alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register: March 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 49)]
[Notices]               
[Page 12328]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15mr10-103]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 6922]

 
Determination Under the Foreign Assistance Act and the Department 
of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Acts

    Pursuant to section 654(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
as amended, notice is hereby given that the Deputy Secretary of State 
has made a determination pursuant to section 620H of the Foreign 
Assistance Act, and Section 7021 of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. F, Pub. 
L. 111-117), and similar provisions in prior-year appropriations acts, 
and has concluded that publication of the determination would be 
harmful to the national security of the United States.

    Dated: March 9, 2010.
Vann H. Van Diepen,
Acting Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and 
Nonproliferation, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-5600 Filed 3-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-27-P
```
(Reap. Dec. 9543)

#### Henry A. Wess, Inc. (Enterprise Distributing Co.) *v.*United States

Entry No. 459, etc.

(Decided November 20, 1959)

*TompMns & TompMns*for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the reappraisement appeals listed in the attached Schedule A, which Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, are limited to binoculars and leather eases and/or straps.

> That at the time of exportation, binoculars and leather cases and/or straps such as, or similar to, those covered by the appeals listed in the attached Schedule A, were being freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States at the per piece prices as invoiced, net, packed, which prices were higher than the foreign values as defined in Section 402(c), Tariff Act of 1930.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold that the proper basis for ap-praisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove referred to, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for each of the items is as set forth in said schedule “A.” Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harold R. Frisco, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 422]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered December 19,1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree.

*780In satisfaction of a superior court information, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree. He was sentenced to an intermittent term of 30 days in jail to be served on weekends and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount $6,132, $3,132 of which was reduced to a civil judgment in favor of the St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services and $3,000 of which was part of a three-year conditional discharge. In addition, County Court imposed a surcharge of $300. Defendant contends that because County Court failed to conduct a hearing on restitution and improperly delegated to the Probation Department the responsibility of setting the amount of restitution, his sentence should be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court. Although we agree with defendant that County Court should have conducted a hearing to determine the appropriate amount of restitution, the manner of payment and defendant’s financial ability to pay the same and should not have relied exclusively upon information supplied by the Probation Department *(see,*Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; *People v Fuller,*57 NY2d 152; *People v Monette,*199 AD2d 589; *People v Robinson, 174*AD2d 779, 780), we do not find this to be a sufficient reason to vacate the sentence in its entirety. Rather, under the circumstances presented, we find that County Court’s award of restitution should be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court for a hearing to properly determine all issues related to restitution.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating so much thereof as ordered restitution; matter remitted to the County Court of St. Lawrence County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision, and, as so modified, affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8454 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to add to matters covered by 

counseling in the Transition Assistance Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2024 

Ms. JACOBS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to add to matters 

covered by counseling in the Transition Assistance Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COUNSELING IN THE TRANSITION ASSISTANCE 

4 PROGRAM REGARDING SEXUAL ASSAULT, 

5 SEXUAL OR GENDER HARASSMENT, AND INTI6 MATE PARTNER VIOLENCE. 

7 Section 1142(b) of title 10, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following new para9 graph: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8454 IH

1 ‘‘(20) Information concerning health care (in2 cluding mental health care) furnished by the Sec3 retary of Veterans Affairs to veterans and members 

4 of the Armed Forces who have survived sexual as5 sault, sexual or gender harassment, or intimate part6 ner violence.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

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

     In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of  Big  Flash   Corporation(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Edward F. Cowle, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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/ Edward F. Cowle
---------------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Principal Accounting Officer
October 4, 2004

     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 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.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
Before the First Division,

May 13, 1958

No. 61915.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 262903-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the items marked “A” consist of parts of photo enlargers; that said enlargers were held dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 1551, as modified, as photographic cameras in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874); and that, in accordance with said decision, the items marked “A” are dutiable at 20, percent under paragraph 1551. Accordingly, the claim at 20 percent was sustained as to said items. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of photographic cameras similar to-those the subject of C. D. 1874, *supra,*were held dutiable at 15 percent under said paragraph 1551, as modified, *supra.*
No. 54128.

