alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 50510.

#### Protests 70052-K, etc., of Scottish Tweed & Yarn Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring, the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) 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.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 24, 2009 

0217 

Order 

 

February 24, 2009 

137767 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137767 

 COA: 287946 

Berrien CC: 2007-404692-FH 

DWIGHT DEMONT HALLIBURTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 27, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Archive

**OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS (OCA)**

**U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE**

**PUBLICATIONS******
About this capture
Internet Archive
Wayback Machine
2004 Election
May 20, 1948

No. 52344.

protests 105054-K, etc.

#### American Mink Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Abstract 52263. Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
No. 57374.

protest 191121-K (Philadelphia) .

#### F. S. Parkhurst & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer-Enhanced (ISMT-E)

Description

The ISMT-E is an interactive audio/video weapons simulator that enhances

marksmanship training and weapons employment training. The system consists

of infantry weapons that use lasers to engage a variety of lanes, video, and

computer generated imagery (CGI) scenarios.

Operational Impact

Complete fielding of the ISMT-E will allow all active and reserve units to

train Marines on a variety of weapons to Individual Training Standards in a

simulated environment. The ISMT-E upgraded digital graphics are in open flight

format and are Hight Level Architecture (HLA) compliant. This enables Marines

located at different facilities to interface with other emerging training systems

that comply with the HLA protocol. Funding cuts in live fire ammunition, range

reductions, environmental hazards, and safety concerns limit live fire training. 

Program Status

The contract was awarded in Dec. 2000. Base year fielding began in June

2001. During the Base Year, 97 ISMT are to be upgraded to the enhanced

configuration, (22) M-4 will be purchased, 97 JSCS, 1 year of CLS will be

funded, and instructor operator training will be purchased. Option Year 1 was

awarded March 2001 to upgrade 100 systems and conduct instructor operator

training. Option 2 calls for the procurement of up to an additional 200 upgrade

kits.

Procurement Profile FY02 FY03

Quantity: 200 0

Developer/Manufacturer Firearms Training Systems (FATS)

Suwanee, GA

100 Chapter 3
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3299

_____________________________

MARIO BARKE-JERMAIN BRYANT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Linda F. McCallum, Judge.

June 5, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Matthew R. McLain of McLain Law, P.A., Longwood, for 

Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
No. 44091.

#### Protest 31176-K of DeGrauw Aymar & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Hínchelos, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Penn*(27 C. C. P. A. 242, C. A. D. 93) the claim at 90 percent under paragraph 1529 (a) was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the annual report of AcuNetx, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, , Interim Chief Financial 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) 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.

Date: April 12, 2007

                                      By: /s/ Ronald A. Waldorf
                                          ---------------------
                                          Ronald A. Waldorf,
                                          Interim Chief Financial Officer


      This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed "FILED" by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the
date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v KENNETH L. ROGERS, Airman, U. S. Navy, Appellant

16 USCMA 246, 36 CMR 402

No. 19,286

April 29, 1966

*Major Ernest B. Wright,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Jean E. Van Slate,*USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

The decision of the board of review is affirmed. United States v Surtasky, 16 USCMA 241, 36 CMR 397.

Judges Ferguson and Kilday concur.
#### In the Matter of Coalition for Responsible Development in Goldens Bridge et al., Petitioners, v Town Planning Board of the Town of Lewisboro et al., Respondents, and Route 22 Associates, Intervenor-Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 844]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Lewisboro Planning Board, dated December 6, 1994, which, after a hearing, granted the application of Route 22 Associates for site development plan approval.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The respondent, the Town of Lewisboro Planning Board (hereinafter the Planning Board), as lead agency, took the requisite hard look at the proposed project and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its resolution granting site development plan approval for the project *(see generally, Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp.,*67 NY2d 400, 417; *Matter of Kelsky v Town of Lewisboro Planning Bd.,*215 AD2d 483). The petitioners’ conclusory assertions notwithstanding, the respondent adequately identified and addressed the environmental concerns raised in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, giving "due consideration to pertinent environmental factors” *(Akpan v Koch,*75 NY2d 561, 571; *see also,*ECL 8-0111 [6]; 8-0105 [7]; 8-0109 [2]; 6 NYCRR 617.8; *Matter of Sutton Area Community v Board of Estimate,*78 NY2d 945, 947; *Matter of Kelsky v Town of Lewisboro Planning Bd., supra).*We further conclude, on the record before us, that the Planning Board gave reasonable consideration to alternatives to the specific project *(see, Matter of Town of Dryden v Tompkins County Bd. of Representatives,*78 NY2d 331, 334; *Matter of Morse v Town of Gardiner Planning Bd.,*164 AD2d 336, 339-340). We note that the Planning Board was fully informed of all pertinent environmental issues, including those dealing with sewage treatment for the project, before granting its approval. Accordingly, "the 'hard look’ standard of judicial review is satisfied and the determination must be confirmed” *(Matter of Kelsky v Town of Lewisboro Planning Bd., supra,*at 484; *see also, Matter of Sutton Area Community v Board of Estimate, supra).*

We have considered the petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
M14004 – Chemical 3

Chemical Structure



## CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED
H. R. 82 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension 

offset and windfall elimination provisions. 

