alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8582)

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 895552.

(Decided May 18, 1956)

*Fred*BenneJtdor the plaintiff.

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

Laweence, iuclge:

This appeal for a reappraisement presents the question of the proper dutiable value of certain ironing tables imported from Englandiq

It has been stipulated and agreed by the parties hereto that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the articles in issue, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which ex*572ported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, was 20 shillings, 3 pence each, plus 6 pence each for packing, less 2 per centum. It was further agreed that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation of the ironing tables in controversy.

Upon the agreed statement of fact, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was 20 shillings, 3 pence each, plus 6 pence each for packing, less 2 per centum.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 41836.

#### Protests 669284-G, etc., of J. Milton Hagy Waste Works.

C. D. 162. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
#### Henry Austin, *Appellant, v.*James Gillespie and Charles McVey, Respondents.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Smith, P. J.
#### Edwin J. Dunning, *Appellant, v.*Peter Bowe, *Respondent.*

Order affirmed, costs to abide the event. Opinion by Brady, J.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8405 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

90 McCamly Street South in Battle Creek, Michigan, as the ‘‘Sojourner 

Truth Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2024 

Mr. HUIZENGA (for himself, Ms. TLAIB, Mr. BERGMAN, Mr. THANEDAR, Mr. 

MOOLENAAR, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. WALBERG, Ms. SCHOLTEN, Mrs. 

MCCLAIN, Ms. STEVENS, Mr. JAMES, Mrs. DINGELL, and Ms. SLOTKIN) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 90 McCamly Street South in Battle Creek, 

Michigan, as the ‘‘Sojourner Truth Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SOJOURNER TRUTH POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 90 McCamly Street South in 

6 Battle Creek, Michigan, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Sojourner Truth Post Office’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8405 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sojourner Truth Post 

5 Office’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Boston Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, 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 to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                           
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                     
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |                        
|----------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date:             |  |                        
|November 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal       
|                  |  |                        
|                  |  | Marc N. Teal           
|                  |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                  |  |                        
|                  |  |                        



*  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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### William Fullerton and others, *Appellants, v.*The National Burglar and Theft Insurance Company and others, *Respondents.*

Judgment affirmed, without costs. _ Opinions by Brady, J., and Davis, P. J.
Case No. 8,502.

#### In re LORD.

[3 N. B. R. 243 (Quarto, 58).]1

District Court, D. Maine.

Dec. 7, 1868.

Bankruptcy — Examination op Bankrupt — Right to Consult Counsel before Answering.

Whether the bankrupt should be allowed to consult counsel upon his examination, must be determined by the register, according to the circumstances of each particular case.

By the Register:

I, Charles Hamlin, one of the registers of said court in bankruptcy, do hereby certify, that in the course of the proceedings in said matter, before me, the following question arose pertinent to said proceedings, and was stated and agreed to by the counsel for the opposing parties, to wit: Mr. *873McCrillis. who appeared for the bankrupt, and Mr. Crosby, who appeared for Wood & Bishop, creditors of said bankrapt. The bankrupt on his examination, conducted by Mr. Crosby, attorney for creditors, was asked by me to answer the following written question proposed by Mr. Crosby, viz.: Have you ever made more than one deed to Hink-ley & Egery, and if yea, what property and when? The bankrupt answered, that he desired to consult with his counsel, Messrs. Varney & McCrillis, who were present, before answering the question. Being of opinion that it was within my duty by law to determine whether, from the nature of the question and the facts sought to be discovered, the aid of counsel was necessary, and to aid me in deciding whether to refuse or admit the bankrupt to consult his counsel, I asked the following question of the bankrupt. viz.: Have you any recollection or knowledge of the subject-matter inquired into ? and decided he should answer this last question without consulting his counsel; and the bankrupt answered, that he desired to consult with his counsel upon this question. I thereupon decided, the bankrupt should answer both of above questions without consulting with his counsel. And the said parties requested that the same should be certified to the judge for his opinion.

1

 [Reprinted by permission.]

POX, District Judge.

