alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed November 26, 2013. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00167-CV

____________

VONDA BARNHART, Appellant

V.

SYLVIA MORALES AND LUIS PEREZ, Appellees

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-17655

ORDER

This is an appeal of a judgment in favor of Sylvia Morales and Luis Perez.

The appeal was abated pursuant to the Texas Insurance Code. See Tex. Ins. Code. 

§§ 443.08 and 462.309. The period for a stay of as set out in Tex. Ins. Code § 

462.309 has expired. Unless any party files a response within fifteen days of the 

date of this order demonstrating that the stay has been extended, the appeal will be 

reinstated.

PER CURIAM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Wigmore, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 563]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court’s determination that defendant violated the terms of his probation by failing to report as directed and by failing to continue to participate in a substance abuse treatment program is not against the weight of the evidence (see, *People v Mallory,*191 AD2d 970, *lv denied*81 NY2d 1016). We decline to exercise our power to modify defendant’s sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, LaMendola, J.—Violation of Probation.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned, Guoshen Tu, the Chief Executive Officer of
CHINA SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY that:

| | 1. | The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
      quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the "Report"), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
      the Company.                                                        

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this
statement this 26th day of July 2010.

| | /s/
      Guoshen Tu                                       
| | -----------------------------------------------------------
| | Guoshen Tu                                                 
| | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
      Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and
will be retained by China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
Before the Second Division,

June 3, 1953

No. 57376.

protests 200402-K and 200407-K (New York).

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc., and M. J. Corbett & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of beaded bags the same in all material respects as those the classification of which was involved in Abstract 56124, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Federal Register: March 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 48)]
[Notices]               
[Page 11864]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12mr10-39]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  Wednesday, March 17, 2010; 2 p.m.

PLACE:  Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS:  Commission Meeting--Closed to the Public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    Compliance Weekly/Monthly Report--Commission Briefing:
    The staff will brief the Commission on the status of various 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: March 9, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5550 Filed 3-10-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Mark A. Pytosh, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Holdings LLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: October 30, 2006       By: /s/ Mark A. Pytosh         Mark A. Pytosh    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
45
#### M. & D. Miller, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6306.

Entry No. 718534, etc.

Invoices dated Burslem, England, September 5, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 10, 1941, etc.

(Decided July 29, 1946)

*Benjamin A. Leveit*for the plaintiff.

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

Keefe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for *271decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all' material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5389]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-07-026]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a 
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the 
Hamilton Avenue Bridge across Gowanus Canal, mile 1.2, at Brooklyn, New 
York. Under this temporary deviation the draw may remain in the closed 
position from April 3, 2007 through April 5, 2007 and from April 6, 
2007 through September 29, 2007, a four-hour advance notice shall be 
required for all bridge openings. This deviation is necessary to 
facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance.

