alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(V. D. 44)

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

Entry No. 5012, etc.

(Decided March 6, 1957)

*Wallace & Schwartz*for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter comes before me at this time pursuant to a remand from classification proceedings *(J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*36 Cust. Ct. 462, Abstract 59994), wherein judgment was entered, ordering that the matter be “remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).”

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted the matter for decision on a written stipulation reading as follows:

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States concerning the merchandise referred to in the attached Schedule A, as follows:

> 1. Said merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying cases which, in *John P. Herber & Co. Inc.*v. *United States,*C. D. 1519, this Court held to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of articles.

> 2. At the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, 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 quantities in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, is the unit price as shown in the attached Schedule A, in U. S. currency, less the deductions from said unit price as invoiced, cases and packing as shown in said Schedule A, the foreign value of such or similar merchandise being no higher.

> 3. The above reappraisements are abandoned as to all entries and merchandise not listed in the attached Schedule A, and said reappraisements may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation,

*556On the agreed facts, I hold that the proper basis for appraisement of the binoculars and leather cases in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for each of these articles is the unit price in United States currency, as shown in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, less the deductions from the said unit price as invoiced) cases and packing, as shown in said schedule *“A.”*As to all other merchandise, these actions are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 50532.

#### Protests 42056-K/89623, etc., of J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc., et al. (Chicago).

Opinion 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, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices 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 each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jason Kulas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2010-1 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2.
Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the
distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in
this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an
exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells
Fargo Bank, National Association.



/s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 29, 2013
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5


                                 PROMISSORY NOTE



$300,000.00
November 8, 2000


     ON DEMAND, for value received, Liquitek Enterprises, Inc. promises to pay
to the order of Lighthouse, Inc. at 1350 E. Draper Parkway, Draper, Utah 84020
in the State of Utah the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars, in lawful money
of the United States of America, with interest at the rate of 6.2 percent per
annum.

All due and payable on or before December 22, 2001. The sum due at the
aforementioned time is $318,549. (Three Hundred-Eighteen Thousand Five
Hundred-Forty-Nine Dollars.)

Should suit be commenced to enforce payment of this note, Liquitek Enterprises,
Inc. promises to pay such additional sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as
attorney's fees in said suit.


Lighthouse, Inc.                        Liquitek Enterprises, Inc.


/s/ Culley W. Davis                     /s/ Lester W. B. Moore
--------------------------              --------------------------
By:  Culley W. Davis                    By:  Lester W. B. Moore
     Chief Executive Officer                 Chief Executive Officer


                                       1
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Brian F. Grimes, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |     |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: October 26, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Brian F. Grimes                  
|                       |  |     |  | Brian F. Grimes, Executive Vice      
|                       |  |     |  | President and Chief Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 10521)

#### J. D. Smith Inter-Ocean, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 945747.

(Decided May 21, 1963)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

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

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain ophthalmic lenses exported from England and entered at the port of JSTew York.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the present merchandise is export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value therefor is the invoice unit prices, less 10 per centum discount, plus f.o.b. charges, plus packing, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

t1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145747

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145747

COA: 303436

Wayne CC: 10

- 011269

- FH

DENNIS HUGUELY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 17, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Ralph Miller, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[635 NYS2d 552]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that reversal is required based upon the failure of County Court to abide by its sentencing commitment. The court informed defendant that it would not abide by its commitment and accorded defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea, but defendant refused to do so *(see, People v Schultz,*73 NY2d 757, 758; *People v O’Neil,*184 AD2d 663). Defendant waived his statutory right to a speedy trial by his guilty plea *(see, People v Friscia,*51 NY2d 845; *People v Hemans,*197 AD2d 909, *lv denied*82 NY2d 850). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the first count of the indictment is duplicitous *(see,*CPL 255.20 [1]; 210.20 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, in light of the nature of the crime, the age of the victim and defendant’s lengthy criminal history, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. *1003(Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Murad, J.— Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
EXHIBIT 13.2



ALESTRA, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER



I, Patricio E. de la Garza, the Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V. (the Company), hereby
certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:



1. the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003, to which this statement is filed as an exhibit (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.



Date: March 30, 2004



/s/    Patricio E. de la GarzaPatricio E. de la Garza Chief Financial and Administrative Officer
Exhibit 32.2


Certifications Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Groupon, Inc. ("Groupon") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rich Williams, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael Randolfi, 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, to our knowledge, that:





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




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







By: /s/ Rich Williams


Rich Williams


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)





By: /s/ Michael Randolfi


Michael Randolfi


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)





Date:    March 22, 2017
#### John M. Wattles v. John Warren and another.

’The County Courts, as they existed in 1S48, had jurisdiction of actions of ejectment.

’The general statute regulating proceedings in ejectment, was applicable to tho County Courts, except so far as the proceedings marked out by it were inconsistent with the summary proceedings prescribed for the County Courts.

