alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 60916.

#### Browne Vintners Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 280984-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J.

Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2170

___________

Marc Joseph Arens, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Robert Fletcher, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 14, 2006

Filed: June 27, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota inmate Marc Joseph Arens brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

against Ramsey County Sheriff Robert Fletcher, alleging civil rights violations by

county jail staff. The district court1

 dismissed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, and Arens appeals. Having reviewed the record de novo, see Cooper v.

Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we conclude dismissal was

proper. See Vaughn v. Greene County, Ark., 438 F.3d 845, 851 (8th Cir. 2006) ( “[I]t
-2-

is well settled the doctrine of respondeat superior is inapplicable to section 1983

claims”).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, R. Byron Carlock, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, certifies that
(1) this Quarterly Report of CNL Lifestyle Properties, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company
as of June 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007, and its results of operations for the quarters and six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007.



|                      |  |        |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2008 |  |        |  | /s/ R. Byron Carlock, Jr.            
|                      |  | Name:  |  | R. Byron Carlock, Jr.                
|                      |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
DECEMBER 31, 2002 (the "Report") of UTEK CORPORATION (the "Registrant"), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
MICHAEL O. SULLIVAN, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby
certify, 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, as amended; and

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



                                              /s/ Michael O. Sullivan
                                              ------------------------
                                              Name:  Michael O. Sullivan
                                              Date:  March 28, 2003

         This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
EXHIBIT 23.2
                                                                    ------------


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
First Mutual Bancshares, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the First Mutual Bancshares,
Inc. 2000 Stock Option and Incentive Plan Registration Statement on Form S-8
filed July 7, 2000, of our report dated February 18, 2005 with respect to the
consolidated statements of financial condition of First Mutual Bancshares, Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash
flows for the three years ended December 31, 2004, and our report dated April
14, 2005, with respect to First Mutual Bancshares, Inc. management's assessment
of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports are
included in this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of First Mutual
Bancshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.


/s/ Moss Adams LLP
-----------------------
Everett, Washington
April 22, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cleo R. Butler, Jr., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[635 NYS2d 385]

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: During voir dire, a prospective juror stated that, based upon his experience with shoplifters and employee theft in his business, he has found that "when you catch somebody they’re always going to deny it at first.” He also advised the attorneys and County Court that his business had been robbed and burglarized and that he did not know whether he could "put those incidents aside.” The prospective juror provided assurances that he would try to be objective, but at the same time expressed doubt that he could be. Based upon his clearly expressed uncertainty about his ability to be objective, that prospective juror was challenged for cause by both the prosecutor and defense counsel. The challenges were denied and defendant used a peremptory challenge to remove him. Because that prospective juror was unable to state unequivocally that he could render an impartial verdict based upon the evidence, the trial court should have discharged him for cause *(see,*CPL 270.20 [1] [bj; *People v Blyden,*55 NY2d 73, 78-79; *People v Williams,*210 AD2d 914; *People v Rice,*199 AD2d 1054). Defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges before the completion of jury selection. Therefore, the conviction must be reversed and a new trial granted *(see,*CPL 270.20 [2]; *People v Williams, supra; People v Rice, supra).*

The court properly denied the motion of defendant to suppress physical evidence seized at the time of his arrest *(see, People v Pringle,*216 AD2d 863) and his statements to the police *(see, People v Oates,*104 AD2d 907, 910).

In view of our determination, we do not address defendant’s remaining contentions. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—Attempted Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
VRNT-EX10.35_2015.01.31 - Form 10-K






EXHIBIT 10.35






Summary of the Terms of Verint Systems Inc. Executive Officer Annual Bonus Plan
Verint Systems Inc. (the “Company”) maintains an annual bonus program (the “AIP”) for its executive officers. Under the AIP, each executive officer is eligible to receive an annual cash bonus upon the satisfaction of pre-determined performance goals, however, the Company may reserve the right to pay some or all of the bonus in shares of our common stock. The target bonus under the AIP is established annually by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Committee”) as part of the Committee’s regular compensation review process and is paid following certification by the Committee of the achievement of the underlying performance goals. In establishing target bonuses, in addition to the factors considered as part of the compensation review process generally, the Committee also considers the target bonus set forth in the executive officer’s employment agreement (if applicable), as well as special achievements, promotions, and other facts and circumstances specific to the individual officer. 
The performance goals under the AIP are based on revenue, a measure of profitability, and a measure of cash generation and are expressed on a non-GAAP basis. In the case of executive officers with direct responsibility for a specific operating unit, unit revenue and unit profitability goals may also be incorporated into the executive officer’s performance goals. In addition to company-wide performance goals (or if applicable, unit-based goals), a portion of the target bonus is also tied to the achievement of non-financial management business objectives (MBOs) approved by the Committee. The financial performance goals established by the Committee generally come in the form of a range, wherein the executive officer may achieve a percentage of his or her target bonus at the low end of the performance range (or threshold), 100% of his target bonus towards the middle of the performance range (target performance), and up to 200% of his target bonus at the high end of the performance range.
(Reap. Dec. 10117)