DATES: This deviation is effective from April 3, 2007 through September 
29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for 
inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch 
Office, One South Street, New York, New York, 10004, between 7 a.m. and 
3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is (212) 668-7165. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch 
Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First 
Coast Guard District, at (212) 668-7165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Hamilton Avenue Bridge across Gowanus 
Canal, mile 1.2, at Brooklyn, New York, has a vertical clearance in the 
closed position of 19 feet at mean high water and 23 feet at mean low 
water. The existing operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5.
    The bridge owner, New York City Department of Transportation 
(NYCDOT), requested a temporary deviation to allow the bridge to remain 
in the closed position to facilitate scheduled electrical and 
mechanical bridge maintenance.
    Under this temporary deviation the Hamilton Avenue Bridge may 
remain in the closed position from April 3, 2007 through April 5, 2007, 
and from April 6, 2007 through September 29, 2007, the draw shall open 
after at least a four-hour advance notice is given by calling the 
contractor at (201) 400-5243.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed 
with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as 
soon as possible.
    This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 
33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 15, 2007.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7-5389 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
```
7128.12015 E.nllrg'f Savirgs Scheme- Heme 

ENERGY 

SAVINGS SCHEME 

The Energy Savings Scheme is changing to Improve the way we provide incentives for energy 

saving adivities 

._ FIND OUT WHAT'S CHANGING 

How can I be involved? 

Choose the option that best describes you. 

" businesses who want " consultants and " householders 

to save energy service oroyjders 

What is included in the scheme? 

There are many ways to reduce electricity. 

Efficient 

appliances 

Commercial and 

industrial sites 

See what others are doing 

Featured case study: 

Llahtlna: 

technol01ies 

Autonomous Enerav - Llahtlna Energy Efficiency 

Uparade in Commercial Buildinas 

Autonomous Energy provided a comprehensive turnkey 

efficiency upgrade package for Pymble Ladies' College, one of 

the world's leading independent schools. All incumbent 

lighting equipment was upgraded to state-of-the-art LED 

technology and several buildings were also upgraded with 

smart lighting automation to minimise energy wastage. 

" Read fyll case stydy " See more case studies 

hllp:llwww.8118.raw.p.lLIIHome 

What's not 

included 

112 
7128f2015 

CERTIFICATE SJADmCS 

12,459,509 8,914,029 

Total Number 

certificates surrendered 

3,567,160 live certificates are 

yet to be surrendered. 

QUICK LINKS 

ELI Portal and lighting products 

Information for lighting manufacturers 

New process for creating certificates 

List of Accredited Certificate Providers 

NEWSLETTERS 

Newsletter- June 2015 

30/06/2015 

See all newsletters 

EVENTS & UPDATES 

Event dates & registration 

Energy Savings Scheme- Home 

Compliance and Performance Monitoring Strategy Consultation Paper 2015 

Scheme Administrator Notice 01/2014 Additional End-Use Services 

12/09/2014 

See all updates 

SUBSCRIBE TO THESE UPDATES 

I Enter email address I [ SUBSCRIBE ] 

ttlp:ltwww.ess.nsw.gov.auiHome 2!1.
Before the Second Division,

May 16, 1955

No. 59076.

protest 229082-K (B) (New York).

#### Calvaire *v.*United States,

*378Opinion by

Ford, J.

At the trial, it was agreed that the involved merchandise was valued at more than $5 per pound, with an average weight of 14 to 15 ounces per stole, and the record also supported a finding that the involved merchandise is not in part of fringe. On the evidence presented, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to the item in question.
Before the First Division,

May 19, 1960

No. 64208.

protests 300859-K and 304175-K (New York).

#### The Coldwater Seafood Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Federal Trade Commission n Bureau of Consumer Protection n Office of Consumer and Business Education

Consumer Alert

The Truth About Impotence Treatment Claims

Health fraud sells false hope. Whether fraud is packaged as exotic pills and potions, phony cures or

miracle remedies, it thrives on wishful thinking, naivete, or desperation. Fraud wastes a

consumers money, and in some cases, valuable time, especially when it causes a consumer to postpone

proper treatment for a medical problem.

Recent advances in treating impotence have opened the floodgates for bogus remedies for this condition.

Using the Internet and direct mail solicitations, unscrupulous businesses are capitalizing on the publicity

and popularity surrounding a new medical product, exploiting consumers who are desperate for a cure.

The fact of the matter: Impotence is a medical condition for which treatments are available from qualified practitioners. Dont be too embarrassed to see your physician before you begin any treatment regimen.

When it comes to healthcare or medical products that promise resultsespecially those for impotence

the Federal Trade Commission offers these tips for evaluating claims you may want to believe, but

shouldnt.

