cups and saucers the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXH 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Joan P. Platt, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on
Form 10-Q/A of MarketWatch, Inc.;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: September, 3, 2004

By: /s/ Joan P. Platt    Joan P. Platt, Chief Financial Officer

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7310

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus YOLANDA VIOLA BURGESS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-00-162-1) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 22, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yolanda Viola Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly A. Riley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Yolanda Viola Burgess seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her motion for relief from judgment, which the district court characterized as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); seeReid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir. 2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a subst antial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that her constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burgess has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
**32.2
      SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V,
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2007, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Kimberly A. Springsteen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 result of operations of the
      Company.







/s/Kimberly
                A. SpringsteenKimberly
                A. SpringsteenChief
                Financial OfficerNovember
                13, 2007
#### In the Matter of Edward F. Campbell, Jr., et al., Appellants, v Henry Rose et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 137]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead dated November 18, 1992, which, after a hearing, found the respondent Mary Carson’s commercial use of her home to be a legal nonconforming use, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Gold-stein, J.), entered May 11, 1994, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, and the determination is annulled.

Beginning in the late 1920’s, the father of the respondent Mary Carson operated a greeting card business from his home. *528In 1930, zoning laws were enacted which prohibited the commercial use of the premises. However, since the commercial use of the premises began prior to 1930, it was a legal nonconforming use. In 1959, Mary Carson started a business compiling mailing lists from the same house. Her father discontinued his business in the early 1970’s, and her business has continued until the present.

There is no merit to Mary Carson’s contention that her use of the premises is a continuation of her father’s legal nonconforming use. Mary Carson’s father abandoned his legal nonconforming use when the greeting card business ceased to operate in the early 1970’s *(see, Matter of Marzella v Munroe,*69 NY2d 967; *Matter of Daggett v Putnam,*40 AD2d 576). Moreover, "[the] right to continue a nonconforming use does not include the right to extend or enlarge such a use” *(Matter of Smith v Board of Appeals,*202 AD2d 674, 676; *see, Garcia v Holze,*94 AD2d 759). "[I]n the absence of an ordinance to the contrary, a property owner has no right to substitute a new nonconforming use for an existing nonconforming use despite the generic similarity of the uses” *(Garcia v Holze, supra,*at 760; *see, e.g., Matter of Calcagni Constr. Co. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*56 AD2d 845). Mary Carson’s contention to the contrary notwithstanding, her use of the premises is not merely a continuation of her father’s legal nonconforming use, but a new nonconforming use. Accordingly, Mary Carson’s business has been an illegal nonconforming use *ab initio,*and her application for a permit for that nonconforming use was improperly granted. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.