alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
US.OtWtrnentof TrampOf!Otion 

O''{! o: ':'e )e(•eo:Jr•' ot l,:l"'1c-Y'3-'·0fl 

DESIGNATION OF AGENT FOR 

SERVICE OF NOTICE, PROCESS, ORDERS 

DECISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 

Chief, Documentary Services Div. 

Department of Transportation 

Washington. D.C. 20590 

Docket DOT -OST -2002-12555 

ATTENTION: DOCKET SECTION, C-55 

---""'F'"""R~O""N'-'-"-TIE=R-'--"-' A=IRL=INE=-==S~IN...,C.=!.... ______________ , having its principal 

(Name of Company, please print) 

office at 

7001 TOWER ROAD DENVER CO 80249 

(Address) 

hereby designates, pursuant to section 46103 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (formerly section 1005(b) of the 

Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended) the person named below as its Agent upon whom service of all 

notices and process, and all orders, decisions, and requirements of the Department of Transportation may be 

made for and on behalf of said carrier, hereby canceling all previous designations of agents made by it to the 

DOT. 

NameofAgent _ _ _ ~H~O~W~ARD~~M~~D~IAM~~O~ND~ ---------------

(Please Print) 

Address 

7001 TOWER ROAD DENVER CO 80249 

The Agent so designated has written ~is ~ ~nd also his initials in the following space: 

Name /~ ~~ (Initials) b1tfJ 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FRONTIER AIRLINES INC. has caused these 

(Name of Company) 

presents to be signed in its name by DAVID SIEGEL ____________ , CEO 

(Please Print) 

of said company, and to be attested under its corporate seal by 

HOWARD M. DIAMOND, 

on this 26th day of January, 2015 

(Secretary, or other officer) 

OST F 1010.5 (1 -95) 

LEGAL\2201 5493\ 1 

SECRETARY ______________ _ 

(Secretary, or other Title) 

FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC. 

(Name ofComp{lly) 

By: ]Y\ ...._.___---,\---­ (CEO)
No. 49257.

#### Protest 72039-K of Yardley & Co. (New York).

*275Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The uncontradicted evidence disclosed that these plaques are similar in all respects to the articles involved in Abstract 48890, which record was incorporated herein. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was therefore sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8457)

#### Jung Forwarding Co. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 710456, etc.

(Decided July 7, 1955)

*Jordan & Iilingaman*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, 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:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel, subject to the approval of the court:

> 1. That the merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the schedule hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of artists’ materials and supplies imported from Holland.

> 2. That the issues in the said appeals are the same in all material respects as the issues in the case of *United States*v. *International Expediters, Inc. for Winsor & Newton, Inc.,*40 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 148 (C. A. D. 611), wherein it was held that cost of production, as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the proper basis of appraisement, and that the record in the said case may be incorporated in the record in the instant appeals.

> 3. That, as to the items of the aforesaid merchandise entered at the invoice unit prices plus 20 per cent, the said cost of production is represented by the invoice unit prices plus 11.11 per cent.

> 4. That, as to all other items of the said merchandise, except those referred to in paragraph 5 of this stipulation, said cost of production is represented by the appraised values less 25 per cent.

> 5. The appeals for reappraisement herein are abandoned as to items entered at the invoice unit prices plus 10 per cent and plus 8 per cent.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that' the appeals for reappraisement herein may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper *374basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows:

As to the items of merchandise entered at the invoice unit prices, plus 20 per centum, such values were the invoice unit prices, plus 11.11 per centum.

As to all other items of merchandise involved, except as to the merchandise covered by the abandonment noted below, such values were the appraised values, less 25 per centum.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to items of merchandise entered at the invoice unit prices, plus 10 per centum, plus 8 per centum, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

December 4, 1946

No. 51447.

#### Protests 113336-K, etc., of C. J. Tower & Sons (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
No. 44046.

#### Protest 968639-G of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of squawker balloons similar to those the subject of Abstract 40493. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 was therefore sustained.
|  |  |  |
|--|--|--|
|  |  |  |

|  |   |  
NCVHS Annual Accomplishments
NCVHS Annual Accomplishment Archives (1998-2002)
2012201120102009200820072006200520042003
Return to Top

Last updated 01/15/13 |
|--|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Seifi Ghasemi, certifythat:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)           All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: August 14, 2006                 |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ SEIFI  GHASEMI                    |   |
| Seifi Ghasemi                         |
| Chairman and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
No. 48591.

#### Protests 618077-G, etc., of Holland Food Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of Abstract 48269. The protests were therefore sustained.
Case Wo. 14,507.

