alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 49274.

#### Protests 12403-K, etc., of Wm. Filene’s Sons Co. et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 53062.

#### Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 124138-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First Marblehead Corporation (the “Company”)for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald R. Peck,Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary ofthe Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: November 8,  2005 |                                                                     |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   /s/ Donald R. Peck                                                |   |
|                          |   Donald R. Peck                                                    |
|                          |   Executive Vice President, Chief Financial  Officer, Treasurer and |
|                          |   Secretary                                                         |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The FirstMarblehead Corporation and will be retained by The First Marblehead Corporationand furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
^i T O F iiv n

• - ; - 1 Mary Kay Maure n 690 5 Ay r Lan e Bethesda , M D 2081 7 (301)229-804 0 February 15,201 2 Docke t Managemen t

Facilit y U.S . Dept . o f

Transportatio n Docke t No . FAA-2012-008 9 120 0 New Jerse y Ave. , S.E . Wes t Bldg . Gran dFloo r

Roo mW12014 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 RE : Su n Country Airlin e Washington-Reagan t o Lansin g Rout e Dea r Sir o r Madam : Th e curren t

Su n Country rout e betwee n Lansing , Michiga n an dWashington , D.C./Reagan/Nationa l Airport i s arout e tha t

need s t o b e maintained . It offer s muc h neede d flexibl e an daffordabl e servic e betwee n thes e regions . Withou t th e direc t

service , passenger s are require dt o us e airlin e route s that necessitat e connectin g flight s throug h othe r hu b airports . Thi s pose s additional difficult

y for elderl y person s an dthos e wit h disabilities . Than k yo u fo r you r attentio n t o thi s matter . Sincerely , Mary Kay Mauren- *
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE:** 0 7 /2 5 /2014 **FROM:** Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR– 2013
- 0602 **SUBJECT:** Colorado Energy Expo held on 06/27 /2014 **SUMMARY :**  Laura Farris, EPA Region 8 Climate Change Coordinator, and Cindy Beeler, EPA Region 8 Energy Advisor, hosted a booth and held discussions on the proposed Clean Power Plan for E xisting Power Plants with various members of the public on 06/27 /2014
. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES: EPA**  **Region 8** Laura Farris Cindy Beeler **External Stakeholders** Members of the Public **ATTACHMENTS** Clean Po wer Plan Factsheets
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . 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 furtherNo. 99-40275 -2- responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
#### Morton Marks et al., Respondents, v Roy Macchiarola, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 56]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York *218County (William J. Davis, J.), entered January 26, 1995, denying defendant’s motion for leave to amend his answer to assert the affirmative defense of statute of frauds, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs and disbursements, and the motion granted.

In this action, two partners of a would be accounting partnership that never came into being seek to recover the pro rata share of the rent due for an approximate four-year period from the third intended partner under a lease signed by all three parties, based, apparently, on an October 20, 1987 oral agreement. Defendant never interposed the affirmative defense of statute of frauds as to the oral agreement, a fact which we noted in the context of its having been waived as a result thereof when this matter was before us on an earlier appeal (204 AD2d 221). When we spoke of waiver we meant under the particular answer at issue and did not imply, as the IAS Court believed, that defendant was forever foreclosed from amending his answer. Leave to amend "shall be freely given” "at any time” (CPLR 3025 [b]), even as to defenses deemed "waived” pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e) when not raised " 'either by * * * motion or in the responsive pleading.’ ” *(Pegno Constr. Corp. v City of New York,*95 AD2d 655, 656.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ross, JJ.
SANITIZEDCrude Oil Production
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.192

                                   DEMAND NOTE

$300,000.00                                                  New York, New York
                                                             February 5, 2001

        FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Wilshire Technologies, Inc. a
California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower"), hereby
unconditionally PROMISES TO PAY to the order to TRILON DOMINION PARTNERS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Lender"), at 245 Park Avenue, 28th Floor,
New York, NY 10167, or at such other place as the holder of this Demand Note may
designate from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of
America and in immediately available funds, the principal amount of Three
Hundred Thousand and 00/100, DOLLARS ($300,000.00), together with interest on
the unpaid principal amount of this Demand Note outstanding from time to time
from the date hereof, at a rate per annum equal to the Prime rate of interest
plus 3.0%, or the highest rate permitted by law, whichever shall be less.

        The principal amount of the indebtedness evidenced hereby shall be
payable on demand. Interest thereon shall be paid when principal is paid from
the date hereof until such principal amount is paid in full at such interest
rate as specified above. Following failure to pay on demand, Borrower agrees to
pay interest on any overdue payment of principal at a rate per annum equal to
the stated interest rate plus 5%, or the highest rate permitted by law,
whichever shall be less. All interest calculations shall be computed on the
basis of a 360 day year.

        Demand, presentment, protest and notice of nonpayment and protest are
hereby waived by Borrower.

        Borrower shall have no right to make any off-set against or deduct from
any payment due under this Demand Note.

        Principal and interest may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

        This Demand Note may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in
writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change is
sought.

        All covenants of Borrower in this Demand Note and all rights of the
holder under this Demand Note shall bind Borrower and its successors and
assigns, and all such covenants and rights shall inure to the benefit of the
holder of this Demand Note and its successors and assigns.

        This Demand Note has been delivered and accepted at New York, New York
and shall be interpreted, governed by, and construed in accordance with, the
laws of the State of New York.

                                        Wilshire Technologies, Inc.



                                        By:/s/ Kathleen Terry
                                           -------------------
                                        Name:  Kathleen E. Terry
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 28, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5564]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 07-1127; MB Docket No. 03-142; RM-10539]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Glen Arbor, MI

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a Petition for Rule Making filed by WKJF Radio, 
Inc., licensee of Station WJZQ, Channel 225C, Cadillac, Michigan, this 
document deletes the Channel 227A allotment at Glen Arbor, Michigan, in 
order to permit WKJF Radio, Inc. to modify the Station WJZQ facilities 
as set forth in its pending application (File BMLH-20020517AAG). With 
this action, the proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective April 23, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Media Bureau
    (202) 418-2177.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Report and Order 
in MB Docket No. 03-142, adopted March 7, 2007, and released March 9, 
2007. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information 
Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from 
the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copying and Printing, Inc., 445 
12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-
378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission will send a copy of 
this Report and Order in a report to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Radio broadcasting.

0
As stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 
47 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

Sec.  73.202  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Michigan is 
amended by removing Channel 227A at Glen Arbor.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. E7-5564 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```
#### J. E. Bernard *&*Co., Inc. (Capper & Capper, Ltd.) *v.*United States

No. 6640.

Entry No. 1072, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, August 18, 1941, etc.

Certified August 18, 1941, etc.

Entered at Chicago, Ill., September 29, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 18, 1946)

*Wallace & Schwartz (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 merchandise 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.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 10512)

#### Western Pacific Import Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 31567.

(Decided April 14, 1963)

*Stem & Shostalc*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties herein:

> 10? IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, consists of merchandise exported from Japan; and that, at the time of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values plus f.o.b. charges set out on the invoices, but not including the buying commission as stated on the invoices.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise the subject of this stipulation is not included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that said merchandise is subject to appraisement under See. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for reap-praisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for a decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export valne, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question and that such value is the invoice unit value, plus f.o.b. charges set out on the invoice, but not including the buying commission, as stated on said invoice.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
June 29, 2015

Mr. John King

Innovative Airworks, LLC

157 Ram Dr.

Covington, GA 30014

Dear Mr. King:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 13, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0663), 

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any 

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
**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-Qof American Defense Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), Anthony Piscitelli, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, President and Chairman of the Company and Gary Sidorsky, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our bestknowledge:

 

1.     The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.     The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 14, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Anthony Piscitelli                          |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   | Anthony Piscitelli                              |
|                       |   | Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman |
|                       |   |
|                       |   |                                            |
|                       | By:    | /s/ Gary Sidorsky                               |
|                       |   | Gary Sidorsky                                   |
|                       |   | Chief Financial Officer                         |

 

----
Federal Trade Commission n Bureau of Consumer Protection n Office of Consumer and Business Education

Consumer Alert

Taxpayers with IRAs: FYI

The IRS Does NOT Approve IRA Investments

August 1998

Washington, D.C.  Investors with Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs) should be on the

lookout for ads and solicitations that claim that certain types of investments for IRAs are

IRS-Approved or IRA-Approved. The government says these ads are misleading, because the IRS

does not approve investments for IRAs.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the North

American Securities Administrators Association, investors are getting misleading sales pitches for

specific IRA investments via the telephone, the mail and the Internet. Most solicitations are variations

on this theme:

This investment has been approved for your IRA. You can use your IRA for this

investment by filling out the forms in the attached information package. Our agent

will take care of the rest. This has been reviewed by the government (or the IRS).

This investment is so safe you can use it for your IRA. Only certain investments are

approved for IRAs.

The agencies say that fraudulent promoters are trying to take advantage of consumers who may be

confused about the role of the IRS when it comes to IRAs. The IRS issues letters to IRA sponsors,

trustees and custodians certifying that they are complying with requirements concerning investor rights,

account administration, and standards that allow contributions to be deductible. But the IRS does not:

✖ review or approve investments;

✖ advise people on how to invest their IRAs;

✖ endorse any investments; or

✖ issue statements that an investment in an IRA is protected because the IRS has approved a

particular trustee or custodian.

Before you invest, check with your state securities regulator to make sure the investment and person

selling it are registered. You can find the phone number for your state securities regulator in the blue

pages of the phone book.

For questions or complaints about claims for IRA investment opportunities made through telephone,

mail or online promotions, contact the Federal Trade Commission (202-FTC-HELP), the Securities and

Exchange Commission (1-800-SEC-0330) or the North American Securities Administrators Association

(202-737-0900) or visit them online at www.ftc.gov, www.sec.gov or www.nasaa.org.

For information about setting up, contributing to, and deductions for an IRA, contact 1-800-TAX-3676

and ask for the free IRS Publication 590, Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs).
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  Annual  Report  of  Calypso  Financial  Services,
Inc.(the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2003, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Edward F. Cowle, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec.  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of the
     Company.


/s/ Edward F. Cowle
-------------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Chief Executive Officer
October 4, 2004

     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 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.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
May 9, 1955

No. 59065.

Suit 4802.

#### United States *v.*J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc.

-C. D. 1548 affirmed February 8, 1955. C. A. D. 586.