alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10162)

#### States Mercantile Company *v.*United States

Entry No. CE-6252.

(Decided February 7, 1962)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*'William H. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

WilsoN, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject to the approval of the Court:

> That the merchandise the subject of the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement is properly dutiable on the basis of American Selling Price as defined in Section 402(g), Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

> That the said American Selling Price as defined in Section 402(g), Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, was as follows for the export period indicated.

> Item Export period Price

> Sodium Pas 1956 $2.20 per lb. less 1% net packed

> *549IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal he deemed submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by-section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value at the time of exportation was $2.20 pel pound, less 1 per centum, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 52658.

protests 140324^K and 141567-K (New York).

#### R. H. Macy & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of knitted wool scarves similar in all material respects to those passed upon in Abstract 50303, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RICHARD L. McILVEEN, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

No. 29,346

March 14, 1975

*Lieutenant Gordon S. Wright,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel P. N Kress,*USMC, and *Lieutenant Thomas L. Earp,*JAGC, USNR, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

Tried by a special court-martial at the Marine Corps Air Station, Santa Ana, California, the appellant was convicted, contrary to his pleas, of the willful disobedience of an order from, disrespect to, and an assault and battery upon, a non-commissioned officer. Those findings together with the court’s adjudged sentence to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for 5 months, and forfeitures of $200 per month for 5 months remain unchanged throughout review below.

In his review of the case at the supervisory authority level, the staff judge advocate incorrectly stated that the appellant’s provident plea of guilty established his guilt of the disrespect offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In view of the fact that the appellant had actually made a timely withdrawal of that guilty plea and had pleaded not guilty to that offense, such erroneous information constituted prejudicial error. *See United States v Parks,*17 USCMA 87, 37 CMR 351 (1967); *United States v James,*1 USCMA 379, 3 CMR 113 (1952).

The decision of the U. S. Navy Court of Military Review is reversed. The case is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to the Court of Military Review, which may set aside the findings of guilty on that specification and reassess the sentence or order a new review and action.

Judge Quinn did not participate in the decision of this case.
EXHIBIT 31.2

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ivan Bial, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB/A of MEDIANET GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(formerly Clamshell Enterprises, 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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

   (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
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 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; and

   (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

   (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

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

Date: May 13, 2004                 By: /s/ Ivan Bial
                                       Ivan Bial, Director, Secretary and
                                       Principle Financial Officer
#### Michael Marron, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[635 NYS2d 486]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), entered April 6, 1994, which, upon a jury verdict finding the appellant 70% at fault in the happening of the accident, and a verdict finding the plaintiff to have suffered damages in the sum of $511,700, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $358,190 (70% of $511,700).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the jury’s apportionment of liability, and consequently its verdict should not be disturbed *(see, Salazar v Fisher,*147 AD2d 470; *Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129; *Delgado v Board of Educ.,*65 AD2d 547, *affd*48 NY2d *511643). Moreover, we find that the awards for past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering did not materially deviate from what would be reasonable compensation *(see,*CPLR 5501 [c]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
No. 52663.

protests 98035-K and 57686-K (New York).

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

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTSDELOITTE & TOUCHE

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-38392 and No. 333-68820 of VIA
NET.WORKS, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated March 26, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of VIA NET.WORKS, Inc. as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2002 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of VIA NET.WORKS, Inc.

|/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHELondon, United Kingdom
March 26, 2003 |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Before the First Division,

July 14, 1939

No. 41822.

#### Protest 954649-G of L. Oppleman, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 228 (b) and T. D. 48316 was sustained as to certain of the field glasses in question.
No. 55301.

#### Arcade Glove Co. and General Sportcraft Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

protests 671718-G and 152713-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
# C_2007193EN.01000501.xml

| 21.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/5

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to national regional investment aid

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 193/04)

| Aid No | XR 118/07 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Spain |
| Region | Navarra |
| Title of aid scheme or the name of the undertaking receiving ad hoc aid supplement | Ayudas regionales a la inversión en industrias agroalimentarias |
| Legal basis | Orden Foral 146/2007 del Consejero de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación por la que se aprueban las normas que regulan las ayudas estatales de la Comunidad Foral de Navarra a la transformación y comercialización de productos agroalimentarios en las zonas incluidas en el Mapa de Ayudas de Finalidad Regional de Navarra para el período 2007-2013 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Annual budget | EUR 6 million |
| Maximum aid intensity | 10 % |
| In conformity with Article 4 of the Regulation |
| Date of implementation | 2.6.2007 |
| Duration | 31.12.2013 |
| Economic sectors | Limited to specific sectors |
| DA 15 |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Gobierno de Navarra |
| Departamento de Agricultura, Ganaderia y Alimentación |
| C/ Tudela, 20 |
| E-31003 Pamplona |