#### Mussman & Shafer, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 147289-K (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5

 <S>                                  <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                               YEAR
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    SEP-30-2000
 <PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-2000
 <CASH>                                    47,761
 <SECURITIES>                                   0
 <RECEIVABLES>                          5,934,223
 <ALLOWANCES>                                   0
 <INVENTORY>                            3,199,728
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                      10,883,136
 <PP&E>                                 3,917,621
 <DEPRECIATION>                          (379,772)
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                        22,694,737
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 17,287,855
 <BONDS>                                        0
 <COMMON>                               9,200,789
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
 <PREFERRED>                                    0
 <OTHER-SE>                                     0
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           5,196,328
 <SALES>                               33,420,116
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>                      33,420,116
 <CGS>                                 29,873,348
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                         34,313,435
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                         784,228
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      (265,255)
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                       (1,139,459)
 <INCOME-TAX>                            (462,300)
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (677,159)
 <DISCONTINUED>                                 0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
 <CHANGES>                                      0
 <NET-INCOME>                            (677,159)
 <EPS-BASIC>                                (0.18)
 <EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.18)


</TABLE>
No. 44105.

#### Protest 951231-G of Polk Musical Supply Co. (Savannah).

Opinion- by

Kincheloe, J.

From the testimony and the samples introduced in evidence it was found that the ukuleles in question could be used for musical purposes. However, the testimony failed to show that they are not *chiefly*used for the amusement of children. Following *United States*v. *Fred. Gretsch*(28 C. C. P. A. —, C. A. D. 120) the protest was overruled.
Exhibit 10.7(h)

LOGO

February 12, 2008

Tercica, Inc.

2000 Sierra Point Parkway, Suite 400

Brisbane, California 94005



| | Re: | First Option Event-AGHD/Other in the
| | --- | ------------------------------------

| |  | Combination Product Development and Commercialization Agreement
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter agreement (Letter Agreement) relates to the Combination Product Development and
Commercialization Agreement, dated as of July 6, 2007, by and between Genentech and Tercica (Agreement). All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings defined in the Agreement.

Tercica informed Genentech that, in lieu of submitting an IND for the first Phase II Clinical Trial of a Non-Short Stature Product for the AGHD
Indication to the FDA (as contemplated under Section 2.2(a) of the Agreement), Tercica intends to submit a protocol for the AGHD Indication to the FDA under an existing IND (e.g., IND 76,497, which covers the first Phase II Clinical Trial
of a Short Stature Product for the Initial Short Stature Indication) (for purposes of this Letter Agreement, an AGHD Protocol).

Therefore, Genentech and Tercica hereby agree that, in the event Tercica submits an AGHD Protocol, the term First Option Event-AGHD/Other (defined in Section 2.2(a)) means that the FDA does not issue a clinical hold order with respect
to such AGHD Protocol (or otherwise reject such AGHD Protocol) within thirty (30) days following its receipt thereof.

Except as
expressly modified by this Letter Agreement, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Letter Agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof
and supersedes any prior understanding, oral or written, between the Parties with respect thereto.

1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-4990
     650.225.1000 www.gene.com



-1-



---

If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please have an authorized representative sign both originals
of this Letter Agreement in the space provided below, and return one signed original to Genentech. Thank you.



Sincerely, for Genentech,
Inc.Signed:

/s/ Ashraf HannaName:

Ashraf HannaTitle:

VP Alliance Mgmt




|                             |  |                 
|---------------------------- |  | ----------------
|Agreed to by:  Tercica, Inc.
|                             | 
|Signed:                      |  | /s/ Richard King
|Name:                        |  | Richard King    
|Title:                       |  | COO             

1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-4990      650.225.1000 www.gene.com



-2-
No. 46802.

#### Protest 959600-G of Bullocks, Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The case was submitted on the official papers. The Government stated in its brief that the countervailing duty was assessed on the authority of T. D. 47475. It appeared that the collector assessed duty upon the entered value, which included the amount of the British drawback, in accordance with section 303, Tariff Act of 1930. It was found that inasmuch as the importer had added to the value of the goods the amount of the drawback, the collector was bound under the statute to assess duty upon such value. It further appeared that the British drawback on silk fabrics was held to be a bounty within the meaning of section 303 in *Gray*v. *United States*(T. D. 48679). Following *Huber*v. *United States*(T. D. 48721), which the court found to be on all fours with the case in question, the protest was overruled.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-11859

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A201-076-327

EDUARDO FERNANDO BRACAMONTE-VERASTEGUI, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(February 14, 2019)

Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-11859 Date Filed: 02/14/2019 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Eduardo F. Bracamonte-Verastegui, a Bolivian citizen, petitions this court to 

review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to sua sponte

reopen the proceedings on his application for cancellation of removal. Mr. 

