alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 46209.

#### Protest 759326-G of Sun Sing Lee Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion bj''

Brown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Wing Duck Co.*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 102, C. D. 97), affirmed in 6 Cust. Ct. 133, C. D. 446, it was held that the merchandise was not subject to the internal revenue tax of $2 per gallon. The protest was overruled in all other respects.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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 on Form 10-Qof American Defense Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), Anthony Piscitelli, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, President and Chairman of the Company and Gary Sidorsky, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our bestknowledge:

 

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: May 15, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Anthony Piscitelli                          |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                    |   | Anthony Piscitelli                              |
|                    |   | Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman |
|                    |   |                                            |
|                    |   |                                            |
|                    | By:    | /s/ Gary Sidorsky                               |
|                    |   | Gary Sidorsky                                   |
|                    |   | Chief Financial Officer                         |

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1686-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-1686-DR), dated March 3, 2007, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

March 16, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 3, 2007:

Warren, Webster, and Wilkinson Counties for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds:  97.030,  Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison, 

Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management and Director of FEMA.

 [FR Doc. E7-5528 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
No. 49724.

#### Protests 979968-G, etc., of H. Kellogg & Sons et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8181 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8181

To prohibit the Consumer Product Safety Commission from issuing a rule 
related to table saws until 5 years after a patent related to the saws 
  has been dedicate to the public or expired, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2024

 Ms. Perez (for herself and Mr. Duncan) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Consumer Product Safety Commission from issuing a rule 
related to table saws until 5 years after a patent related to the saws 
  has been dedicate to the public or expired, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Preserving Woodworking Traditions 
and Blocking Government-Mandated Monopolies Act''.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION STANDARDS FOR 
              TABLE SAWS.

    (a) Prohibition on Table Saw Rule.--The Consumer Product Safety 
Commission may not implement any rule related to the proposed rule on 
the Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws (88 
Fed. Reg. 74909) until at least 5 years after--
            (1) the latest date on which each covered patent has 
        expired; or
            (2) each covered patent has been dedicated to the public 
        under section 253(b) of title 35, United States Code.
    (b) Covered Patent.--In this section, the term ``covered patent'' 
means the following:
            (1) Patent number 8,061,245.
            (2) Patent number 9,724,840.
            (3) Patent number 10,384,281.
            (4) Patent number 10,442,107.
            (5) Patent number 10,864,651.
            (6) Patent number 10,981,238.
            (7) Patent number 11,098,849.
            (8) Any other patent that would be implicated by the 
        implementation of the proposed rule described in subsection 
        (a).
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL STRINGER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

TERRI JACOBS; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-16825

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00711-RCJ-VPC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 23, 2014** 

Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Michael Stringer appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.

FILED

OCT 8 2014

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).
2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Stringer’s claim

against defendant Koehn because Stringer failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether defendant Koehn consciously disregarded a serious risk

to Stringer’s health in addressing his abdominal pain. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511

U.S. 825, 845, 847 (1994) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference if “he

knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk

by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it”); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (to

show deliberate indifference, prisoner must establish that the chosen course of

treatment “was medically unacceptable under the circumstances” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment may not rest on

conclusory assertions, but must come forward with significant probative evidence).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Stringer’s claim

against defendants Jacobs and Smith because Stringer failed to raise a triable

dispute as to whether they had any personal knowledge of or involvement in the

alleged constitutional violation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.

1988) (“Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice to prevent summary

judgment. The prisoner must set forth specific facts as to each individual

2 13-15217
defendant’s deliberate indifference.” (citations omitted)).

We reject Stringer’s contentions that the district court allegedly failed to

view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, handled his

case perfunctorily, and made improper credibility determinations.

AFFIRMED.

3 13-15217
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE L. HODGES, )

) CIV. S-04-2535 GEB KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) ORDER

COUNTY OF SHASTA; JIM POPE, Shasta )

County Sheriff; and DEPUTY PAT )

LANHAM; )

)

Defendants. )

)

The Order to Show Cause filed in this case on June 1, 2005,

will not be pursued.