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 ‘‘Social Security Fairness Act 

of 2023’’. 

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET PROVISION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 202(k) of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 402(k)) is amended by striking paragraph (5). 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

(1) Section 202(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

402(b)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsections (k)(5) and (q)’’ 

and inserting ‘‘subsection (q)’’. 

(2) Section 202(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(2)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘subsections (k)(5) and (q)’’ and inserting 

‘‘subsection (q)’’. 

(3) Section 202(e)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(2)(A)) 

is amended by striking ‘‘subsection (k)(5), subsection (q),’’ and 

inserting ‘‘subsection (q)’’. 

(4) Section 202(f)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)(2)(A)) 

is amended by striking ‘‘subsection (k)(5), subsection (q)’’ and 

inserting ‘‘subsection (q)’’. 

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 215 of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 415) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (7); 

(2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3); and 

(3) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (9). 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Subsections (e)(2) and (f)(2) 

of section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402) are each amended by 

striking ‘‘section 215(f)(5), 215(f)(6), or 215(f)(9)(B)’’ in subparagraphs (C) and (D)(i) and inserting ‘‘paragraph (5) or (6) of section 

215(f)’’. 

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect 

to monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the Social 

Security Act for months after December 2023. Notwithstanding 

section 215(f) of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner of Social 

Security shall adjust primary insurance amounts to the extent 
H. R. 82—2 

necessary to take into account the amendments made by section 

3. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
BF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0042

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOHNATHAN ALBERT BERTSCH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including May 16, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 8 2024

04/08/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0042
**CH** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0717 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. DARRELL DEAN SHARP ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing theref or, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including Septe mber 18 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 2 2024

08/02/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0717
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

I, Bryan Miller, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sunergy, Inc. for the period
          ended June 30, 2010 (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 Sunergy, Inc.

Dated: June 29, 2011
                                              /s/ Bryan Miller
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Bryan Miller
                                              President and Director
                                              (Principal Executive Officer)
                                              Sunergy, Inc.

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
required by Section 906, has been provided to Sunergy, Inc. and will be retained
by Sunergy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4903 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to require youth 

representation on each State workforce development board, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2024 

Ms. BUTLER (for herself and Mr. KAINE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

to require youth representation on each State workforce 

development board, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Generation Now Work5 force Representation Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE WORKFORCE INNOVATION 

7 AND OPPORTUNITY ACT. 

8 Section 101 of the Workforce Innovation and Oppor9 tunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3111) is amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4903 IS

1 (1) in subsection (b)(1)(C)(iii)— 

2 (A) in subclause (I)(bb), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

3 at the end; 

4 (B) by redesignating subclause (II) as sub5 clause (IV); and 

6 (C) by inserting after subclause (I) the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(II) shall include not less than 

9 one representative of youth in the 

10 State who is selected in coordination 

11 with the State educational agency of 

12 the State and— 

13 ‘‘(aa) is— 

14 ‘‘(AA) an out-of-school 

15 youth; or 

16 ‘‘(BB) not younger 

17 than age 16 or older than 

18 age 24 and disconnected 

19 from school and work; or 

20 ‘‘(bb) has successfully com21 pleted a program of youth work22 force investment activities under 

23 subtitle B or activities under sec24 tion 171; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4903 IS

1 ‘‘(III) shall include not less than 

2 one representative from a youth-serv3 ing nonprofit organization in the 

4 State that— 

5 ‘‘(aa) is described in section 

6 501(c)(3) of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 and exempt 

8 from taxation under section 

9 501(a) of such Code; and 

10 ‘‘(bb) provides supportive 

11 services to youth; and’’; and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(i) STANDING YOUTH WORKFORCE COMMITTEE.— 

14 The State board shall have a standing youth workforce 

15 committee of members of the State board that shall pro16 vide recommendations to the full State board regarding 

17 youth workforce investment activities under subtitle B or 

18 activities under section 171.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### JOSEPH M. D'IPPOLITO, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. JOSEPH N. CASTORO, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENT. JOSEPH N. CASTORO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOSEPH M. D'IPPOLITO, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

*Mr. William L. Boyan*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Jamieson, Walsh, McCardell & Moore*for the respondents.

