alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Greater Jamaic a Development Corporatio n

90-0 4 16 1 Stree t Jamaica , N Y 1143 2 71 8 291-028 2 Fa x 71 8 658-140 5 www.gjdc.or g March 11,201 0 The Honorabl e Raymond H . LaHoo d Secretar y U.S . Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Docke t DOT il l IIII

I W m Dea r Mr . Secretary : Than k yo u fo r th e opportunit

y to expres s m

y suppor t fo r th e applicatio n fo

r antitrus t immimit y and propose d join t

busines s agreemen

t filed b y America

n Airline s and Japa

n Airlines . The propose d allianc e between thes e tw o airline s i s vita l fo r oneworl d t o compet

e effectivel

y wit h th e Sta r and Sk y Tea malliance . Thi s increase d interallianc e competitio n wil l i n tur n enhanc e th e benefit s o f th e Department' s Ope

n Skie s polic y - first

b y solidifying U.S.-Japa

n Open Skies , the n b y servin g a s afoundatio n fo r fiarthe r liberalizatio n acros s Asia . Afte r athoroug h review , I encourag e th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n t o approv e thi s applicatio n a s i t

woul d enabl e thes e oneworl d allianc e airline s to wor k closel y together

t o delive r highly competitiv e ai r

transportatio n services . Approva l fo r AA/JA L allianc e wil l hav e a positiv e impac t

o n ai r trave l by offering customer s mor e service , schedulin g an d pricin g option s and will help t o ensur

e tha t customer s continu e t o benefit fro mhavin g thre e competitiv e ai r alliance s to choos e from . I urg p you t o quickly approv e thi s application . sincerely , lisl e Towe i Presiden t

l:\DocAC T Canapoodaic^LxdcfMxttc r ofSivpa n DOT.EXX :
Phoenix Resources Technologies, Inc.
                              A Nevada Corporation
                                BOARD RESOLUTION
                               ISSUING NEW STOCK

                               Issuance of stock.

RESOLVED  on  this  31st  Day of  March,  2001,  that  thirteen  million  shares
(13,000,000) of new common stock be issued to Michael Lamb,  Secretary and Chief
Operating Officer, as partial  compensation for previously unpaid salary and for
the purpose of maintaining  corporate and  shareholder  integrity and for use in
restoring the shareholder value to the company:

RESOLVED FURTHER,  that such actions be taken by the officers so as to merge and
or acquire such other  business as would make sense to maximize the value of the
core, product, intellectual property and business of the company.

/s/ Bobby Rekhi
---------------------
Bobby Rekhi

/s/ Marvin Reiss
---------------------
Marvin Reiss

EX-10.1 OTHERDOC
Before the Third Division,

May 4, 1949

No. 53094.

#### Gallagher & Ascher Co. *v.*United States,

protest 46028-K/89864 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Allan W. Lyle, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 570]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), rendered April 16, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, we find that his waiver of appellate review was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made *(see, People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273). Moreover, as a condition of his plea of guilty the defendant withdrew all motions, both pending and decided *(see, People v Sebastian,*197 AD2d 647). Therefore, the defendant’s current challenges to the court’s suppression ruling are not properly presented for review.

The defendant has not demonstrated that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. To the extent that the defendant’s supplemental *pro se*brief raises contentions that are predicated upon documents which are not part of the record before the suppression court, they are not properly presented for our review *(see, People v Neal,*205 AD2d 711). In any event, the Mount Vernon City Court records that the defendant claims his attorney should have utilized were not received until more than eight months after the denial of the defendant’s suppression motion and plea of guilty. Therefore, his attorney clearly was not ineffective for failing to utilize documents that he did not possess, and which in any event do not support the defendant’s claims *(see, People v Desir,*138 AD2d 236).

To the extent they survive his waiver of appellate review, *476the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### Charles Hammond, *Appellant, v.*Francis Butts, *Respondent.*

— Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Hardin, J.
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                           | RVPLUS, INC. |                                                                                          |
|--------------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           |         |                                                                                          |   |
| Date:  July 29, 2011 | By:          | /s/ Christopher M. Day                                                                        |   |
|                           |         | Christopher M. Day                                                                            |   |
|                           |         | President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Principal Financial Officer |   |

----
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

In connection with the quarterly report of Diversey Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 2, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and
for the periods expressed in the Report.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                                   
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2010 |  | /s/ Edward F. Lonergan                                            
|                      |  | Edward F. Lonergan,
President and Chief Executive Officer         
|                      | 
|                      |  | /s/ Norman Clubb                                                  
|                      |  | Norman Clubb, Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40275

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO JURADO-GONZALEZ, 

also known as Jaime Ramirez-Gaspar,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-98-CR-815-ALL-S

- - - - - - - - - -

December 15, 1999

 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appointed counsel for Roberto Jurado-Gonzalez (“Jurado”),

has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Jurado has received a

copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a response. 

Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 
No. 99-40275

-2-

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THOMAS F. BUCK, *ET ALS.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

See same case below: 94 *N. J. Super.*84.

*Messrs.*Sioeeney, *Young & Berry*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Arthur J. Sills*and *Mr. Edward D. McKirdy*for the respondent.

April 18, 1967.

Denied.
Option 1 Option 2

Itinerary

HOT-DFW 1,700 1,530

DFW-HOT 1,700 1,530

HRO-MEM 3,500 3,150

MEM-HRO 3,500 3,150

HOT-HRO-MEM 800 720

MEM-HRO-HOT 800 720

HRO-HOT-DFW 2,640 1,980

DFW-HOT-HRO 2,640 1,980

Total 17,280 14,760

Segment

HOT-DFW 4,340 3,510

DFW-HOT 4,340 3,510

HRO-HOT 3,440 2,700

HOT-HRO 3,440 2,700

Total 15,560 12,420

Subsidy Request* $4,082,475 $3,037,784

HOT Portion (50%) $2,041,238 $1,518,892

Subsidy per Pax $131.18 $122.29

*Subsidy Request assumes no CNM discount

Option 4

Itinerary

ELD-DFW 1,580

DFW-ELD 1,580

HOT-MEM 1,500

MEM-HOT 1,500

ELD-HOT-MEM 1,700

MEM-HOT-ELD 1,700

HOT-ELD-DFW 1,900

DFW-ELD-HOT 1,900

Total 13,360

Segment

HOT-MEM 3,200

MEM-HOT 3,200

ELD-HOT 3,600

HOT-ELD 3,600

Total 13,600

Subsidy Request* $3,577,516

HOT Portion (50%) $1,788,758

Subsidy per Pax $131.53

*Subsidy Request assumes no CNM discount

HOT Subsidy per Pax
#### Priscilla Anderson, *Respondent, v.*The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Dykman, J.
No. 47464.

#### Protests 9401-K, etc., of B. Blumenthal & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the buckles in question similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Streamline Button Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(C. D. 555) were held dutiable at J4 cent each and jKo cent per dozen for each 1 cent the value exceeds 20 cents per dozen, and 25 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 1527 (c) (2) and T. D. 49458. The protests were sustained to this extent.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED BY**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Seifi Ghasemi,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(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 ofthe Company.

 
| Date: May 9, 2008                |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |   |
| /s/ SEIFI GHASEMI                |   |
| Seifi Ghasemi                         |   |
| Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer |   |

 

This certificationaccompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature thatappears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

 

----
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
Viastar Media Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004
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, 2004               By: /s/ Sam Messina
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Sam Messina
                                                 Interim Chief Financial Officer


     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to Viastar Media Corporation and will be retained by Viastar Media
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
H. R. 8666 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize holding court for the Central 

Division of Utah in Moab and Monticello. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JUDICIAL DISTRICT. 

Section 125 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 

striking ‘‘and St. George’’ and inserting ‘‘St. George, Moab, and 

Monticello.’’ 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
No. 49761.

#### Protests 36677-K, etc., of Chr. Bjelland & Co., Inc., et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

An examination of the official records disclosed nothing to warrant disturbing the decision of the collector which was held presumptively correct. The protests were therefore overruled.
Case No. 13,250.

