alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8868)

Entry No. 13100, etc.

#### Bert Friedberg & Company et al. *v.*United States

(Decided June 25, 1957)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, relate to various classes of merchandise exported from France and entered at the port of San Francisco.

The cases have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation wherein the parties agree that the issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those which were the subject of the decision in *Bert Friedberg & Company*v. *United States,*36 Cust. Ct. 596, Reap. Dec. 8590, the record in which was incorporated herein by consent. In that case, the court held foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise there under consideration, and that such statutory value did not include the so-called “French sole or unique tax.”

An agreed set of facts, included in the stipulation of submission, establishes that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise involved herein is statutory foreign value, and that such value for each of the items in question is the appraised value “less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases,” and I so hold. . ,

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Lewis Stahleger, *as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v.*Charles Richards, *Appellant.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Smith, P. J.
#### M. P. HOWLETT, INC., PETITIONER-PETITIONER, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

*Messrs. Markey & William*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Arthur J. Sills*and *Mr. Jeffrey B. Lowe*for the respondent.

January 16, 1968.

Denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Abraham Rosado, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 1018]

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from two sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), both imposed September 23, 1994.

Ordered that the sentences are affirmed.

The defendant effectively waived appellate review of his sentences as part of his plea agreement *(see, People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273; *People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1).

In any event, we have examined the defendant’s contention that the sentences imposed are excessive, and find it to be without merit *(see, People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Copertino, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.
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 Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration 

                    By Notice dated November 21, 2006, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 1, 2006, (71 FR 69593), Norac, Inc., 405 S. Motor Avenue, P.O. Box 577, Azusa, California 91702, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule I.                 

                    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance in bulk for formulation into the pharmaceutical controlled substance Marinol®.                 

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Norac, Inc to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Norac, Inc to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. 

Dated: March 8, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

 [FR Doc. E7-5392 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### William M. Dillemuth, Jr., Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of William M. Dillemuth, Deceased, Respondent, v City of Tonawanda et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[635 NYS2d 553]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the same Memorandum as in *Carlson v City of Tonawanda*221 AD2d 1011 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
No. 40244.

#### Protests 827797-G, etc., of H. Leo Gould, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel it was found that the wooden stands are not entireties and the claim at 335⁄8 percent under paragraph 412 was sustained. *Kwong*v. *United States*(T. D. 49409) followed.
Exhibit 15.1 

August 1, 2007 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders of 

Tercica, Inc. 

We are aware of theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-126307) pertaining to the 2004 Stock Plan and the 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Tercica, Inc., Form S-8 (No. 333-113718) pertaining to the 2002 Stock Plan, the2002 Executive Stock Plan, the 2004 Stock Plan, and the 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Tercica, Inc., Form S-3 (No. 333-129574) for the registration of 6,296,912 shares of its common stock, and Form S-3 (No. 333-128224) for the registration ofup to $75,000,000 in shares of its common and preferred stock, debt securities, warrants and units, of our report dated August 1, 2007 relating to the unaudited condensed interim financial statements of Tercica, Inc. that is included in itsForm 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007. 

            Very Truly Yours, 

            /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
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). Accordingly, Sharpton’s

request for oral argument is denied.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LESTER MATHEWS SHARPTON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-30353

D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00105-SEH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2012 ** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Lester Mathews Sharpton appeals from the 144-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for viewing child pornography, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

FILED

JUL 03 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-30353

affirm.

Sharpton first contends the district court erred when it applied a five-level

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5) because his prior conviction for two

counts of criminal sexual contact with a minor did not constitute a “pattern of

activity.” The district court did not err. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5) cmt. n.1.

Sharpton next contends that the district court erred in denying him an

additional one-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G.

§ 3E1.1(b). He argues that the government’s refusal to move for the third point

was arbitrary in light of the fact that the plea offer that Sharpton rejected would

have permitted an appeal challenging the enhancement under section 2G2.2(b)(5). 

This argument is unpersuasive because the government’s position was not

arbitrary. See United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d. 994, 1002-04 (9th Cir. 2009).

Sharpton also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

consider fully and to explain the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The

record belies this contention.

Sharpton finally contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality

of the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States

v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1


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


The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
649.com Inc.


/s/ Cary Martin                         Date: April 6, 2006
-------------------------
Cary Martin
President / Director
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

TONI L. SEXTON, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D16-1275 

 ) 

OSCAR DENNIS HERNANDEZ, JR., ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed March 24, 2017. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 

from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough 

County; Wesley D. Tibbals, Judge. 