Dated: July 8, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 07/08/05 Page 1 of 1
View and Download the DOE 2003 Strategic Plan The Department of Energy's 2003 Strategic Plan is now available.Below are links to the 2003 Strategic Plan, both with (Full) and without photos (Text Only).Thank you for your interest.Comments may be e-mailed to StrategicPlan@hq.doe.gov.  Full Versions
    Text Only VersionsLow Resolution Adobe
    Text AdobeHigh Resolution Adobe
    Text Word|DOE Home
     |Phone Book
     |Contact DOE
     |Events
     |Site Map
     |Privacy
     |FOIA
     |Accessibility
     |Plug-Ins |
(Reap. Dec. 8460)

#### Bert Friedberg & Co. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 2929; 5469; 3795.

(Decided July 14, 1955)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows concerning the merchandise referred to below:

> 1) Said merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying cases which in Herber v. US, CD 1519, this court held to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of articles.

> 2) At the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was 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, the foreign value of such or similar merchandise being no higher, is as

> follows in US currency:

> Reappraisement 174771A/11412, entry 2929:

> Binoculars, each_ $15

> Carrying cases, each- 2

> Plus casing and packing charge ($180.80) and other charges ($240)

> Reappraisement 182339A/11716, entry 5469:

> Binoculars, each_$6. 50

> Leather cases, each_ 2. 00

> Plus packing and casing ($70) and other charges ($105)

> Reappraisement 213174A/13204, entry 3795:

> 100 binoculars, each_$8. 45

> 100 carrying cases, each_^- . 55

> 50 binoculars, each_ 17. 55

> 50 carrying cases, each_ 2. 22

> Packing and other charges included

> *3763) Upon this stipulation these cases may be deemed to be submitted for decision.

On the 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 binoculars and leather carrying cases here involved, and that such values were as follows:

> Reappraisement 174771-A/11412, entry 2929:

> Binoculars, each_ $16. 00

> Carrying cases, each_ 2. 00

> Plus casing and packing charge ($180.80) and other charges ($240)

> Reappraisement 182339-A/11716, entry 6469:

> Binoculars, each_1_$6. 60

> Leather cases, each_ 2. 00

> Plus packing and casing ($70) and other charges ($105)

> Reappraisement 213174r-A/13204, entry 3795:

> 100 binoculars, each_$8. 45

> 100 carrying cases, each_ 0. 55

> 50 binoculars, each_ 17. 55

> 50 carrying cases, each_ 2. 22

> Packing and other charges included

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 9177)

#### Pfeil & Holing, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 771572; 825985.

(Decided June 25, 1958)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

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

*474Richardson, Judge:

These two appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of fact by and between the respective parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that at the date of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, confectionery, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of France in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption in France including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was as listed in the attached Schedule A.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher export value for said merchandise at the date of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in 19 U. S. C. section 1402 (c) (§ 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930), to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows:

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Samuel B. Lyon, *as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v.*John Baxter, Appellant, *Impleaded,*etc.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion *Per Curiam.*
Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001.

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

In connection with the Annual Report of PARK HILL CAPITAL I CORPORATION (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis
Mailhot, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2001, that:

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

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

Dated: October 28, 2005


                                        /s/ Francis Mailhot
                                        -------------------
                                        Francis Mailhot,
                                        Chief Executive Officer
#### Pantelis DiMatos, Appellant, v Georgia DiMatos, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 390]

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered October 15, 1993, the former husband appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated March 24, 1994, as, in effect, upon granting reargument, adhered to the prior determination in an order dated March 3,1994, granting the former wife’s motion for leave to enter a money judgment, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered April 21, 1994, which is in favor of the former wife in the principal sum of $83,280.95.

