alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 47965.

#### Protest 50928-K of Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. (Portland, Oreg.).

*384Opinion by

Walker, J.

The only witness for the plaintiff was a broker in the granite business. He testified that all of the slabs in issue except one were what are known as grass markers and are used in cemeteries to mark the dimensions of a plot. It appeared that some of the slabs have one side rough sawn, but one slab had two sides sawn and was to be used for a monument. In giving the distinction between “dressed” and “rough sawn” the court was of the opinion that while it may well be that the witness was in error as to those terms, nevertheless the record as a whole indicated that the granite in question was “otherwise manufactured” within the meaning of that term as used in the adt and trade agreement. In view of *United States*v. *Wilkinson Process Rubber Sales Corp.*(22 C. C. P. A. 60, T. D. 47051) and *United States*v. *General Dyestuff Corp.*(29 C. C. P. A. 53, C. A. D. 170) the court was of the opinion that it could not be said that they are “unmanufactured,” for they are no longer the crude material, nor can it be said that they are completed grass markers, for the sawn face has yet to be polished and the sides trimmed to the exact dimensions required. It was held therefore that they fall squarely into the category of “granite suitable for use as monumental * * * stone, not specially provided for: * * * manufactured” under paragraph 234 (a). The protest was therefore overruled. Abstract 30009 distinguished.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, John R. Tuttle, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

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

Date: May 12, 2006 

 

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 SecuritiesExchange 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 beenprovided to DayStar Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by DayStar Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
Exhibit 31.1


Certification of Barry Thomas, CEO of Global 1 Investment Holding Corporation.,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 302 of the
                          Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.)

I, Barry Thomas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global 1 Investment
Holdings Corporation.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant is made known to me by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors:

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 8, 2007
By:/s/ Barry Thomas
   ----------------
Barry Thomas, CEO and Director
#### Worcester Royal Porcelain Co. *v.*United States

No. 6321.

Entry No. 1344.

Invoice dated Worcester, England, August 20, 1941.

Certified September 5, 1941.

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif., October 25, 1941.

(Decided August 15, 1946)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *{Richard F. Weeks,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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 merchandise consisting of chinaware and the issue in the above-mentioned reappraisement are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *William S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Customs Appeal 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise consisting of chinaware involved in the above-mentioned reappraisement, less the addition made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.4

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UCDP FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCDP Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 2, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J.
Short, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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: May 11, 2006



By:

/s/ MICHAEL J. SHORTMichael J. Short Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)




30
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. WILLIAM B. PURYEAR, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 94 *N. J. Super.*125.

*Mr. Brendan T. Byrne*and *Mr. Barry H. Evenchick*for the petitioner. '

*Mr. Thomas E. Burkin, Jr.*and *Mr. William J. Gearty*for the respondent.

May 2, 1967.

Granted.
#### Mary Link, *Respondent, v.*Edward Woodruff, Appellant.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Barnard, P.
No. 57380.

protest 199296-K (San Francisco).

#### D. B. Berelson & Co. and W. J. Byrnes *& Co.,*Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the whole dead rabbits involved in *Wilbur-Ellis Company*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 155, C. D. 1460), the claims, of the plaintiffs were sustained.
#### William B. Beehler, Sr., Petitioner *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board and Beehler Construction Co., Respondents.

Argued June 1, 1981,

before Judges Mencer, Blatt and MacPiiail, sitting as a panel of three.

*534*William K. Sayer, for*petitioner.

*George W. Teets,*for respondent, Beehler Construction Co.

September 8, 1981:

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

The appellant, William B. Beebler, Sr., who was totally disabled in 1972 due to a fall which occurred in the course of his employment as a carpenter,1 appeals from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board) which granted a petition which was filed by his former employer, Beehler Construction Company, and its insurer to terminate his benefits.

The appellant contends that the finding that he could resume his occupation as a carpenter as of August 24, 1976, was not supported by substantial evidence before the referee. We must disagree.

A physician for the employer examined the appellant on August 24, 1976, and testified that, although the appellant exhibited a 50% limitation in the external rotation2 of his right arm and a 10% limitation of the right shoulder on upper extension, the doctor could himself manipulate the appellant’s arm and shoulder without limitation and that no pain was elicited during the examination.3 The doctor concluded that the appellant was not disabled and that there *535were no effects which would prevent his performing his job as a carpenter.

Although there was conflicting medical evidence4 that might have led us to reach a different result if we had been the factfinder here, the resolution of such conflicts in testimony is solely within the province of the referee and where, as here, his findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, we may not disturb them. *Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board,*55 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 541, 423 A.2d 479 (1980); *F. W. Kestle Associates v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board,*54 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 313, 421 A.2d 489 (1980).

We will therefore affirm the Board’s termination of benefits.

Order

And Now, this 8th day of September, 1981, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.

1

 Iu bis fall, the claimant strained his neck and fractured his right wrist, his pelvis and his left hand.

2

 Such limitation is tested by holding the arm straight out from the body with the palm facing down and turning the arm so that the palm faces up. A 50% limitation reflects an inability to turn the palm more than 90 degrees.

