alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 47465.

#### Protests 972619-G, etc., of S. A. Haram (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The sole question before the court is whether or not the merchandise is “hard dry-smoked herring.” This question also arose in *Haram v. United States*(C. D. 390), which record was incorporated in the present case. In addition thereto the testimony of .six witnesses was introduced. Considerable testimony was also introduced as to the method of smoking herring. It also appeared that there was a sharp conflict as to just how heavily smoked and how hard smoked herring must be before it would be properly dutiable as hard dry-smoked. A question also arose as to whether one of the samples (exhibit 3) in the instant case was fairly representative of the condition of the merchandise on the date of importation. The plaintiff contended-that it was representative but the examiner claimed that it was not. Referring to exhibit 1 the examiner testified that it appeared “to have been when originally imported in a much softer condition,” but that “at the present time it has approached a state of dryness *in smoking*which would cause me to classify it as a dry hard-smoked herring.” The court noted that the examiner referred to a “state of dryness in smoking” in connection with a sample which had been under refrigeration since importation, and there was nothing in the record to indicate that exhibit 1 had been subjected to any further smoking than that to which it had been subjected before exportation. The examiner also testified as to several of the other exhibits.

Although confronted with a situation where the samples of fish for its guidance are claimed by the defendant to be in a different and harder state than when imported, even though the samples had been kept in cold storage on the steamer and since arrival in this country, the court stated there were features other than *396hardness to assist in arriving at a decision. It stated that the dryness and hardness are caused by the smoking and drying process, which imparts color to the product, ranging from pale yellow to a dark brown or red, and that the longer it is smoked, the drier and.harder it will become, and the darker and more distinctive will be the color acquired. Therefore, the court stated, a comparison must be made between plaintiff’s exhibits 1 and 3 (samples from this importer’s importation) and defendant’s illustrative exhibit B (the sample claimed to represent the condition of the imported merchandise at the time of its arrival). There was nothing found in the record to convince the court that cold storage will change the color originally imparted to the fish by the smoking operation.

From a careful examination of the testimony and exhibits the court was satisfied that the merchandise in question is hard dry-smoked herring and therefore properly dutiable at *%*of 1 cent per pound under paragraph 720 (a) and T. D. 48033, as claimed. ,
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-31288

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CLARENCE ROBINSON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana

(CR-94-26-B-M2)

September 25, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Robinson, Jr., appeals his sentence followin g his

jury trial conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon. Robinson argues that the district court denied him due

process of law regarding his sentence because the court denied his

motion for continuance and his motion for funds to hire an2

investigator. Robinson also argues that the district court

erroneously applied the preponderance of the evidenc e burden of

proof at his sentencing hearing. As the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Robinson’s motions, Robinson was

not denied due process of law. S ee United States v. Gadison

, 8

F.3d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Correa-Ventura , 6

F.3d 1070, 1074 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Goodwin

, 770 F.2d

631, 634 (7th Cir. 1985). The district court correctly applied the

preponderance of the evidence standard as the appropriate standard

of review at Robinson’s sentencing. S ee United States v. Megerson

,

4 F.3d 337, 343-344 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S.Ct. 1310

(1994).

AFFIRMED
---

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Gryphon Gold Corporation, (the Company) does hereby
certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) 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. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

|                      |                                                              
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2010 |                                                              
|                      | /s/ John L.
      Key                                        
|                      | John L. Key                                                  
|                      | Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive
      Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.

---
EXHIBIT 31.1

302 CERTIFICATION

OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I,
John F. Brock, Chief Executive Officer of Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 17, 2011



/s/ John F. BrockJohn F. BrockChief Executive OfficerCoca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.
#### In the Matter of the Petition of LEWIS H. WIGGINS to Remove LEWIS H. SMITH as Testmentary Trustee.

