alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9201)

#### Trans World International Service Co. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 453626; 450760; 450380.

(Decided July 29, 1958)

*Eugene B. Pichrell*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement set forth in Schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for home consumption 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, plus, when not included in such prices, the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, are the appraised values, without the additional 4 per centum home consumption tax;

> *505IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there were no higher export values for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation;

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

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, without the additional 4 per centum home consumption tax.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the
annual report of InCapta, Inc. (“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (“Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to their 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 the Company.



|Dated:
    June 6, 2016 | /s/
    John Fleming                                                         
|----------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        | John
    Fleming,President/Chief                                             
|                        | Executive
    Officer/                                                       
|                        | Secretary/Treasurer
    (principalexecutive, financial and accountingofficer)
#### In the Matter of FELIX FORLENZA, an attorney-at-law.

June 17, 1964.

Resignation of respondent accepted.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v PRESTON N. HARRIS, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Appellant

15 USCMA 381, 35 CMR 353

No. 18,375

May 7, 1965

*Colonel Joseph L. Chalk, Major George 0. Taylor, Jr.,*and *Captain J. Philip Johnson*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Edwin G. Schuck, Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper,*and *Captain Charles M. Pallesen, Jr.,*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Tried by general court-martial on a charge of larceny, accused pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, only the lesser included offense of wrongful appropriation, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, total forfeitures, confinement at hard labor for six months, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. Authorities at intermediate levels of review having affirmed the findings and sentence, accused petitioned this Court, and we granted review.

The question presented concerns the inquiry and explanation made by the law officer when defense counsel entered accused’s guilty plea to the lesser offense of wrongful appropriation. Those proceedings were conducted in open court and, in the course thereof, the law officer covered the following matters. He advised accused that the plea admitted every act and all elements of wrongful appropriation; that it subjected him to conviction on the lesser charge without further proof; and that it exposed him to the possibility of the maximum sentence legally authorized for that offense. The law officer further apprised accused that he was entitled to plead not guilty, and place the burden on the prosecution to prove his guilt. Only after accused indicated his understanding of the meaning and effect of his guilty plea, and persisted therein, did the trial continue.

Appellate defense counsel here complain that the law officer’s inquiry and explanation as to the guilty plea were inadequate, and that the same were conducted in open session in the hearing of the court-martial members. Our recent decision in United States v Griffin, 15 USCMA 135, 35 CMR 107, and our opinion in United States v Drake, 15 USCMA 375, 35 CMR 347, decided this day, are dispositive of these contentions.

The decision of the board of review is, accordingly, affirmed.
#### Commonwealth, *v.*Kaminsky, Appellant.

*39Argued March 21, 1969.

April 23, 1969:

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*J. J. Dean,*with him *Anthony C. Troiano*and *Daniel T. Zamos,*for appellant.

*Carol Mary Los,*Assistant District Attorney, with her *Charles B. Watkins,*Assistant District Attorney, and *Robert W. Duggan,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts,

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of voluntary manslaughter in the death of his wife. The only ground raised for reversal on this appeal involves an alleged error in the charge to the jury as to the burden of proof for manslaughter. The trial judge instructed the jury “Now where it is proved the defendant has committed the deed, the burden is on the defendant to reduce the crime from Murder to Manslaughter.” On *40this issue the court en banc which heard the motion for a new trial was divided. One judge thought the instruction was not error, a second believed it to be in error but harmless and the third considered the error to be reversible. On this appeal, the Commonwealth concedes that the instruction was incorrect, see, *Commonwealth ex rel. Wilkes v.*Maroney, 423 Pa. 113, 121, 222 A. 2d 856, 861 (1966); *Commonwealth ex rel. Johnson v.*Myers, 402 Pa. 451, 167 A. 2d 295 (1961), but argues that the error was harmless.

With this argument, our Court must agree. Even if the trial judge placed an extra burden on appellant to reduce his conviction to voluntary manslaughter, the harmless nature of the error becomes clear in light of the subsequent voluntary manslaughter verdict. It can hardly be argued that if the jury had been given the correct charge on voluntary manslaughter, they would have been more inclined to find appellant not guilty. The only possible effect of the erroneous instruction was for the jury to think appellant had to prove more in order to convince them that he was *only*guilty of voluntary manslaughter; but he *did*convince them that this was the proper verdict despite the handicap. Thus the best verdict appellant could have received if the charge had been correct was the *same*one the jury actually rendered.

Appellant argues that because compromise verdicts often occur in criminal cases, the introduction of the incorrect standard as to voluntary manslaughter might have affected the process by which the jury reached the compromise. However whether this was a compromise verdict is pure speculation; whether a different charge would have changed the “compromise” ventures even further into the territory of the uncertain. It certainly does not seem appropriate for a court to declare au otherwise harmless error to be grounds for *41reversal on the basis of such conjecture. The error involved in this case “did not deprive the defendant of the fundamentals of a fair trial, [and therefore] we will not reverse the conviction.” *Commonwealth v. Lopinson,*427 Pa. 284, 307, 234 A. 2d 552, 565 (1967).