#### H. H. Elder & Co., a/c Fadex Western Motors, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 44869, etc.

(Decided December 7, 1961)

*William Whynman*for the plaintiffs.

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

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in the schedule of reappraisements attached to this decision and made a part hereof have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto through their respective attorneys, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

> 1. That the imported merchandise consists of automobiles, manufactured in and exported from Germany on the dates herein relevant, and described on the invoices as U.S. Isetta or Isetta 300, 1 tone (one color) and 2 tones (2 colors), and also U.S. Isetta 600 or BMW Isetta 600, 1 tone (one color) and 2 tones (2 colors) together with accessories and spare parts.

> *5372. That on the relevant dates of exportation, there was no foreign, export, or U.S. value, as each of such values is defined in Section 402 (e), (d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, for the imported merchandise above described.

> 3. That on the relevant dates of exportation, the proper basis of value of the automobiles above described was the cost of production, as such value is defined in Section 402 (f) of said Tariff Act, and as stated in Schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof.

> 4. That as to the accessories not already included in the cost figures shown in the said schedule and separately appraised, the proper basis of value is the cost of production, which is equal to the value stated on the invoice.

> 5. That the proper basis of value of the imported spare parts is the cost of production, as defined in Section 402(f), which is as follows:

> Those marked in green ink with the letter “G” are equal to the appraised value.

> Those marked in green ink with the letter “3T” are equal to the invoice value.

> Those marked in green ink with the letter “D” are equal to the invoice value less 6% %•

> The said appeals are submitted herewith for decision upon this stipulation and are abandoned as to all items not included and referred to above.

On the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by said appeals and that such values were as follows:

1. For the automobiles covered by said appeals, the values stated in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof.

2. For the accessories not already included in the cost figures shown in the said schedule and separately appraised, the values stated on the invoices.

3. For the spare parts marked in green ink with the letter “G,” the appraised values; for those marked in green ink with the letter “F,” the invoice values; and for those marked in green ink with the letter “D,” the invoice values, less 614 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case No. 9,811.

#### MORGAN v. VOSS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 109.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1802.

Continuance — Issue sot Made — Request of Defendant.

If at the last calling of a cause for trial, the issue be not made up. and no rule to plead has been laid, the court will continue the cause at the request of the defendant, although it be the fifth term after the appearance term.

This was the fifth term after the appearance term. A rule to declare had been laid on the plaintiff at the last term. The declaration was filed at this term. No rule to plead had been laid. The cause was now called for trial, it being the last time of calling the cause, according to the rule of the court. The plaintiff insisted upon, plea and issue instanter. The defendant contended for a continuance.

THE COURT

continued it. CRANCH, Circuit Judge, doubting; thinking the plaintiff ought to be nonsuit under the act of assembly of Maryland.

[See Case No. 9.812.]
CERTIFICATIONS

I, JOSEPH BATTY, certify,  pursuant to Rule 13a-4 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
with respect to the Annual Report of 1-900  Jackpot,  Inc.  (formerly  Pultronex
Corporation) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2001 ("Report") that:

(1) I have reviewed this Report;

(2) based on my knowledge,  this Report does not contain any untrue statement of
a  material  fact  or omit  to  state a  material  fact  necessary  to make  the
statements made, in light of the circumstances  under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;

(3)  based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements  and  other  financial
information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of 1-900 Jackpot, Inc.
(formerly  Pultronex  Corporation) as of, and for the periods  presented in this
Report;

(4) I am responsible for  establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
procedures  (as  defined in  Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14 and  15d-14)  for 1-900
Jackpot,  Inc.  (formerly  Pultronex  Corporation) and I have: (a) designed such
disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material  information relating
to 1-900 Jackpot,  Inc. (formerly Pultronex  Corporation) is made known to me by
others,  particularly  during the period in which this Report is being prepared;
(b) evaluated the  effectiveness  of 1-900  Jackpot,  Inc.  (formerly  Pultronex
Corporation)'s  disclosure  controls and  procedures as of a date within 90 days
prior  to the  filing  date of this  Report  (the  "Evaluation  Date");  and (c)
presented  in  this  Report  my  conclusions  about  the  effectiveness  of  the
disclosure  controls and procedures  based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;