#### UNITED STATES v. BALLARD.

[3 McLean, 469.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

Oct. Term, 1844.

Limitation of Actions — Criminal Prosecutions —Second Indictment — Perjort.

1. The thirty-second section of the act of congress of April 30, 1790 [1 Stat. 119], applies to offences created after, as well as before, the act.

[Cited in U. S. v. Six Fermenting.Tubs. Case No. 16,296.]

2. The indictment, or information, must be found within the limitation of the statute.

3. An indictment within the two years, on which a nolle prosequi was entered, cannot save • the statute.

4. A second indictment has no connection with the first

5. In no sense can the second be considered as an amendment of the first.

Mr. Bates, Dist. Atty., for the United States.

Walker & Douglass, for defendant

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

This is an indictment for perjury, charged to have been committed 26th February, 1842, in the oath made by the defendant to his schedule in bankruptcy, filed on that day. The indictment was found the 18th October, 1844, two years and seven months and some days, after the perjury is charged to have been committed. A previous indictment, charging the same offence, was found February 1, 1844, on which a nolle prosequi was entered. The facts, as above related, are submitted by the counsel; and a question is raised, whether the limitation of the statute had not run, before the pending indictment was found. The act of April 30, 1790, thirty-second section, provides: “Nor shall any person be prosecuted or punished for any offence not capital, nor for any fine or forfeiture under any penal statute, unless the indictment or information for the same shall be found or instituted within two years from the time of committing the offence, or incurring the fine and forfeiture aforesaid.” This limitation extends as well to offences created after, as before the act. Adams v. Wood, 2 Cranch [6 U. S.] 336; Jones v. U. S., 7 How. [48 U. S.] 681.

Looking only at the second indictment, there would seem to be no doubt that the statute bars the prosecution, as more than two yéars had elapsed, after the offence was committed, before the indictment was found. But it is insisted, that the first indictment being found within the two years and the second being found shortly after the abandonment of the first, prevent the bar under the statute.

The first indictment had no connection with the second. In no sense can the second be considered as an amendment of the first. When a nolle prosequi was entered upon the first indictment, the prosecution was at an end; and the second indictment must be considered as the commencement of a new prosecution. The statute does not refer to the exhibition of the charge, but to the indictment or information. The charge, therefore, must be sanctioned by the grand jury, in one of the forms designated, within two years after the offence has been committed. This not having been done in the present case, the act must be held to bar the prosecution.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                             List of Subsidiaries

Registrant: Telemonde, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Wholly-owned subsidiaries of Telemonde, Inc.:

   Telemonde Investments Limited, a British Virgin Islands Company
   EquiTel Communications Limited, a United Kingdom company
   telemonde.net, S.A., organized in Switzerland
   TGA (UK) Limited, a United Kingdom company
   Telemonde Networks Limited, a United Kingdom company
   Telecities Limited, a United Kingdom company
   MetroLinx Limited, a United Kingdom company

Wholly-owned subsidiaries of Telemonde Investments Limited:

   Telemonde International Bandwidth Limited, a British Virgin Islands company
   Telemonde Bandwidth (Bermuda) Limited, a Bermuda company
   Telemonde International Bandwidth (Bermuda) Limited, a Bermuda company

Subsidiaries of EquiTel Communications, Limited:

   EquiTel Card Services Limited (100%), a United Kingdom company
   Teleroute Limited (100%), a United Kingdom company
   Telesource Limited (100%), a United Kingdom company
   Desert Telecommunications Services LLC (75%), organized in Oman
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 amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. (the Company), for the
quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven C. Jacobs, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge that:



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



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Steven C. Jacobs                                
|Steven C. Jacobs                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                    
|Dated: November 15, 2004
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 Colorado Rare Earths, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael D. Parnell, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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








/s/   Michael D. Parnell





Michael D. Parnell


Chief Executive Officer


Principal Financial Officer


April 15, 2011











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.  The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-K solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
No. 60922.

#### Swift & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 224292-K (El Paso).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed as untimely.
**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**





The
      undersigned, Doron Uziel Chief
      Executive Officer and Director of
      Energtek Inc. (the “Company”), and Constantine Stukalin, Treasurer and Chief
      Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, under the standards set forth and
      solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to each of their knowledge, the Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 30,
      2007
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.