Whether the bankrupt should be allowed to consult upon his examination, must be determined by the register according to the circumstances of each particular ease. Counsel should not frame the answers; and as a general rule, I do not approve of the bankrupt’s consulting with his counsel on his examination. In the present case the register was right in his decision.
#### Michael Dickson, *Respondent, v.*Charles F. Smith, *Appellant.*

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Bockes, J.
```

                                                                       EXHIBIT 8

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

                                     COUNTRY OF          PROPORTION OF      PORTION OF VOTING
NAME                               INCORPORATION       OWNERSHIP INTEREST      POWER HELD
---------------------------   ----------------------   ------------------   -----------------
METALINK INC.                      United States                100%                100%
---------------------------   ----------------------   ------------------   -----------------
METALINK ASIA PACIFIC LTD.             Korea                    100%                100%
---------------------------   ----------------------   ------------------   -----------------
METALINK INTERNATIONAL LTD.   Republic of Seychelles            100%                100%
---------------------------   ----------------------   ------------------   -----------------
METALINK JAPAN K.K.                    Japan                    100%                100%
---------------------------   ----------------------   ------------------   -----------------
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MOHAMMED ISMAIL HOSSAIN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50587

D.C. No. 5:13-cr-00032-JGB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 13, 2016** 

Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Mohammed Ismail Hossain appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 40-month concurrent sentences imposed following his guilty-plea

convictions for conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and illegal trafficking

in food stamp benefits, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b). Pursuant to Anders v.

FILED

APR 18 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Hossain’s counsel has filed a brief stating that

there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. We have provided Hossain the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50587
### Via Electronic Mail and Certified Mail

April 24 , 2013

Jeff Morris

Deputy Director for Programs

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

US Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: Response to April 17, 2013 EPA Memorandum

– Siloxane Enforceable Consent Agreement

Dear Jeff :

SEHSC is in receipt of the April 17, 2013 memorandum from Jeff Morris, Deputy Director for Programs,

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency ), which

we understand represents EPA’s response to the revised environmental monitoring enforceable consent

agreement (ECA) proposal for D4 that SEHSC submitted to th e EPA on February 19, 2013.

From the beginning of and throughout the ECA negotiations, EPA has consistently communicated that the

purpose of a proposed environmental monitoring program was to support an environmental risk

assessment for D4. To facilitate development of the assessment, EPA ex pressed a desire to develop a

better understanding of the sources of

, and pathways to

, the envir onmental concentrations of D4 in

environmental media and biota associated with industrial releases from manufacturing, processing,

formulation and high volume industrial or commercial end users of D4. This has been articulated, to a

greater or lesser degree, in all of EPA’s written c orrespondence in response t o the monitoring proposals

that have been submitted by SEHSC to the Agency.

Consequently, SEHSC is disappointed the Agency continues to insist on the collection of data for the

ECA that will not improve the scientific veracity of an ecological risk assessment for D4. In particular,

influent and bio

- solids monitoring at direct discharge sites

, and monitoring at indirect discharge i ndustrial

sites is not necessary for an informed assessment of environmental exposure to D4. The revised ECA

proposal submitted by SEHSC on February 19, 2013 ( and discussed during the March 28, 2013

negotiation meeting) will provide a robust dataset for assessing the risks , if any, associated with

environmental exposure to D4.

SEHSC members r emain committed to a monitoring proposal that is responsive to the Agency’s desire to

develop an environmental risk assessment for D4

. There ar e many points provided in your letter that can

and should be discussed further and we look forward to continuing to work with the Agency to finalize the

proposed environmental monitoring ECA for D4.

Sincerely,

Karluss Thomas

SEHSC Executive Director
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED BY**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of RockwoodSpecialties Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Seifi Ghasemi, Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

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

2.             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 14, 2006                |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |   |
| /s/ SEIFI GHASEMI                    |   |
| Seifi Ghasemi                        |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature thatappears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retainedby the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
EXHIBIT 32