3

 The doctor also testified that there was no evidence of nerve root injury sensory change, atrophy or spasm of the muscles in the right'upper extremity and that the right-hand had a good grip with no loss of strength. . ’ . ;'

4

 The appellant’s treating physician and an impartial doctor appointed by the Board both concluded that motion in the appellant’s shoulder was restricted in such a way as to make it impossible for him to swing a hammer above shoulder level and .that he was therefore totally disabled for carpentry work.
Exhibit 32.1

 

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

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Schrödinger, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

 

|   | (i) | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

 

Date: March 16, 2020 

 

|                                                                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Ramy Farid                                                            |
|  President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8655 

To require the Federal Air Marshal Service to develop a plan to enhance 

the Federal law enforcement presence at airports, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2024 

Mr. GIMENEZ (for himself and Mr. THANEDAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To require the Federal Air Marshal Service to develop a 

plan to enhance the Federal law enforcement presence 

at airports, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Air Marshal 

5 Enhancing Airport Security Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PLAN TO ASSIGN FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS TO DU7 TIES BEYOND THE AIRCRAFT AND THROUGH8 OUT THE AIRPORT ENVIRONMENT. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

10 date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8655 IH

1 the Transportation Security Administration shall direct 

2 the Director of the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) 

3 to develop a plan and brief the Committee on Homeland 

4 Security of the House of Representatives and the Com5 mittee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

6 and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transpor7 tation of the Senate addressing roles, beyond inflight secu8 rity, of Federal Air Marshals at certain airports. Such 

9 plan will address Federal Air Marshals’ Federal law en10 forcement role to ensure airport aviation security at such 

11 airports. 

12 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘law en13 forcement personnel’’ has the meaning given such term in 

14 section 44903 of title 49, United States Code. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS OF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Defense Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the six months ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Anthony J. Piscitelli, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company and Gary Sidorsky, 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





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 Company.





Date: August 22, 2011





/s/ Anthony J. PiscitelliAnthony J. PiscitelliPresident and Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Gary SidorskyGary SidorskyChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5073 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5073

  To limit the use of funds for entities that care for unaccompanied 
   alien children and have been identified as engaging in misconduct 
                            toward children.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 17, 2024

  Mr. Grassley (for himself and Mr. Cassidy) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To limit the use of funds for entities that care for unaccompanied 
   alien children and have been identified as engaging in misconduct 
                            toward children.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR ENTITIES CARING FOR 
              UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN.

    None of the funds made available by any Act making appropriations 
for the Department of Health and Human Services for fiscal year 2025 
shall be obligated or expended on future contracts, grants, awards, or 
agreements with any entity that cares for or provides services, 
including housing or transportation, for unaccompanied alien children 
and has been identified by the Department of Justice in accordance with 
suspension and debarment procedures as facilitating actions that 
constitute illegal sexual abuse and harassment of, or illegal 
misconduct toward, children in the care of the entity unless the 
Attorney General certifies to Congress that the entity has successfully 
mitigated the conditions that led the Department of Justice to identify 
the entity as engaged in such actions.
                                 <all>
```
|  |
|--|

|  |
|--|
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1939

___________ Robert Fletcher, *
* Appellant, *
* v. *
* State of Nebraska; Nebraska Hea lth & * Appeal from the United States Human Services; Brown County; * District Court for the Cherry County; Office of Brown * District of Nebraska. County Attorney; Office of Cherry * County Attorney; Brown County * [UNPUBLISHED] Sheriff Department; Cherry County * Sheriff Department; Doug Stanton, in * his official & individual capacity; * Monika Anderson, in her official & * individual capacity; Lenone Koenig, in * her official & individual capacity; * Prairey Walkling, in her official & * individual capacity; David Streich, in * his official & individual capacity; Eric * Scott, in his official & individual * capacity; Steve Hapner, in his official * & individual capacity; Joe Kreycik, in * his official & individual capacity; * Benjamin McBride, in his official & * individual capacity; City of Valentine, *
* Appellees. *___________ Submitted: October 16, 2009 Filed: December 14, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Robert Fletcher appeals the district court’s 1 adverse judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Following our careful de novo review, seeMcBurney v. Stew Hansen’s Dodge City, Inc. , 398 F.3d 998, 1001 (8th Cir. 2005), we conclude that Fletcher did not identify any facts creati ng a triable issue as whether any defendant caused a constitutional injury in the course of investigating allegations of child abuse. SeeCrossley v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. , 355 F.3d 1112, 1113 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (plaintiff’s burden to rebut pr operly supported summary judgment motion); cf. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. , 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 & n.55 (1978) (plaintiff seeking to impose § 1983 liability on local government body must show official policy or widespread custom or prac tice of unconstitutional conduct that caused deprivation of constitutional rights); King v. Fletcher , 319 F.3d 345, 348 (8th Cir. 2003) (Fourth Amendment protection agains t unreasonable searches does not apply if property owner consents to search); Thomason v. SCAN Volunteer Servs., Inc. , 85 F.3d 1365, 1373 (8th Cir. 1996) (child welf are authorities were absolutely immune from liability in civil rights action for thei r initiation of proceedings related to child abuse, as their role was functionally comparab le to that of prosecutor; absolute witness immunity applied to arguably false statemen ts made by case worker in her affidavit). Accordingly, we affirm the judgmen t of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Fletcher’s pending motion.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chie f Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
-2-
#### HYATT ROLLER BEARING COMPANY, RESPONDENT, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT.

Submitted December 9, 1918

Decided February 6, 1919.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 92 *N. J. L.*94.

Eor the respondent, *Day, Day, Smith & Slingerland.*

For the appellant, *Vredenburgh, Wall & Carey.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Mint urn in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Bergen, Kalisch, Black, Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner, JJ. 9.

*For reversal*— None.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0703

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

KEITH POPE,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until March 27, 2023, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

February 14 2023

02/14/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0703