*Heard April 4th.*

*Decided April 11th.*

Error to Lapeer Circuit.

*78The action was *ejectment,*originally brought in the County Court of Lapeer county, April 21st, 1848, and from thence, after judgment for the defendants, removed to the Circuit Court by certiorari, November 23d, 1848, where the judgment of the County Court was affirmed.

The position taken in this court, was that the County Courts had no jurisdiction of actions of ejectment; the statute attempting to confer it not prescribing any mode of proceeding by which the jurisdiction could be exercised*

*11. Wisner,*for plaintiff in error.

*T. JRomeyn,*for defendants in error.

Manning J.:

We have no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the County Court. The statute is.clear on that point: — *S. L.,*1848, *p.*263, §§ 4 and 5. And to enable the court to exercise the jurisdiction, it was not necessary the statute giving it .should regulate the mode of procedure. The statute relative to actions of ejectment *(Comp. L., p. 1229),*is general in its character, and was therefore applicable to the County Courts, except so far as the proceedings marked out by it Avere inconsistent with the summary proceedings prescribed by statute for the County Courts.

The judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.
**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**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The FirstMarblehead Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2005as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Donald R. Peck, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurerand Secretary of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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 ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  February 8, 2006 |  /s/ Donald R. Peck                                                                                      |   |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                     |  Donald R. Peck   Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and   Secretary |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained byThe First Marblehead Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A1 24 1 . NI EKI LETTA MCLOUGHLI N v . ROBERT MCLOUGHLI N.

Th e p art i es were d iv o rced p u rs u an t to a fi n al j u d g m e n t a n d di v o rce d ecree

en t ered o n O c t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 8

. In a s ep arat e o rd er, d at ed Oct o b er 2 2 , 2 0 1 8, t h e t ri al

co u rt ad d res s ed t h e i ss u e of at t o rn ey fees

. Ni ek i l et t a M cLo u g h l i n (t h e “ W ife”) t h en f i l e d b o th a n o t i ce o f ap p eal an d an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal s eek i n g t o ap p eal th e t ri al co u rt ’ s O ct o b er 2 2 o rd er o n at to rn ey fees

. W e g ran t ed t h e W i fe’ s ap p li cat io n

. See Cas e No

. A1 9 D0 1 9 0 (g ran t ed Dec. 1 7 , 2 0 1 8). In t h e m ean ti m e, t h e W i fe’ s ap p eal was d o ck et ed i n Cas e No

. A1 9 A 0 9 70 p u rs u an t t o h er n ot i ce o f ap p eal

. Fo l l owi n g th e gran t o f h er ap pl i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal , t h e W i fe fi l ed

a s eco n d n o ti ce o f ap p eal o n Decem b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 8 , wh i ch h as b een d o ck et ed as t h e i n s t an ce cas e, Cas e N o

. A1 9 A1 2 4 1

. Becau s e t h is cas e i s d u p l i c a t i v e o f Cas e No

. A1 9 A0 97 0 , i t i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED as s u p erfl u o u s.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. January 25, 2019

01/25/2019
(V.D. 98)

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 815575.

(Decided February 16, 1959)

*John Irwin Dugan*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This matter is presently before me on a remand from a classification proceeding decided by the first division of this court in *R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*41 Cust. Ct. 346, Abstract 62253. The judgment entered therein stated that the matter be “remanded to a single judge to determine the proper dutiable value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law.”

The matter has been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(d)), to be the proper basis for determining the value of the involved merchandise, and that such value is $5.40 per kilo, net packed, less 4 cents per kilo for ocean freight and insurance.

I further find such value to be the dutiable value of said merchandise.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32
 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 Sections 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.
  November 8, 2010

Date
    
    /s/ Richard J. Jarosinski

Richard J. Jarosinski, 
President and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 8, 2010
    
    /s/ John N. PesarsickDate
    
    John N. Pesarsick, Chief Financial Officer and 
Principal Accounting Officer
#### Zachariah E. Simmons, *Appellant, v.*Cornelius J. Vanderbilt, *Respondent.*

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Marlin Business Services Corp.
 Date: May 7, 2010
 /s/ Daniel P. Dyer

Daniel P. Dyer
Chief Executive Officer/s/ Lynne C. Wilson

Lynne C. WilsonChief Financial Officer &Senior Vice President
(Principal Financial Officer)
----

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 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gryphon GoldCorporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Michael K. Longinotti, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 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 ofoperations of the Company. 

| Date:    August 14, 2007 |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
|                     |   |   |   |
|                     |   |   | By: /s/ Michael K.    Longinotti |
|                     |   |   | Michael K. Longinotti |
|                     |   |   | Chief Financial    Officer |

----
#### In the Matter of MICHAEL J. SCHNITZER, an attorney at law.

June 12, 1967.

Reprimanded. Opinion reported at 49 *N. J.*402.
#### John C. Derby, *Appellant, v.*Justus Yale and others, *Respondents.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Smith, P. J.