December 12, 1967.

Granted.
No. 58081.

protests 184054-K, etc. (Boston).

#### Pistorino & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *490
      *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content under T. D. 53159” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
No. 53077.

#### Amtorg Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 143121-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
## Geologic Map of the Rio Puerco Quadrangle, Bernalillo
      and Valencia Counties, New Mexico

*By*  Florian Maldonado

thumbnail image of map

Version 1.0

---

Text Only 
  PDF file (173 KB)
(This version of the report is accessible as defined in Section 508.)

MF-2397 PDF 
  file (1.6 MB)

Metadata
  file (24 KB)

|mf-2397.tar.gz (965 KB) | mf-2397.zip (952 KB) | riopuerco_base.zip (1011 KB)
|----------------------- | -------------------- | ----------------------------

---

|AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices                                                                                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
      URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/mf/2003/mf-2397/
Questions or Assistance: USGS Web Contact
Page Last Modified: Thr Dec  1 12:09 EDT 2016

---
Case No. 14,512..

#### UNITED STATES v. BANCROFT.

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

[Affirming Case No. 14,513. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0141 SAMANTHA VULES, SHERI ESTENSON, et al.,

Plaint iffs and Appellants, v. THIES & TALLE MANAGEMENT, INC., THIES & TALLE ENTERPRISES, INC., ALMANOR INVESTORS LIMITED P ARTNERSHIP and JOHN DOES 1 - 4,

Defendants and Appellees. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parti es having failed to j oint ly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT I S ORDERED THAT **Elizabeth Brennerman,**  **1022 Chest**  **nut, Helena,**  **MT 59601**  **,** whose name appears next on th e list of attorneys desi

ring appoint me nta s mediators fo r Mo ney Judgments appeals which is ma int ained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is h ereby appo int ed to co nduct th e med iation process requi red by M.R.App.P. , 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th at th e time periods set fo rth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appoint me nt . A true copy

of this order is being mailed to counsel of record f

or the parti es, or to th e parties individuall y if not represented by counsel , on the date hereof. DATED thi s April 14, 2021 .

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court c: Chr istopher W. Froines, Ben Desmo nd Kappelman, Elizabeth Brenneman 04/14/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0141
#### THOMAS J. CHILDS, PETITIONER-PETITIONER, v. WARREN PAVING COMPANY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

*Mr. Hrnest W. Russo*and *Mr. Verling G. Hnteman*for the petitioner.

*Mr. John W. Taylor*and *Mr. Charles P. Horton*for the respondent.

January 16, 1968.

Denied.
#### In the Matter of Rita Tillim, Respondent, v Leon Fuks, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 508]

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated April 15, 1994, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Adams, H.E.), dated January 19, 1994, which granted *643the mother’s petition for child support arrears in the sum of $3,200.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, the stay pending appeal granted by decision and order of this Court on motion dated June 27, 1994, is vacated forthwith, and the father’s attorney is directed to release the sum of $3,200 from escrow to the mother.

It is well settled that a separation agreement entered into by spouses in contemplation of divorce is a. contract subject to principles of contract interpretation *(see, Rainbow v Swisher,*72 NY2d 106; *see also, Matter of Meccico v Meccico,*76 NY2d 822). A court may not write into a contract conditions the parties did not insert by adding or excising terms under the guise of construction, nor may it construe the language in such a way as would distort the contract’s apparent meaning *(see, Slamow v Del Col,*174 AD2d 725, *affd*79 NY2d 1016; *Tantleff v Truscelli,*110 AD2d 240, *affd*69 NY2d 769). The words and phrases used in an agreement must be given their plain meaning so as to define the rights of the parties *(see, Laba v Carey,*29 NY2d 302; *Levine v Shell Oil Co.,*28 NY2d 205).

Here, the Family Court correctly determined that pursuant to the terms of the parties’ separation agreement which had been incorporated into the judgment of divorce, the father was obligated to reimburse the mother the sum of $3,200 that she expended to send the child to summer camp in 1993.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court was acting within its jurisdiction by entertaining the mother’s petition *(see, Matter of Silane v Silane,*173 AD2d 708; *Matter of Cohen v Seletsky,*142 AD2d 111; *Matter of Reeves v Samson,*105 AD2d 1040).

We find no merit to the father’s remaining contentions. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.