(5) I have disclosed,  based on my most recent  evaluation,  to our auditors and
the audit  committee  of our  board of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the
equivalent  function):  (a)  all  significant  deficiencies  in  the  design  or
operation  of  internal  controls  which could  adversely  affect our ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for our
auditors  any  material  weaknesses  in  internal  controls;  and (b) any fraud,
whether or not material,  that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in our internal controls; and




DATE:   SEPTEMBER 15, 2005

BY:      /S/ JOSEPH BATTY
      ---------------------------
             JOSEPH BATTY
    PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
No. 56014.

protest 164070-K (New York).

#### Vintage Wines, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Lancers Rose Wine in bottles or jugs similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 53224, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Rio Narcea Gold Mines, Ltd.
Form 40-F

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 4, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Rio Narcea Gold Mines, Ltd. (the Company) as at December 31, 2004 and 2003 and the consolidated statements of operations and deficit and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Ernst & Young LLP

March 4, 2005

Chartered Accountants
<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, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Waldorf, 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: March 31, 2006

                                   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.
EXHIBIT 32 - CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION


Exhibit 32.1

                        Statement Furnished Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
OBN Holdings, Inc. (the "Company").  This Certificate is made pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification accompanies
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
December 31, 2005 (the "10-QSB Report").

The undersigned certifies that the 10-QSB Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the 10-QSB Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.


Date: February 14, 2006                  /s/ ROGER N. SMITH
                                         -------------------------
                                          Roger N. Smith
                                          Chief Executive Officer

Date: February 14, 2006                  /s/ LARRY TAYLOR
                                         -------------------------
                                          Larry Taylor
                                          Chief Financial Officer





<PAGE>
ALASKA SEAFOOD CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0652

DCN: 00310CBI

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
#### Lisbeth K. Uzcategui, an Infant, by Her Father and Natural Guardina Luis R. Uzcategui, et al., Plaintiffs, v Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., Also Known as 3M Company, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

February 3, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Julien & Schlesinger, P. C. (David Jaroslawicz*of counsel), for plaintiffs. *Quirk & Bakalor, P. C. (Richard H. Bakalor of*counsel), for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Bentley Kassal, J.

issue

Defendant seeks the name and address of each of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses who will testify at trial on the issue as to whether a certain product, manufactured by defendant and used by the infant’s parents, caused certain birth defects.

DECISION

Neither party cites a decision on "all fours”. Since CPLR *8693101 (subd [d], par 1) states that an expert opinion, prepared for litigation is not discoverable, absent exceptional circumstances, the question becomes whether the name of an expert to be used is discoverable, although his opinion is exempt.

*Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co.*(21 NY2d 403), cited by both parties, does stand for the proposition that the terms "material and necessary” should be broadly interpreted to permit liberal disclosure. The other cases presented for consideration do not resolve this issue since they deal only with the discoverability of expert reports.

The witnesses whose names defendant seeks were not witness to the occurrence, but have been called in for litigation purposes only and it is clear that there is no obligation on the part of the plaintiffs to such witnesses at trial.

Furthermore, upon the argument of this motion, defendant’s counsel states that the purpose for obtaining such information is that there be adequate opportunity for preparation for impeachment of the experts. Clearly, the purpose of disclosure is not to compel a party to disclose the array of witnesses whose identity and testimony do not have to be disclosed, or to require that they be "locked in” to use these experts. As a matter of fact, if the court were to direct the disclosure of the names of these experts, it is quite conceivable that for whatever the reason, good or bad, the party might determine prior to trial to use a different expert to establish the same testimony. If a continuing obligation were imposed to communicate the names of such experts, the inevitable question arises as to what penalty could be properly imposed for not calling such experts and/or not communicating the name of the successor expert.

It is not the purpose of disclosure that a party lay bare all of the elements pertaining to the manner in which he intends to prove his case. This case hinges upon scientific opinions with respect to a product and the defendant will present its own expert witnesses that are qualified to judge the credentials and ability of plaintiff’s expert at that time. There is no authority for nor is there any logical purpose in requiring that this be disclosed prior to the time that they actually take the stand.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to strike this supplemental interrogatory seeking the name and address of plaintiffs’ expert witness is granted.