*Trustee*— application *to remove a trustee, upon the ground that he has converted a portion of the trust pi'operty to his own use*— it *will not he defeated hy proof that he Tuts made a settlement with those of the heneficia/ries whose property he had converted, and that the residue of the trust property is, then, in the possession of amd properly invested by his cotrustees.*

Appeal from a decree of the surrogate of Suffolk county, dismissing the petition of the appellant to revoke letters testamentary issued to Lewis H. Smith, respondent, one of the executors and testamentary trustees under the above-named will, and to remove him from his position as such testamentary trustee.

The petition alleged that the trustee had converted some $6,000 of the testator’s estate to his own use, and that he was insolvent. The answer did not deny these allegations, but averred' that the respondent had satisfied the parties in interest by giving his obligations for this deficiency, and that his business was profitable. *272Testimony was taken from which it appeared that the allegations of the petition were true. The surrogate denied the application.

The court at General Term said: *“*I think in so doing he erred. The petitioner’s interest is small, but he was entitled to have it protected. The misconduct of the trustee rendered him improper to longer discharge his trusts. His settlement with the other legatees may have discharged him from legal liability to them on account of his default, but it did not obliterate the fault itself.

*“*The fund in which the petitioner is interested is now securely invested and in the hands of the other trustee, as to whom no complaint is made. But this does not necessarily secure the petitioner. The respondent is equally entitled to the possession of the fund with such cotrustee. Also, as the trustee was insolvent, he should have been ordered to file security.”

*William,*Riley, for the petitioner, appellant.

*Thos. S.*Mount, for Smith, executor and trustee, respondent.

Opinion by

Cullen, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Dykman and Cullen, JJ.

Decree of surrogate of Suffolk county reversed, with costs, unless the trustee Smith file security in twenty days.
Before the Third Division,

May 24, 1955

No. 59099.

protests 166979-K, etc. (New York).

#### Carole Stupell, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to May 28, 1950, were held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 (a) (2) of the tariff act, and the items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on and after May 28, 1950, were held dutiable at 10 percent under said paragraph as modified, *supra.*
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 135677 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. In re THOMAS JAMES KLANK, Stephen J. Markman, KYLEIGH CHRISTINE KLANK, and Justices ALYSSA MACKENZIE KLANK, Minors.

________________ _______________ __________/

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 135677 COA: 277826 Oakland CC Family BAMBI NICOLE KUTTKUHN, Division: 04-689348-NA Respondent,

and

DANIEL JAMES KLANK, Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0205 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 8, 2008

Clerk
Exhibit 31.1







CERTIFICATIONS




I, Paul C. Honda, 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  Honda Auto Receivables 2010-2 Owner Trust (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 servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements 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:  DealerTrack Collateral Management Services (fka FDI Computer Consulting, Inc., dba FDI Collateral Management) and The Bank of New York Mellon.











Date:  June 14, 2011











/s/ Paul C. Honda_____________________________


Paul C. Honda


Vice President, Assistant Secretary and Compliance Officer


of American Honda Finance Corporation


(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
No. 42982.

#### Protest 951398-G of Louis Bronstein (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

On the record presented the protest was overruled.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.97.1

SCHEDULE IDENTIFYING SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL AGREEMENT(S)  TO EXHIBIT 10.97

Facility Sublease Agreement (T2), dated as of December 15, 1999, by and among
Collins Holdings EME, LLC, Midwest Generation, LLC and Collins Trust II.

                  This Facility Sublease Agreement differs from Exhibit 10.97
in the following respects:

        In paragraph 1 - Definitions, "(T1)" is replaced by "(T2)."

Facility Sublease Agreement (T3), dated as of December 15, 1999, by and among
Collins Holdings EME, LLC, Midwest Generation, LLC and Collins Trust III.

                  This Facility Sublease Agreement differs from Exhibit 10.97
in the following respects:

        In paragraph 1 - Definitions, "(T1)" is replaced by "(T3)."