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Report of UpSnap, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended July 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter van Hierden, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard von Gnechten, the 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Peter van Hierden
Peter van Hierden
Chief Executive Officer

Dated: November 20, 2009/s/ Richard A. von Gnechten
Richard A. von Gnechten
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: November 20, 2009
No. 58600.

protest 170256-K (Duluth).

#### Western Grocers and Norman G. Jensen, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the toilet paper in rolls the subject of *Douglas Paper Co.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 87, C; D. 1501), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 51051.

#### Protest 52358-K of Y. Sumi (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that a portion of the merchandise in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A. D. 303). In accordance therewith the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1540 was sustained.
#### Robert A. Crittenden and Elijah T. Woodcock, *Respondents, v.*Amos B. Atwood, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed. ' Opinion by Smith, P. J.
FTP directory /EmisInventory/fires/ at ftp.epa.gov

To view this FTP site in File Explorer: press Alt, click View, and then click Open FTP Site in File 

Explorer. 

Up to higher level directory

08/04/2015 05:05PM 54,721,448 2002_ptfire_04feb2008.zip

02/19/2013 12:00AM 43,047,122 2007_smartfire_v2_02jan2013.zip

02/15/2013 12:00AM 39,600,555 2008_smartfire_v2_10apr2012.zip

02/15/2013 12:00AM 26,761,497 2009_smartfire_v2_13sep2012.zip

02/15/2013 12:00AM 34,091,004 2010_smartfire_v2_20sep2012.zip

10/26/2015 04:22PM 289 README

05/23/2014 12:00AM 33,820,925 ptfire_2012sf2_23may2014.zip

05/23/2014 12:00AM 25,294,341 ptfire_2013sf2_23may2014.zip

08/07/2015 09:48AM 6,641 smk_dates_2001_2002.zip

FTP directory /EmisInventory/fires/ at ftp.epa.gov Page 1 of 1

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/fires/ 10/29/2015
# C_2007291EN.01001001.xml

| 5.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/10

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions

given at its 429th meeting of 9 July 2007 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/E-2/39.140 — DaimlerChrysler

(2007/C 291/04)

| 1. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in the light of the practices described in the draft decision, the agreements entered into between DaimlerChrysler and its authorised Mercedes-Benz service partners are liable to raise competition concerns on the motor vehicle aftermarkets. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in the light of the practices described in the draft decision, the agreements entered into between DaimlerChrysler and its authorised Mercedes-Benz service partners are liable to raise competition concerns on the motor vehicle aftermarkets.

| 2. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the proceedings in this case can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the proceedings in this case can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1).

1

| 3. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in the light of the commitments offered by DaimlerChrysler, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in the light of the commitments offered by DaimlerChrysler, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 4. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that DaimlerChrysler should be bound by the commitments until 31 May 2010. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that DaimlerChrysler should be bound by the commitments until 31 May 2010.

| 5. | The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

| 6. | The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

1

---
Before the Second Division,

July 28, 1941

No. 46211.

#### Petition 6139-R of Daniel F. Young, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record raised some question as to whether due diligence had been exercised in trying to ascertain the correct value at which to *247enter the merchandise, but under existing circumstances in this case and following *Fish*v. *United States*(12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 307, T. D. 40315), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fish*(268 U. S. 607), it was found that carelessness on the part of the petitioner in this respect is not sufficient to authorize a denial of relief. The court was satisfied that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted.
No. 52683.

protests 135230-K, etc. (New York).

#### Associated Merchandising Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
All data has been removed from this file as a result of CBI sanitization. All data provided as a part of the

sump pump proposal is considered CBI or CBI deducible.
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 American Home Mortgage Investment
Corp. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Michael Strauss, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer
and President of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge, that:

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

August 9, 2006

                                 /s/ Michael Strauss
                                 -----------------------------------
                                 Michael Strauss
                                 Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                                 and President
#### Catharine Marz, *Respondent, v.*George W. Terwilliger, *Appel*lant.

Judgment modified by deducting thirty-five dollars from the damages and otherwise affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.; Dykman, J., not sitting.