● If the product is advertised as effective for treating impotenceand no physicians prescription is

necessaryforget it. It wont cure the condition.

● If the product is advertised as a breakthrough in treating impotence, check with your doctor to see

if it is legitimate.

● If the product is promoted by a medical organization, call your physician to check the credentials.

Phony clinics and sham institutes are touting bogus cures for impotence.

● If the product says scientifically proven to reverse impotence in a high percentage of patients,

check it out with your doctor. Some claims that clinical studies prove a product works are false;

generally, high success rates should raise suspicions.

● If the product being pitched to cure impotence is herbal or all natural, dismiss it. To date, no

herbal or all natural substance has been shown to be an effective treatment for impotence.

To report a fraudulent product for treating impotence, file a complaint with the FTC online at

www.ftc.gov, write to the FTC Consumer Response Center (CRC), Washington, D.C. 20580, or call

202-FTC-HELP (382-4357), TDD (202) 326-2502. The Federal Trade Commission publishes free

brochures on variety of consumer protection issues. For a complete list of publications, write or call the

FTC for a copy of Best Sellers. You also can access FTC consumer and business publications online at

www.ftc.gov.

For more information about impotence, write to the American Foundation for Urologic Disease, Inc.,

Sexual Function Health Council, 1128 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. You also can visit their

web sites at www.afud.org, www.impotence.org, or www.iiem.org, or call their toll-free number at

1-800-242-2383.

Produced in cooperation with the American Foundation for Urologic Disease, Inc. October 1998
#### James Gilligan et al., Petitioners *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission et al., Respondents. The Jockeys’ Guild, Inc., Intervenor.

Argued June 2, 1981,

before President Judge Crumlish and Judges Mencer, Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Craig. Judges Rogers, MaoPhail and Palladino did not participate.

*542
      *Richard P. Brown, Jr.,*with Mm *Joe G. Ashworth, Morgan, Lewis £ Bochius,*and *Bruce E. Cooper*and *David S. Kohn,*for petitioners.

*Bartholomew J. DeLuca, Jr.,*Deputy Attorney General, with him *David PL. Allshouse,*Deputy Attorney General, *Allen C. Warshaw,*Chief, Civil Litigation, and *LeRoy 8. Zimmerman,*Attorney General, for respondents.

*Thomas B. Schmidt, III,*with him *Fred Speaher, Pepper, Hamilton £ Scheets,*for intervenor.

July 15, 1981:

Opinion by

President Judge Crumlish,

In *Gilligan v. Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission,*492 Pa. 92, 422 A.2d 487 (1980), the Supreme Court reversed our decision in *Gilligan v. Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission,*46 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 595, 407 A.2d 466 (1979), and ruled that the Commission did have the legislatively-prescribed authority to promulgate rules setting fees to be paid by members to their jockeys. However, the Supreme Court directly remanded the matter back to us “for factual findings *543and legal conclusions on the issues raised by appellees but not reached below. ’ ’

Gathering impetus from petitioners’ initial alternative arguments, the Commonwealth requested that judgment be entered on the pleadings alone in that (1) the Commission’s regulation of jockey fees does not interfere with the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of contract, and (2) the Commission did not satisfy statutorily mandated procedural requirements in promulgating the amendments to its administrative rules.

Given the express instructions of our Supreme Court, we have no choice but to deny the Commonwealth’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and proceed with a hearing on. the remaining issues, after which we will render a decision based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings denied.

Order

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied.

Date: July 15,1981.
##  

## Exhibit 11

## Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings

Set forth below isthe basis for the computation of earnings per share for periods shown.

 
| ** **                  | ** ** | **Years Ended December 31,** | ** ** |
|-----------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                  | ** ** | **2006**                                    | ** ** | **2005** | ** ** | **2004** | ** ** |
| Earnings Per Common  Share  |       |                                        |       |   |   |   |   |
| Basic                       | ** ** | **$**                                       | **0.71**   | ** ** | $ | 0.63 |   | $ | 1.33 |   |
| Average Shares  Outstanding | ** ** | **1,803,583**                               |       | 1, 647,645 |   | 822,250 |   |
| Diluted                     | ** ** | **$**                                       | **0.69**   | ** ** | $ | 0.62 |   | $ | 1.33 |   |
| Average Shares Outstanding  | ** ** | **1, 846, 462**                             |       | 1,672,928 |   | 822,250 |   |

 

----
No. 42963.

#### Protests 968652-G, etc., of Samuel Barotz & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was agreed that the merchandise consists of imitation pearl bead caps similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 380, C. D. 161). The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 21.8 (f) as glass articles was sustained.