Dated:
      August 10, 2007








By: /s/
      Doron
      Uziel


Name:  Doron
      Uziel


Title:  
      Chief Executive Officer, and Director


(Principal
      Executive Officer)




By:  /s/
        Constantine Stukalin
 Name:  Constantine
        Stukalin
 Title: Treasurer
        and Chief Accounting Officer
 (Principal
        Financial and Accounting Officer)







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.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

 

ABRION M. WITCHER, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2891

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

) 

Opinion filed May 9, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for

Pinellas County; Joseph A. Bulone, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Richard Sanders, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, CRENSHAW, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
No. 52284.

protests 18587-K/88993, etc. (Chicago).

#### Maryland Wine & Liquor Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gaugers’ returns as verified by the affidavits of the importers. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Before the Second Division,

June 27, 1938

No. 38904.

#### Protest 408023-G of Rolland Frères, Inc. *(New*York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was found that certain items consist of hats, hoods, and braids in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in *Amberg*v. *United States*(T. D. 46204). The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12848

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

WILLIAM P. BROWN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN DOES, et al., 

Defendants,

NAPHCARE, 

Individual and Official Capacity, 

TECHCARE, 

Individual and Official Capacity,

ADVENT CARE, 

In their individual and professional capacity, 

USCA11 Case: 23-12848 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 10/13/2023 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12848

ADVENT HEALTH CARE, 

Individual and Official Capacity, 

CHAD CHRONISTER, 

Sheriff, Hillsborough County, in hisindividual and 

Professional Capacity, 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:23-cv-00141-WFJ-AEP

____________________

Before BRANCH, LUCK, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. William Brown, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals 

from the district court’s order dismissing claims against three 

named defendants. The order is not final and appealable, however, 

because the district court has not yet resolved the rights and liabilities of Sheriff Chad Chronister and the unnamed correctional officers and did not certify its order for immediate appeal. See 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. 

Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022); Supreme Fuels Trading 

FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012).

USCA11 Case: 23-12848 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 10/13/2023 Page: 2 of 3
23-12848 Opinion of the Court 3

No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies 

with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all 

other applicable rules.

USCA11 Case: 23-12848 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 10/13/2023 Page: 3 of 3
### BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C
.

Agreements Adopte d b

yth e Traffi c Conference s of th e Internationa l Ai r Transpor t Associatio n OST-2011-022 1



### APPLICATIO N FO R APPROVA L O F AGREEMENTS

B Y TH E INTERNATIONA L AI R TRANSPOR T ASSOCIATIO N £N T APPROVE D & IMMUNIZE D y ^ lAT A AGREEMEN T APPROVE IMMUNIZE DOCKE T OST- . Thi s approval an dgran t

o f antitrus t immunity i s subject , wher e applicable , t o condition s previousl y imposed . Thi s actio n i s effectiv e after 7 day s unles s apetitio n i s file dunde r 14 CF R385.3 0 o r

arevie w i s undertake n o n th e Department' s ow n tyiotion . I n view o f th e agreement' s noncontroversia l natur e an dth e availability o f th e abovp-prpcedure , thsPf- ^ pgpejtji l 1 4 CF R303.4 2 i s waived .



### 3 0 Novembe r201 1 Communication s wit h respec t t o thi s documen t shoul d b e sen t t o Douglas E
. Lavi n Regiona l Vic e Presiden t - Nort h America Internationa l Ai rTranspor t Associatio n 1776 K.St.N.W
. #12'^

Floo r Washingto n D C 2000 6Summar yDOCKET : OST-2011-022 1 U S DO T ORDER : pendin g Date : Filin g fe e /

lAT A Acct : US/UST involved : 3 0 Novembe r201 1 US D 6 1 / 0000-0 6 N o En d o f Governmen t Filin g Period : 1 6 Decembe r201 1 Meetin g site , date : SIN , 1 4 Oc t 201 1 Intende d effective date : 3 0 Januar y201 2 Agreement : Composit e Passenge rTariff Coordinatin g Conferenc e Singapore , 1 4 Octobe r201 1 Composit e Resoiution s 0 1 O o Intende d Effectiv e Date : 3 0 Januar y201 2 (Mem o PT C COM P 1655 )
R 1 0 1 O o Composit e Passenge rTariff Coordinatin g Conferenc e Singapore , 1 4 Octobe r201 1 •Minute s (Mem o PT C COM P 1656 )
Before the Second Division,

January 5, 1940

No. 42964.

#### Protests 965813-G, etc., of Biddle Purchasing Co. et al. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of chip electric wreaths similar to those the subject of *Minami*v. *United States*(1 Cust. Ct. 307, C. D. 72). The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 353 was therefore sustained.
#### Bryan J. Lawrence, *Respondent, v.*James Hall and others, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Bockes, J.