Bracamonte-Verastegui argues that the BIA denied him due process by failing to

reopen the proceedings to reconsider the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that 

removing him to Bolivia would not cause exceptional and extremely unusual 

hardship to his son. After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we dismiss 

the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

We have declined to review the issues presented by Mr. BracamonteVerastegui’s petition twice before. In 2015, we concluded that we did not have

jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order concerning whether Mr. BracamonteVerastegui’s son would experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See 

Bracamonte-Verastegui v. U.S. Atty. Gen., No. 14-14293, slip op. at 2–3 (11th Cir. 

May 13, 2015) (unpublished). We reasoned that the BIA’s hardship determination

involved a form of discretionary relief which we cannot review. See Alhuay v. U.S. 

Atty. Gen., 661 F.3d 534, 549 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (concluding that we lack 

jurisdiction to review BIA orders denying discretionary relief, such as cancellations 

of removal); Alvarez Acosta v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 524 F.3d 1191, 1196–97 (11th Cir. 

2008) (same). For the same reason, in 2017, we concluded that we did not have 

jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order denying Mr. Bracamonte-Verastegui’s earlier 

Case: 18-11859 Date Filed: 02/14/2019 Page: 2 of 3 
3

motion to sua sponte reopen his removal proceedings. See Bracamonte-Verastegui 

v. U.S. Atty. Gen., No. 16-10339, slip op. at 3–4 (11th Cir. Feb. 3, 2017) 

(unpublished). 

We see no reason to depart from our prior decisions in this case, and Mr. 

Bracamonte-Verastegui presents no basis for us to review the BIA’s order denying 

his motion to sua sponte reopen his proceedings. See Brooklyn Water Bagel Co. v. 

Bersin Bagel Grp., LLC, 817 F.3d 719, 728 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Under the law of the 

case doctrine, the findings of fact and conclusions of law by an appellate court are 

generally binding in all subsequent proceedings in the same case . . . on a later 

appeal.”). Our previous decisions are controlling under the law of the case doctrine, 

and we incorporate their reasoning here. 

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the petition.

PETITION DISMISSED.

Case: 18-11859 Date Filed: 02/14/2019 Page: 3 of 3
Exhibit
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of International Monetary Systems, Ltd.
("Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), I, Danny W Weibling. Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 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/ Danny W
Weibling





Danny W
Weibling


Chief
Financial Officer





April 7,
2009











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. A signed original 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Holland, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 309]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence seized from defendant at the time of his arrest. Defendant was observed by a police officer in an area of high drug activity, approaching several cars that had pulled over to the curb, talking with the occupants, reaching in with his hands, and then walking away. Those facts furnished the police with an objective, credible reason to approach defendant for the purpose of making inquiry *(see, People v Sierra,*83 NY2d 928, 930; *People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 223). The conduct of defendant in *948discarding a paper bag upon seeing the police officer approaching him heightened the level of suspicion to a reasonable suspicion that defendant was, or had been, engaged in criminal activity and justified the officer’s detention of defendant *(see, People v Sierra, supra; People v Martinez,*80 NY2d 444; *see, People v Terry,*190 AD2d 1064, 1065, *lv denied*81 NY2d 1081; *People v Hall,*152 AD2d 905, *affd*75 NY2d 826). Moreover, the attempt by defendant to rid himself of the drugs by discarding ' the paper bag was "an independent act involving a calculated risk” and constituted an abandonment of the bag and its contents *(People v Boodle,*47 NY2d 398, 404, *cert denied*444 US 969; *People v Terry, supra,*at 1065; *People v Hall, supra).*"Once defendant abandoned the [paper bag containing the cocaine], he lost his right to object to the [police seizing the bag] and the drugs discovered upon opening the [bag] provided the police with probable cause to arrest him” *(People v Martinez, supra,*at 449).

We reject defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in instructing the jury not to consider the lack of fingerprint evidence. There was no testimony concerning fingerprints or the lack thereof. Therefore, the court properly sustained the prosecutor’s objection to defense counsel’s comment on summation that no fingerprint tests were conducted on the paper bag or the plastic bags inside the paper bag and properly instructed the jury "not to speculate on the issue of fingerprints” *(see, People v Hernandez,*143 AD2d 842, 844, *lv denied*73 NY2d 892). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wisner, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
#### Terrence Morgan, Appellant, v Fire Department of the City of New York, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 1004]

—Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated April 8, 1994.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Greenstein at the Supreme Court. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Robert J. Zatta, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc..

|Date: May 16, 2005                                                                  |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ROBERT J. ZATTARobert J. Zatta
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks