alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [OR-130-1020-ML; GP7-0092] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below. 

# DATES:

                        The Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council will meet Friday, April 13, 2007 at the Spokane District Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1103 North Fancher Road, Spokane Valley, Washington 99212-1275.                               ( print page 14136)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will start at 9 a.m., adjourn at 4 p.m., and will be open to the public. Topics of discussion will include: (1) Spokane District's land use plan and potential revision; (2) an update on management of access to the Juniper Dunes area; (3) Spokane District priorities and budget; and (4) prioritization of topics for future meetings. There will be an opportunity for public comment at 3 p.m. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Pavey or Sandie Gourdin, Bureau of Land Management, Spokane District Office, 1103 N. Fancher Road, Spokane Valley, Washington 99212-1275, or call (509) 536-1200. 

Dated: March 20, 2007. 

Robert B. Towne, 

District Manager. 

 [FR Doc. E7-5466 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Bing Yu, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of China New Borun Corporation;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: March 16, 2011

 
|   | /s/ Bing Yu                                  |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Name: Bing Yu                                |
|   | Title:   Chief   Financial Officer |

 

----
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 /s/ Anthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    /s/ Craig D. AboltAnthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    Craig D. AboltChief Executive Officer and President
    
    
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 4, 2006
    
    
    
    May 4, 2006
No. 52710.

protest 57596-K (New York).

#### J. R. Gaunt & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

*251Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) 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 entry 816706. The protest was sustained to this extent.
#### Chas. Jansen, Resp’t, v. The Otto Stietz N. Y. Glass Letter Co., App’lt.

*Rufus L. Seott,*for resp’t; *Wm. J. Lynch,*for app’lt.

*994Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Affirming 16 N. Y. State Rep., 905.
(Reap. Dec. 9570)

#### Henry A. Wess, Inc. (Queen City Wreath Co.) *v.*United States

Entry No. 181.

(Decided December 23, 1959)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiffs.

*George Goehran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain items of artificial flowers, exported from Japan and entered at the port of Cincinnati, Ohio.

*588Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is the values returned by the appraiser, less 8 per centum commission, as shown on the invoice, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual
Report  on  Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with
the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,  as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents,
in  all  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
649.com  Inc.


/s/  Cary Martin                           Date:  March 30, 2004
-----------------------
Cary Martin
Secretary / Treasurer / Director


<PAGE>
No. 53654.

protest 149028-K (New York).

#### British West Indies Corp. *v.*United States,

*192Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 41842.

#### Protest 82794-G of Salem Shawiry (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consist of Normandy laces similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
##### 



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 Annual Report of Global Energy Group, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10- KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we,
the undersigned, 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. April 29, 2004
    
    /s/ John R. BaileyJohn R. BaileyPresident, Chief Operating Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6937

AHMAD CLARENCE GARLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director, of South CarolinaDepartment of Corrections; BENJAMIN MONTGOMERY, Deputy Director of Operations, South Carolina Department of Corrections; GERALDINE P. MIRO, Warden of Allendale Correctional Institution; RICHARD MCCANTS, Associate Warden ACI; BETSY ALBRITTON; RICKY GRIMES; MITCHELL ODOM; KEN LONG; ANN HALLMAN; MITCHELL LESTER; GEORGE DUKES; GENE SANDERS; OFFICER HEYWARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-00-938-4-19BF) Submitted: August 24, 2000 Decided: August 31, 2000 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ahmad Clarence Garland, Appellant Pro Se.* Although the district court’s order is marked as filed on June 14, 2000, the court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on June 15, 2000. It is the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a); Wilson v. Murray , 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Ahmad Clarence Garland appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Garland v. Catoe , No. CA-00-938-4-19BF (D.S.C. June 15, 2000). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 1, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert K. Gault, Jr. 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: November 14, 2006



By:

/s/ ROBERT K. GAULT, JR.Robert K. Gault, Jr. Principal Executive Officer
Before the First Division,

June 3, 1954

No. 58135.

protests 78369-K, etc. (Boston).

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise marked “A” consist of figures or articles, composed wholly or in chief value of papier máché, the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 56975, the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1403 was sustained. Other items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of articles, composed wholly or in chief value of wood, the same in all material respects (except the component material in chief value) as the merchandise involved in said Abstract 56975, were held dutiable at 33% percent under paragraph 412, as claimed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT J. TIMNEY AND PATRICIA A. 

TIMNEY,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 375 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of January, 2022, the Petition for Leave to File a Response 

Nunc Pro Tunc and the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel are GRANTED. The Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.

Justice Brobson did not participate in the disposition or consideration of this matter.
No. 42978.

#### Protests 855143-G, etc., of F. S. Allenby & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.’

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
```

[107th Congress Public Law 356]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ356.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 3013]]

Public Law 107-356
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To modify the boundaries of the New River Gorge National River, West 
            Virginia. <<NOTE: Dec. 17, 2002 -  [H.R. 3858]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: New River Gorge Boundary 
Act of 2002.>>  assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT <<NOTE: 16 USC 460m-15 note.>>  TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``New River Gorge Boundary Act of 
2002''.

SEC. 2. NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS.

    (a) Boundary Modification.--Section 1101 of the National Parks and 
Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 460m-15) is amended by striking 
``NERI-80,028A, dated March 1996'' and inserting ``NERI 80,034, dated 
May 2001''.
    (b) <<NOTE: 16 USC 460m-15 note.>>  Land Exchange.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
        complete a fee simple land exchange in the vicinity of Beauty 
        Mountain, Fayette County, West Virginia, to acquire a tract of 
        land identified as NERI Tract Number 150-07 that lies adjacent 
        to the boundary of the New River Gorge National River in 
        exchange for a tract of land identified as NERI Tract Number 
        150-08 located within such boundary.
            (2) Treatment of exchanged lands.--Upon the completion of 
        such land exchange--
                    (A) the land acquired by the United States in the 
                exchange shall be included in the boundaries, and 
                administered as part, of the New River Gorge National 
                River; and
                    (B) the land conveyed by the United States in the 
                exchange shall be excluded from the boundaries, and 
                shall not be administered as part, of the New River 
                Gorge National River.

    Approved December 17, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3858:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-509 (Comm. on Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            June 24, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 19, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### Hoffman, Appellant, *v.*Mount Lebanon Cemetery Company.

Argued January 9, 1969.

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

*549April 23, 1969:

*Samuel P. Lavine,*with him *Steinberg, Greenstein, Rickman & Price,*for appellant.

*Ronald N. Rutenberg,*with him *Harry A. Rutenberg,*and *Rutenberg, Rutenberg, Rutenberg & Rutenberg,*for appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Decree affirmed on the opinion of the court below. Each party to pay own costs.
(Reap. Dec. 10518)

#### The A. W. Fenton Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3833.

(Decided May 16, 1963)

*Garth E. Griffith*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General *(Morris Braverman,*trial attorney) , for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

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

> Me. Gkifeith : It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the Government and counsel for the Plaintiff, with respect to the merchandise undergoing appraisement that:

> First, such or similar merchandise is not freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States; and

> Second, such or similar merchandise is not freely sold or offered for sale in the principal market of the United States for domestic consumption; and

> Third, the cost of materials and the fabrication or other processing employed in the production of such or similar merchandise in the ordinary course of business, plus an amount for general expenses and profits equal to that usually reflected in sales of merchandise of the same general kind as the merchandise undergoing appraisement which are made by producers in the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for shipment to the United States, plus an amount for the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to place the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, equals $2,900.

> Me. Beaveeman : From information and authority obtained from the Bureau of Customs, and the Treasury Department in Washington, D.C., the Government so stipulates.

On the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a(f) 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 involved and that such value was $2,900.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Willard Baker and another, *Respondents, v.*The New York National Exchange Bank, *Appellant.*

— Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
#### Phœbe Fellows, *Appellant, v.*Richard C. Fellows, Respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs. Opinion by Brady, J.
#### The Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, *Plaintiff, v.*Catharine Roche and others, *Defendants.—Thomas*Kenneally, *Claimant, Appellant.*

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Davis,' P. J.
#### Armando Constanza, Appellant, v Adamatic A Corp., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[633 NYS2d 407]

—In an *496action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), dated June 2, 1994, which, *inter alia,*granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated November 21, 1994, which denied a motion denominated as a motion to renew, but which was in actuality a motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 21, 1994, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying re-argument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 2, 1994, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff was injured on a conveyor belt of a bread-making machine at his place of employment. The plaintiff alleged that the machine and its conveyor belt were manufactured by the defendant. The defendant, in turn, brought a third-party action against the plaintiff’s employer, J.J. Cassone’s Bakery. The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant manufactured the conveyor belt, or that the defendant maintained and repaired it. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant summary judgment *(see, Hymovoitz v Lilly & Co.,*73 NY2d 487, 504, *cert denied*493 US 944; *D’Amico v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.,*173 AD2d 263, 265-266).

The plaintiff contends that the third-party defendant is responsible for the failure of proof because it failed to preserve the machine for inspection, and therefore, summary judgment should not have been granted. The third-party defendant sold the machine approximately one year after the accident, but two years prior to the commencement of this action *(see, Vaughn v City of New York,*201 AD2d 556, 558). Since the third-party defendant had no duty to preserve the machine after the plaintiff’s accident *(see, McAllister v Renu Indus. Tire Corp.,*202 AD2d 556, 557), the plaintiff’s delay in moving to protect his interests should not now work to his benefit *(see, Berwecky v Montgomery Ward,*214 AD2d 936). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.