alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 59082.

protest 178778-K (New York).

#### Freedman *&*Slater, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159, which was issued following *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492). In that case, it was held that the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed "Clean Content under T. D. 53159” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
No. 59083.

protest 246418-K (New York).

#### Omnex Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the papers failing to disclose anything which would tend in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector, the protest was overruled.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 60 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5702]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-322-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice Correction 
Filing

March 22, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 19, 2007, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin) tendered for filing a revised Page 4 
of Appendix C, Attachment E and a revised Page 4 of Appendix D, 
Attachment D to the workpapers submitted with Williston Basin's Annual 
Fuel and Electric Power Reimbursement Adjustment that was filed with 
the Commission on March 1, 2007 in the above referenced proceeding.
    Williston Basin states that the revised pages reflect corrections 
to the Actual Transportation Quantities shown in column (a) of each 
page for the months of October, November and December 2006.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest 
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80c6c5d2c3cfeeece9eee5d3f5f0f0eff2f4c0e6e5f2e3aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97d1d2c5d4d8f9fbfef9f2c4e2e7e7f8e5e3d7f1f2e5f4b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5702 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[643 NYS2d 817]

#### In the Matter of Eric T. Gerber, a Suspended Attorney.

Fourth Department,

May 31,1996

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Gerard M. LaRusso,*Buffalo, for petitioner.

*Joseph E. Fahey*of counsel, Syracuse *(Wiles & Fahey),*for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on June 25, 1987, and formerly maintained an office in Syracuse. On January 23, 1996, respondent was convicted, upon his *72plea of guilty, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York of the crime of attempting to influence unlawfully the action of a Grand Jury, a class B misdemeanor, in violation of 18 USC § 1504. Respondent was sentenced to a one-year period of probation and was directed to pay a fine and perform community service. On March 8, 1996, respondent was suspended pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (f) and was directed to show cause why a final order of suspension, censure or removal from office should not be entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (g) (— AD2d —, 1996 NY Slip Op 02130 [4th Dept, Mar. 8, 1996]).

Respondent appeared in response to the order to show cause and argued that the suspension should be vacated. Respondent asserted that the offense was not a "serious crime” within the meaning of the statute because conviction of attempting to influence unlawfully the action of a Grand Jury requires no proof of intent and the statute may therefore be violated inadvertently and unintentionally, a fact that was conceded by the United States Attorney at the time of respondent’s plea.

We reject respondent’s contention that the offense does not constitute a serious crime, and we decline to vacate respondent’s suspension. We note, however, that respondent’s conduct in submitting incomplete and misleading business records to the Grand Jury occurred at a time when respondent was involved in an acrimonious matrimonial proceeding and did not have access to his home where essential records were kept.

Additionally, we have considered the matters in mitigation set forth by respondent, including his previously unblemished record and the remorse that respondent expressed for his misconduct. We conclude that respondent should be suspended until such time as his probation is terminated and until further order of the Court.

Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Fallon and Wesley, JJ., concur.

Final order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (h).
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-4070

___________ Peter Jon Simpson; Beverly Simpson, * by and on behalf of themselves and * Katherine Simpson, a minor, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Glenda Harris; Mickie Dodds; Sharon * Carr; Perry Epperly; Michael A. Carr; * [UNPUBLISHED] Holly Ryan; Doris Morgan; George * Perrigo, Sgt.; John Doe, Unknown * Deputy Sheriff #1; John Doe, Unknown * Deputy Sheriff #2; Benno Steinmetz, * M.D., Doctor; John R. Carlile, M.D., * Doctor; Miss Fisher, Nurse; Lester E. * Cox Medical Center, South; John Doe, * Unknown Foster Care Person, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 7, 1999 Filed: October 13, 1999

___________ Before LOKEN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- Peter, Beverly, and Katherine Simpson appeal from the district court’s 1 grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court’s ruling was based on its finding that the Simpsons had continually and wilfully disobeyed court orders, including this court’s order that:
JonPeter Simpson and Beverly Simpson are hereby prohibited from seeking any further relief in this court or in the United States District Court for the District of Western Missouri until they provide satisfactory proof that they and the juvenile K.A.S. have appeared before and submittedto the jurisdiction of the Greene County, Missouri Juvenile Court. In re: Simpson , No. 94-2211 (8th Cir. Aug. 15, 1994) (unpublished order). Having carefully reviewed the record, the parties’ submissions, and the nearly eight-year history of this lawsuit, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the Simpsons had wilfully disregarded court orders, and did not abuseits discretion in sanctioning their conduct through dismissal. See Rodgers v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri , 135 F.3d 1216, 1219-20 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 46215.

#### Protest 972021-G of Tai Wo Tong (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel bak hop, hoi shin lien, hoi pak lien, sui sut, wai san (stick form), sar sum (uncut), lo hon qua, yuen yuk, and mok qua (not sliced) were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as claimed, following *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372), and apricot kernels were held dutiable at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 762 on the authority of Abstract 42588.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8408 

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

290 NW Peacock Boulevard in Port St. Lucie, Florida, as the ‘‘Trooper 

Zachary Fink Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2024 

Mr. MAST (for himself, Mr. DUNN of Florida, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. SCOTT

FRANKLIN of Florida, Mr. DONALDS, Mrs. CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, Ms. 