Rory B. Weiner of Rory B. Weiner P.A., 

Brandon, for Appellant. 

Dennis Hernandez and Luis Figueroa of 

Dennis Hernandez & Associates, P.A., 

Tampa, for Appellee. 

BLACK, Judge. 

 Toni Sexton's appeal from the order granting Oscar Hernandez, Jr.'s 

expedited motion requesting equal timesharing of the parties' children during their 2016 

spring break is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 
- 2 - 

 Mr. Hernandez's motion required the trial court to interpret the 2013 Final 

Parenting Plan as the result of a change in the children's school and school calendar. 

On February 11, 2016, following a hearing, the court entered an order clarifying the 

Parenting Plan with respect to the parties' timesharing arrangement for spring break 

2016. The court's ruling was limited to the period of March 11 through March 18, 2016, 

and the court ordered the parties to mediate the terms of the Parenting Plan to eliminate 

future issues. 

 Ms. Sexton filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied, and she 

ultimately filed her notice of appeal on March 22, 2016. 

 The court's February 11, 2016, order is an appealable nonfinal order 

determining the rights of a party regarding timesharing under a parenting plan. See Fla. 

R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)(b). However, we lack jurisdiction to review the order 

because Ms. Sexton's motion for rehearing did not toll rendition of the order and her 

notice of appeal was untimely filed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i); 9.130(b); Bodkin v. 

Sweeney, 805 So. 2d 847, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). 

 Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 

KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
No. 50144.

#### Protests 936410-G, etc., of International Selling Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 57348.

protest 198670-K (New York).

#### E. M. Grajew Wool Company, Inc. v. United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 61 (Friday, March 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5851]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-61,123]


A.O. Smith Electrical Products Company, Mcminnville, TN; Notice 
of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 16, 2007 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers of A.O. Smith 
Electrical Products Company, McMinnville, Tennessee.
    This petition is a duplicate of an earlier petition (TA-W-61,080) 
filed on March 8, 2007, that is the subject of an ongoing investigation 
for which a determination has not yet been issued. Further 
investigation in this case would serve no purpose. Therefore, the 
investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of March, 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-5851 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5323]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-348-000]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

March 19, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 14, 2007, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf) filed the following revised tariff sheets to 
its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet 
No. 171A, to be effective April 13, 2007.
    Columbia Gulf states that it is making this filing to specify the 
amount of credit assurance applicable to non-firm Shippers.
    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#e1a7a4b3a2ae8f8d888f84b29491918e9395a187849382cf868e97"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="286e6d7a6b67464441464d7b5d5858475a5c684e4d5a4b064f475e">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5323 Filed 3-22-07; 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>
Attachment 001

These pages have been omitted as Confidential Business Information
No. 53650.

protests 42941-K, etc. (New York).

#### American Merchandise Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Merchants’ Bank, *Appellant.*

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements; order to be settled before Bockes, J. Opinion by Bockes, J.
#### In the Matter of the Application of the Rochester and Ontario Railway Company, *Respondent, v.*Henry Brinker, *Appel*lant.

Orders appealed from reversed, with ten dollars costs in one case and disbursements. The case of *Rau*(70 N. Y., 101), and the case of *Mumford*(MS. opinion of Haight, J.), followed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Form 10-K of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010, I, Wilmer L.
Tinley, Jr, Interim Chief Financial Officer of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, 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 such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

|                     |  |  |  |                                
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 16, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Wilmer L. Tinley, Jr.      
|                     |  |  |  | Wilmer L. Tinley Jr.           
|                     |  |  |  | Interim Chief Financial Officer
No. 51066.

#### Protest 967976-G of Strauss-Eckardt Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of bonbon dishes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Butler Bros.*(33 C. C. P. A. 22, C. A. D. 310). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held properly dutiable at 70 percent under paragraph 212' without the additional assessment of 10 cents per dozen pieces.
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 Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, 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 to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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:           |  |                        
|August 14, 2006 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal       
|                |  |                        
|                |  | Marc N. Teal           
|                |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                |  |                        
|                |  |                        



*  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 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.
Exhibit 32.8

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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 Long Only Commodity Series.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                             
|Robert J. Enck                                                                 
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC,         
|the Managing Owner of Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                               
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                
|Brent Bales                                                                    
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC,                       
|the Managing Owner of Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                               
|Date: May 10, 2007
No. 45062.

#### Protests 977746-G, etc., of Saks & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the atomizers are similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140. In accordance therewith the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) was sustained.