Since appellant has assigned no other grounds for reversal on this appeal, the judgment of sentence is affirmed.

Mr. Justice O’Brien took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

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



In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012 (the “Report”) of TICC Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jonathan H. Cohen, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



|/ s / Jonathan
        H. Cohen                   
|--------------------------------------------------
|Name: Jonathan H. Cohen
        Date: May 10, 2012
No. 40251.

#### Protest 495179-G of C. A. Haynes & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373) the atomizers in question were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 19A-PL-938 | July 6, 2020 Page 1 of 2

OPINION ON REHEARING

APPELLANT PRO SE

David Pannell

Pendleton, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Natalie F. Weiss

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

David Pannell,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

Bessie E. Leonard,

Appellee-Defendant.

July 6, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-PL-938

Appeal from the LaPorte Superior 

Court

The Honorable Richard R. 

Stalbrink, Jr., Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

46D02-1801-PL-111

Darden, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 19A-PL-938 | July 6, 2020 Page 2 of 2

[1] David Pannell has petitioned for rehearing of our memorandum decision dated 

March 3, 2020.

1

 We grant rehearing for the limited purpose of correcting a 

factual error in the decision but otherwise affirm.

[2] In our original decision, we stated incorrectly that on March 6, 2018, the federal 

district court had dismissed Pannell’s complaint “with prejudice.” Pannell v. 

Leonard, Case No. 19A-PL-938, *3 (Ind. Ct. App. March 3, 2020). Whereas, 

the federal district court had dismissed his complaint “without prejudice,” and 

remanded back to the trial court for consideration of any state-law claims by 

Pannell. Id.

[3] Aside from the factual error, we affirm our original memorandum decision in 

all aspects.

Riley, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

1

Pannell captions his petition as a “Suggestion for Petition for Rehearing Enbanc.” The Court of Appeals of 

Indiana does not review decisions en banc.
EXHIBIT 32.2

          CERTIFICATION 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


I, Sam Messina, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Pop3
Media  Corp.  on Form  10-KSB  for the fiscal  year  ended  June 30,  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 Annual  Report on
Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Viastar Media Corporation

Dated:   November 16, 2005               By: /s/ Sam Messina
                                         -------------------------------
                                         Sam Messina
                                         Chief Financial Officer

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to Pop3 Media Corp.  and will be retained by Pop3 Media Corp.  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8446 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8446

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2024

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to include critical materials in the 
        definition of critical mineral, 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 ``Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. CRITICAL MATERIALS INCLUDED AS CRITICAL MINERALS.

    Section 7002 of the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(3)(A), to read as follows:
                    ``(A) In general.--The term `critical mineral' 
                means--
                            ``(i) any mineral, element, substance, or 
                        material designated as critical by the 
                        Secretary under subsection (c); and
                            ``(ii) a critical material as determined by 
                        the Secretary of Energy under paragraph 
                        (2)(A).''; and
            (2) in subsection (c)(5), by adding at the end the 
        following:
                    ``(C) Inclusion of critical materials.--Not later 
                than 45 days after the date on which the Secretary of 
                Energy determines a non-fuel mineral, element, 
                substance, or material to be a critical material under 
                subsection (a)(2)(A), the Secretary shall update the 
                list of critical minerals published under paragraph (3) 
                to include such critical material.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 14, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
(Reap. Dec. 8472)

#### Dunnington & Arnold, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 702202.

(Decided July 21, 1955)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

La whence, Judge:

When this appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the appealing party.

Pursuant to rule 5 of the rules of this court, I have examined the record in the appeal presently before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. Therefore, I find and hold that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Exhibit
      23.1




**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





We
      have
      issued our report dated July 30, 2007, (which report expresses an unqualified
      opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the application of
      Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share
      Based Payments* ,
      as of
      June 1, 2006) accompanying the financial statements included in the Annual
      Report of Protalex, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2007. We hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
      Statements of Protalex, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-130998, effective
      January 12, 2006, File No. 333-130997, effective January 12, 2006 and File
      No.
      333-125919, effective June 17, 2005).




/s/
                Grant Thornton LLPPhiladelphia,
                Pennsylvania
              July
                30, 2007
#### Jane Myers, *Appellant, v.*James C. Martin and another, *Respon*dents.

Judgment affirmed with costs. Opinion by Pratt, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5295]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice; Notice 
of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:

    Name: National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and Practice 
(NACNEP).
    Dates and Times: April 19, 2007, 9 a.m.--5 p.m. April 20, 2007, 
8 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: Hotel Washington, 515 15th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20004.
    Status: The meeting will be open to the public.
    Agenda: Agency and Bureau administrative updates will be 
provided. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the 
integration of health information technology into nursing education 
and practice. Experts will promote the awareness of the latest 
simulated learning, informatics, distance learning, and telehealth 
trends, advances, and issues. Data will be presented on use of 
healthcare information systems to enhance nursing education and 
practice, optimize patient safety, and drive improvements in health 
care quality. Representatives from the Department of Health and 
Human Services, the National Center for Cultural Competence, and the 
National Nursing Centers Consortium will be presenting. During this 
meeting, Council workgroups will deliberate on the content presented 
and formulate recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services and the Congress on the integration of technology into 
nursing education and practice. This meeting will form the basis for 
NACNEP's mandated Eighth Annual Report.
    For Further Information Contact: Anyone interested in obtaining 
a roster of members, minutes of the meeting, or other relevant 
information should write or contact Dr. Joan Weiss, Executive 
Secretary, National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and 
Practice, Parklawn Building, Room 9-35, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, Maryland 20857, telephone (301) 443-5688.