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, and Ms. SALAZAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 290 NW Peacock Boulevard in Port St. Lucie, 

Florida, as the ‘‘Trooper Zachary Fink Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TROOPER ZACHARY FINK POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

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

6 Postal Service located at 290 NW Peacock Boulevard in 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8408 IH

1 Port St. Lucie, Florida, shall be known and designated 

2 as the ‘‘Trooper Zachary Fink Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Trooper Zachary Fink 

7 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 849 

To require the Department of Defense to share best practices with, and 

offer training to, State and local first responders regarding how to 

most effectively aid victims who experience trauma-related injuries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2023 

Mr. TORRES of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Department of Defense to share best practices 

with, and offer training to, State and local first responders regarding how to most effectively aid victims who 

experience trauma-related injuries. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROVISION OF 

4 TRAINING AND INFORMATION FOR FIRST RE5 SPONDERS REGARDING AID FOR VICTIMS OF 

6 TRAUMA-RELATED INJURIES. 

7 The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the De8 partment of Defense shares best practices with, and offers 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 849 IH

1 training to, State and local first responders regarding how 

2 to most effectively aid victims who experience trauma-re3 lated injuries. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
# Fourth Co urt of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 19, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00449

- CR

Parker Ray MORGAN

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR7647

Honorable Ron Rangel , Judge Pres iding



### O R D E R

The Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to Reply to Order to Show Cause is hereby

GRANTED. The appellant's response is due on or before January 25, 2021.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the sea l of the said

court on this 19th day of January, 2021

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz

, Clerk of Court
No. 64229.

protests 59/27100, etc. (Portland, Oreg.).

#### Wood Mosaic industries, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protests were dismissed.
----

**Exhibit 31.2**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to**

**Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**

**as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Terence Yap, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc.; 

 

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 the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and 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 financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: November1, 2007

 

**/s/ Terence Yap**

________________________________________

Terence Yap

Chief Financial Officer

----
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5523]



[[Page 14268]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-354-000]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

March 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 16, 2007, El Paso Natural Gas Company 
(EPNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets to become effective 
April 16, 2007:

Third Revised Sheet No. 424
Second Revised Sheet No. 480C
Second Revised Sheet No. 482C
Second Revised Sheet No. 483C
Second Revised Sheet No. 485C

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2a6c6f786965444643444f795f5a5a45585e6a4c4f5849044d455c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e787b6c7d71505257505b6d4b4e4e514c4a7e585b4c5d10595148">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5523 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Form 10-K of  Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc. for theyear ended December 31, 2007, I, Peter A. Converse , Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1) such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007,fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the information contained in such Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|  /s/ Peter A. Converse |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Peter A. Converse           |   |
| Chief Executive Officer     |   |

 

----
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                            |  |               
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|Legal Name                                                  |  | Country       
|Websense International Limited                              |  | Ireland       
|Websense Holdings International Limited                     |  | Ireland       
|Websense Japan K.K.                                         |  | Japan         
|Websense Canada, Inc.                                       |  | Canada        
|Websense Mauritius                                          |  | Mauritius     
|Websense SC Holdings Limited                                |  | United Kingdom
|Websense SC Operations Limited                              |  | United Kingdom
|Websense UK Limited                                         |  | United Kingdom
|Websense France S.A.R.L.                                    |  | France        
|Websense Italy S.r.l.                                       |  | Italy         
|Websense Brazil Gerenciamento e Segurance de Internet Ltda. |  | Brazil        
|Websense Deutschland GmbH                                   |  | Germany       
|Websense (Australia) Pty. Ltd                               |  | Australia     
|Websense Software Services India Private Limited            |  | India         
|Websense Network Security Technology R&D (Beijing) Co. Ltd. |  | China         
|Websense BV                                                 |  | Netherlands   
|PortAuthority Technologies, Inc.                            |  | United States 
|Security Software Websense Israel Ltd.                      |  | Israel        
|SurfControl, Inc.                                           |  | United States 
|SurfControl Limited                                         |  | United Kingdom
|SurfControl China Limited                                   |  | United Kingdom
|SurfControl GmbH (Austria)                                  |  | Austria       
|SurfControl (Israel) Limited                                |  | United Kingdom
|SurfControl (Canada) Limited                                |  | United Kingdom
|SurfControl (Japan) Limited                                 |  | United Kingdom
|Websense Hosted R&D Limited                                 |  | United Kingdom
|SurfControl (UK) Limited                                    |  | United Kingdom
|SurfControl Pty. Ltd                                        |  | Australia     
|Websense Overseas Limited                                   |  | United Kingdom
|Beijing SurfControl Network Security Co. Ltd.               |  | China         
|SurfControl S.A.R.L.                                        |  | France        
|Karabunga, Inc.                                             |  | United States
Before the First Division,

May 24, 1960

No. 64221.

protests 58/7972, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Scientific Imports *&*Investment Corp. and W. J. Byrnes & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*479Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of solid glass spheres similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63300, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000826 07-FEB-2014 08:38 AM