*310Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the principal sum awarded to the former wife from $83,280.95 to $66,280.95; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment; and it is further,

Ordered that the former husband is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The former wife moved for leave to enter a money judgment as a result of the husband’s failure to pay distributive awards pursuant to a settlement agreement which was incorporated into the judgment of divorce, including $20,000 in cash payable in quarterly installments of $1,500. Under these circumstances, where the parties’ settlement agreement did not contain an acceleration clause providing for the entire balance of the $20,000 to be due upon the default of any one installment, the former wife was only entitled to recover past due installments and could not unilaterally declare the entire balance of the $20,000 accelerated *(see, Libeson v Copy Realty Corp.,*167 AD2d 376). At the time the judgment was entered, only two of the installments, each of which were in the amount of $1,500, had come due and were not paid. Therefore, the judgment has been amended accordingly. Balletta, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
**CHAPTER 7-12-03**  **RISK MANAGEMENT**  **PROGRAM FOR**  **AGRICUL TURAL**  **ANHYDROUS AMMONIA**  **F ACILITIES**  Section 7-12-03-01 Scope 7-12-03-02 Incorporation by Reference 7-12-03-03 Denitions **7-12-03-01. Scope.**  The requirements of this chapter apply only to agricultural anhydrous ammonia facilities. **History:** Ef fective April 1, 2013. **General Authority:**  NDCC 28-32-02 **Law Implemented:**  NDCC 19-20.3 **7-12-03-02. Incorporation**  **by reference.**  The provisionsof40 CFRpart68 as they existed on June 30, 2011, are incorporated by reference into this chapter, with the following exceptions: 1. Where the term "stationary source" appears in 40 CFR part 68, forthe purposesofthischapteronlyreferencetheterm "agricultural anhydrous ammonia facility" as dened in section 7-12-03-03. 2. Not adopted by reference in 40 CFR section 68.120. 3. Not adopted by reference are 40 CFR section 68.210, and 40 CFR section 68.215. **History:** Ef fective April 1, 2013. **General Authority:**  NDCC 28-32-02 **Law Implemented:**  NDCC 19-20.3 **7-12-03-03. Denitions.**  The denitions in 40 CFR part 68 apply to this chapter

. The following additional denitions also apply: 1. "Agricultural anhydrous ammonia facility" means any facility that has at leastten thousand pounds [4535 kilograms] ofstorage capacity and stores anhydrous ammonia intended to be used as a fertilizeror in the manufacturing of a fertilizer

. 2. "Fertilizer" means any substance regulated as a fertilizer under North Dakota Century Code chapter 19-20.1. **History:** Ef fective April 1, 2013. **General Authority:**  NDCC 28-32-02 **Law Implemented:**  NDCC 19-20.3

1
MR 292012

Christophe A. G. Tulou, Director

District Department ofthe Environment

1200 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002

Dear Mr. Tulou:

On February 6, 2012, the District Department ofthe Environment (DDOE) provided a

letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially withdrawing portions of a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by DDOE on April 2, 2008. The submittal

pertained to the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter (PM25)National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) attainment plan for the District of Columbia portion ofthe Washington DC- MD-VA

nonattainment area. DDOE requested withdrawal ofthe attainment plan, including analysis of

reasonably available control measures, attainment demonstration, contingency plans for failure to

attain, and mobile source budgets. To address the requirements of Clean Air Act section

172(c)(3), DDOE is not requesting withdrawal ofthe portion ofthe submittal comprised ofthe

2002 base year emissions inventory.

As requested, EPA is returning the April 2, 2008 submittal, with the ‘exception ofthe

following portions ofthe submittal related to the 2002 base year inventory:

1. Chapter 3 ofthe Attainment Plan (The 2002 Base Year Inventory)

2. Appendix B (Base Year 2002 Emissions Inventory and Documentation), and

3. The public notice and hearing documents.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call Ms. Cristina Fernandez, Associate

Director, Office of Air Program Planning at (215) 814-2178.

Sincerely,

Diana Esher, DirectorAir Protection Division

Enclosurecc: Cecily Beall, DDOE

Printed on 100% recycled/recyclablepaper with 100% post-consumerfiber andprocess chlorinefree.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474