    Dated: March 15. 2007.
Alexandra Huttinger,
Acting Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.
 [FR Doc. E7-5295 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
#### Edward Haley, *Appellant, v.*Patrick Connell, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Hardin, J.
##### 



Exhibit 21.1
  Subsidiaries
    of Mediacom Communications Corporation
  State of Incorporation

Names under whichSubsidiary

or Organization

subsidiary does businessMediacom LLC

New York

Mediacom LLCMediacom Arizona LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Arizona Cable NetMediacom Cable LLCMediacom California LLC

Delaware

Mediacom California LLCMediacom Capital Corporation

New York

Mediacom Capital CorporationMediacom Delaware LLC

New York

Mediacom Delaware LLCMaryland Mediacom DelawareMediacom Illinois LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Illinois LLCMediacom Indiana LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Indiana LLCMediacom Indiana Partnerco LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Indiana PartnercoMediacom Indiana Holdings, L.P.

Delaware

Mediacom Indiana Holdings, L.P.Mediacom Iowa LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Iowa LLCMediacom Minnesota LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Minnesota LLCMediacom Southeast LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Southeast LLCMediacom New York LLCMediacom Wisconsin LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Wisconsin LLCZylstra Communications Corporation

Minnesota

Zylstra Communications CorporationIllini Cable Holding, Inc.

Illinois

Illini Cable Holding, Inc.Illini Cablevision of Illinois, Inc.

Illinois

Illini Cablevision of Illinois, Inc.Mediacom Broadband LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Broadband LLCMediacom Broadband Corporation

Delaware

Mediacom Broadband CorporationMCC Georgia LLC

Delaware

MCC Georgia LLCMCC Illinois LLC

Delaware

MCC Illinois LLCMCC Iowa LLC

Delaware

MCC Iowa LLCMCC Missouri LLC

Delaware

MCC Missouri LLCMCC Telephony, LLC

Delaware

MCC Telephony, LLCMCC Telephony of Florida, LLC

Delaware

MCC Telephony of Florida, LLCMCC Telephony of Georgia, LLC

Delaware

MCC Telephony of Georgia, LLCMCC Telephony of Illinois, LLC

Delaware

MCC Telephony of Illinois, LLCMCC Telephony of Iowa, LLC

Delaware

MCC Telephony of Iowa, LLCMCC Telephony of Missouri, LLC

Delaware

MCC Telephony of Missouri, LLCMediacom Enterprise Solutions, Inc.

Delaware

MCC Enterprises Solutions, Inc.MCC Enterprise, Inc.

Delaware

MCC Enterprises, Inc.MCC Telephony of the Mid-Atlantic, LLC

Delaware

MCC Telephony of the Mid-Atlantic, LLCMCC Telephony of the Mid-West, LLC

Delaware

MCC Telephony of the Mid-West, LLCMCC Telephony of the South, LLC

Delaware

MCC Telephony of the South, LLCMCC Telephony of Minnesota, LLC

Delaware

MCC Telephony of Minnesota, LLCMCC Telephony of the West, LLC

Delaware

MCC Telephony of the West, LLCMediacom Arizona Cable Network LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Arizona Cable Network LLCMediacom Management Corporation

Delaware

Mediacom Management CorporationMediacom Cable TV I LLC

New York

Mediacom Cable TV I LLC
U.S. Department ofTransportation, Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room Wl2-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590
March 27th, 2016 ·,'• ; "; '' 1

## l' ()

Re: Amendment to exemption 14988 issued pursuantto Section 333 oftheFAA Reform Act and Part II ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory DocketNo. FAA-2015-4426. Dear Sir orMadam, Satellite Marketing, Inc. currently holds Exemption Number 14988 issued for the purpose ofoperating unmanned aircraft systems to conduct aerial photography and videography. Satellite Marketing, Inc. herby requests an amendment to that exemption to include additional small unmanned aircraft systems that fully comply with the conditions ofthe exemption to support clientrequests (public interest). The following systems (underthe same terms and conditions contained in the original exemption) are cited below. 

### I. DJI Phantom 3 2. DJI Phantom 4 3. DJI Inspire All ofthe requested sUAS have been previously approved through the 333 exemption process for other organizations, and manuals are on file. Satellite Marketing, Inc. states that no conditions or limitations from ouroriginal request have changed and all operations ofthe additional UAS will be in**fu~l** compliance with the terms ofthe exemption.

Satellite Marketing, Inc. 954-651-0537 FirstCoastDrones@gmail.com



# '.I

: ,._j ,. ' ·,