Aid No

XR 118/07

Member State

Spain

Region

Navarra

Title of aid scheme or the name of the undertaking receiving ad hoc aid supplement

ad hoc

Ayudas regionales a la inversión en industrias agroalimentarias

Legal basis

Orden Foral 146/2007 del Consejero de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación por la que se aprueban las normas que regulan las ayudas estatales de la Comunidad Foral de Navarra a la transformación y comercialización de productos agroalimentarios en las zonas incluidas en el Mapa de Ayudas de Finalidad Regional de Navarra para el período 2007-2013

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Annual budget

EUR 6 million

Maximum aid intensity

10 %

In conformity with Article 4 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

2.6.2007

Duration

31.12.2013

Economic sectors

Limited to specific sectors

DA 15

Name and address of the granting authority

Gobierno de Navarra

Departamento de Agricultura, Ganaderia y Alimentación

C/ Tudela, 20

E-31003 Pamplona

Internet address of the publication of the aid scheme

http://www.cfnavarra.es/bon/076/F0708205.htm

Other information

—

---
Exhibit 32.6



CERTIFICATION 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 of the Frontier Heritage
Fund, a Series of Frontier Funds on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Frontier Heritage Fund.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Patrick J. Kane                                                                                                                                   | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Patrick J. Kane                                                                                                                                       | 
|Chairman, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and Managing Member of Frontier Fund Management LLC, the Managing Owner of Frontier Funds | 



June 24, 2019
Subject: Meeting with Portland Cement Association (PCA) and Holcim

Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC

Date: August 31, 2010

Participants:

Industry

Andy O’Hare, PCA*

Hector Ybanez, Holcim

Curtis Lesslie, Ash Grove*

Mike Pelan, Lafarge*

Dan Nugent, Buzzi*

Robert Crawford, Consultant to PCA*

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Steve Silverman*

Keith Barnett

RTI International

Mike Laney

Breda Munoz

*By telephone

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) met with EPA and presented information on a 

statistical analysis of the mercury emissions data using the 30-day averages instead of the daily 

emission values. They also discussed the use of PM compliance test data that has been collected 

for all portland cement kilns. Handouts were provided including a meeting agenda and tables 

illustrating the results of their statistical analysis. They are attached to these meeting notes.

Following the meeting with PCA, Hector Ybanez of Holcim presented issues associated with the 

final rule that were of concern to Holcim. They included:

-Determination of clinker production

-Alternate PM limit for kilns with an alkali bypass

-Operation and Maintenance Plan submission

-Use of scrubbers for SO2 and HCl control

-Use of Affirmative Defense

-Data acquisition systems

-Use of CEMS for THC

-PM CEMS requirements in NESHAP and NSPS

-Use of consecutive days for startup and shutdowns

-Modifications under NSPS

-Use of CEMS for 90% SO2 option
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STRUCTURES UNLIMITED, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIRST NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY OF

AMERICA, and DOES 1 through 10

inclusive,

 Defendants.

CIV. S-04-1140 PAN

ORDER

-o0oPending the court’s decision on defendant’s motion for

summary judgment, submitted December 8, 2005, the court hereby

vacates all impending deadlines and hearings in this action,

including the deadline for filing pretrial statements and the

dates for pretrial conference and trial. The scheduling order

will be amended in consultation with the parties if necessary

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-01140-EFB Document 43 Filed 02/01/06 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

after resolution of defendant’s motion.

So ordered.

Dated: February 1, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01140-EFB Document 43 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Marcia Pompilii, Respondent, v Charles B. Rosenblum et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[634 NYS2d 402]

—Appeal by the defendants Charles B. Rosenblum and Donna Aufiero Rosenblum from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated May 26, 1994.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Shaw at the Supreme Court. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.a

I, John P. Manning, 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.





|August 22, 2005 | /s/ John P. Manning    
|--------------- | -----------------------
|                | John P. Manning        
|                | Chief Executive Officer
|                |
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8292 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8292

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 18, 2024

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase penalties for 
            unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information.

    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 ``Taxpayer Data Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PENALTIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES OF TAXPAYER 
              INFORMATION.

    (a) In General.--Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 
7213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by 
striking ``$5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years'' and 
inserting ``$250,000, or imprisonment of not more than 10 years''.
    (b) Disclosures of Return Information of Multiple Taxpayers Treated 
as Multiple Violations.--Section 7213(a) of such Code is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(6) Disclosures of return information of multiple 
        taxpayers treated as multiple violations.--For purposes of 
        paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5), a separate violation 
        occurs with respect to each taxpayer whose return or return 
        information is disclosed in violation of any such paragraph.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to disclosures made after the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Seifi Ghasemi, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. forthe fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc.

 
| Date: August 12, 2005           |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ SEIFI GHASEMI                    |   |
| Seifi Ghasemi                        |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Marian Langdon, Appellant, *v.*The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York, *Respondents.*

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Daniels, J.