Facility Sublease Agreement (T4), dated as of December 15, 1999, by and among
Collins Holdings EME, LLC, Midwest Generation, LLC and Collins Trust IV.

                  This Facility Sublease Agreement differs from Exhibit 10.97
in the following respects:

         In paragraph 1 - Definitions, "(T1)" is replaced by "(T4)."
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) of TICC Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Jonathan H. Cohen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my 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 the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                  
|--------------------- |  | -----------------
|/S/ JONATHAN H. COHEN
|Name:                 |  | Jonathan H. Cohen
|Date:                 |  | May 8, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8567 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8567

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to regularly promote programs under chapter 31 of such 
                                 title.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2024

   Mr. Allred (for himself, Mr. Donalds, Ms. Manning, and Mr. Costa) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to regularly promote programs under chapter 31 of such 
                                 title.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Informing Veterans on Education for 
Transitioning Servicemembers Act'' or the ``Informing VETS Act''.

SEC. 2. INFORMATION CAMPAIGN REGARDING VETERAN READINESS AND EMPLOYMENT 
              PROGRAM.

    Section 3116 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(c) The Secretary shall regularly promote programs under this 
chapter by--
            ``(1) sending a letter to each veteran entitled to such a 
        program that explain educational benefits of such programs; and
            ``(2) providing a side-by-side comparison of benefits 
        between such programs and educational assistance under chapter 
        33 of this title--
                    ``(A) with each letter under paragraph (1); and
                    ``(B) on a publicly accessible website of the 
                Department.''.
                                 <all>
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F e d. R . A pp. P . 34( a ) ( 2) . W e de nyL i ’ s r e que s tf or o r a l ar g u m e n t. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T Q I U J I N L I , a . k. a . Q ui

j i n L i , a . k. a . Q uj i ng Li P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 72587 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 716- 364 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Q i u J i n L i , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e m and and di s m i s s i ng he rappe a lf

r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f or 

# FI LED SEP 26 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 72587 2 a s y l um . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w de novo due p r o c e s s c o n te n tio n s , Y

an L i u v. H

older , 6 4 0 F . 3 d9 1 8 , 9 3 0 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 1 ) , an dwe d i s m i s s i n p artan dd e n yi n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. L i ’ s onl yc ont e nt i on i s tha tthe I Jvi ol a t e d he rdue pr oc e s s r i ght s by com pel l i ng her t o revealpri vi l eged att orney- cl i entcom m un i cat i on s. W e l ac k ju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rth is c o n te n tio n b e c au s e L i d idn o t r a is e it to th e B I A . See T al l v. Mukasey , 51 7 F . 3d11 15 , 11 20 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). L i d o e s n o t o th e rw is e c h a lle n g e th e B I A ’s d is p o s itiv e a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f i ndi ngs . A c c or di ngl y , w e de nythe pe t i t i on. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.
(Reap. Dec. 10189)

#### Fox Custom House Brokers, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1274, etc.

(Decided March 6, 1962)

*Robert B. Krupansky*for the plaintiff.

*William, H. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivek, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedules “A” and “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, involve certain automobiles, exported from Germany and entered at the port of Cleveland, Ohio.

Stipulated facts, upon which the appeals have been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise covered thereby is statutory foreign value and that such value for the merchandise covered by the invoices with the entries involved in the appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in said schedule “A,” is the invoice unit values, less inland freight charges and commission; for the merchandise covered by the invoices with the entries involved in the appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in said schedule “B,” except reappraisement R60/8246, is the invoice unit values; for the merchandise described on one of the invoices with reappraisement B60/8246 as “5 Orel Olympia Caravan” and “8 Opel Olympia Rek-ord” is the invoice unit value, less inland freight charges and commissions; and for the merchandise described as “120 Used Volks-wagens & Mercedes,” on the other invoice with reappraisement R60/8246, is the invoice unit value.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

May 26, 1960

No. 64244.

protests 757261-G, etc. (New York).

#### L. Bamberger & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.