#### SPRAGUE v. KAIN.

[Bee, 184.] 1

District Court, D. South Carolina.

March 23, 1802.

Seamen — Wages—Fokfeitcbe fob Stkjking Mastek.

Forfeiture of half a seaman’s wages decreed, in consequence of his striking the captain. The latter liad inflicted other punishment for the offence, which prevented the court from decreeing forfeiture of the whole.

[Cited in The Mentor, Case No. 9.427; Smith v. Treat. Id. 13,117; The Cornelia Amsden, Id. 3,234.]

[See The Almatia, Case No. 254.]

[This was a libel for wages by Joshua Sprague against Alexander Kain.]

It appears in evidence in this cause, that the actor used insulting language to his captain, the defendant, who was thereby provoked to strike him with his open hand, or list; it is not clear with which. Two of the witnesses swear that the captain also struck this man with a grange staff. Upon this the seaman seized a scrubbing brush, with which he struck the captain several blows over the head, and repeated them till he was stopped by two passengers and the mate. The captain’s head was severely cut, and he was for some time senseless. When he recovered, he caused the man to be confined and afterwards sent to jail at the Havanna, where he remained three weeks; the vessel being then ready to sail, he was taken on board,' and kept in confinement below, till his arrival here. He now sues for wages; and the question is, whether he is entitled to all or any part of them, after this violence exercised upon his captain.

This is the first case I have been called upon to decide, in which a seaman has been convicted of striking, or even attempting to strike his commanding officer; and the act of congress does not provide for such a one. I must, therefore, be guided by the marine law. It is agreed on all hands, that the master of a ship may give due and moderate correction to the mariners under his orders. In the present case the words of provocation were first given 'on the yard-arm. where, it seems, some liberty of speech is allowed; but it also appears that the words were repeated .on deck; for, upon the captain’s asking the actor whether the sail was properly furled, he answered: “It was done as well as the captain himself could have done it.” This was certainly insolent language from one who is said not to be a good seaman; and a blow with the fist was, on such provocation, verv moderate correction. His behaviour subjected him to a more severe punishment, and he does not seem to have shewn any marks of contrition. If, therefore, the master had turned him ashore at the Havanna, I should not have hesitated to decree a total forfeiture of his wages. But as the captain took the law into his own hands by imprisoning this man at the Havanna, find by a subsequent confinement of eight days, on board, I think the of-fence is, in some measure, done away. I decree, therefore, that he forfeit only one half of his wages, and that the remainder be paid by the captain. The parties must pay their own costs.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 9, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00936

- CV

Christopher BAKER , David Brown, and James Kerr

, Appellant s

v.

James E. BENNETT , Jr., Dennis Worley, Sterling Koonce, Flying A Limited Partnership L.P.,

Joseph W. Forbes, Jr., Kenneth Clark, James Boggess, Joel Webb, Jaimie Livingston, David Miner, Ronald English and MDF, LLC, Appellee s

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI05787 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellants have filed an “Unopposed Motion for Permission to View Sealed Portions of

Clerk’s Record.” Appellants’ motion is GRANTED. We ORDER that the attorneys for the parties in this appeal shall have access to the sealed volumes of the clerk’s record (Volumes 2 and 3) on file with this Court. The Clerk of this Court is directed to unseal the record for the sole purpose of providing a copy to counsel for appellants. All counsel are ordered no t to share the

contents of the sealed record with any person except to the extent necessary to prepare the appellate brief.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

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

court on this 9th day of January, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Before the First Division,

May 4, 1961

No. 65571.

#### Selected Designs, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/17948, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 39, C.A.D. 669), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Christopher Naughton, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Marshall Edwards, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) ) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared:  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: May 11, 2005 /s/CHRISTOPHER NAUGHTON    Christopher Naughton Chief Executive Officer
29
No. 49763.

#### Protest 544940-G of Seaboard Foreign Trading Co. (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Tilson, ' J.

The testimony adduced at the trial showed that certain of the items in question consist of hats known as harvest hats similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), which record was admitted herein. Upon the established facts and following the cited authority the claim at only 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained.

Lawrence, J., did not participate.