alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8585)

#### Bluefries New York, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 806471, etc.

(Decided May 18, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Donlon, Judge:

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

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that—

> 1. The merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of chocolate bars and other chocolate articles exported from Holland, the same in all material respects as those in *Bluefries New York, Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 8470, wherein it was held that cost of production as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the proper basis of value.

> 2. The record in said Reap. Dec. 8470 may be incorporated herein.

> 3. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved in the appeals for reappraisement listed in said Schedule A, there was no foreign value or export value or United States value for such or similar merchandise as defined in Sec. 402, Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, and the cost of production is therefore the proper basis of value.

> 4. The cost of production, as defined in Sec. 402 (f), (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, for the chocolate bars and other chocolate articles listed in Schedule B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is as set forth in said Schedule B.

> 5. The appeals for reappraisement listed in said Schedule A are submitted on this stipulation and are limited to the items set forth in said Schedule B, and abandoned as to all other items.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determination of value of the merchandise listed in schedule “B,” attached hereto and made a part of this decision, and that, for the respective items of merchandise, such value is as listed in said schedule “B”

The appeals, as they relate to other merchandise, are dismissed. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

*575Schedule “B”

Article Cost of production per carton Netherlands guilder

Milk bars_ cartons containing 576 bars., 92. 20

Milk bars_ “ “ 600 “___ 93.46

Bittersweet bars_ “ “ 576 105. 85

“ “ 600 107. 67

Milk tablets_ 113. 42

Milk pastilles_ 4oz._ 96. 57

Coffee milk bars_ cartons containing 576 bars.. 93. 52

Orange milk bars_ “ “ 576 “_ 92. 20

Coffee milk bars_ “ “ 600 “___ 94. 83

Orange milk bars_ “ “ 600 “_ 93. 46

Mocha bittersweet bars “ “ 576 “___ 104 40

“ “ 600 *"...*106. 17

Milk hazelnut bars_ “ *“*576 “_ 88. 87

“ “ 600 “___ 89. 99
#### George Gorham, *Executor, etc., Appellant,*v. Joseph Price, *Respondent.*

— Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Hardin, J.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



I, Min Sok Randy Park, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual 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 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust
2010-A (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 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. Based on my knowledge and 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 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 party: Citibank, N.A.



Date: March 28, 2014



| | By: | /s/ Min Sok Randy Park                                       
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Name: Min Sok Randy Park                                     
| |     | Title:  President and Secretary                              
| |     | (senior officer in charge of securitization of the
depositor)
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8620 

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to require the Secretary of the Treasury 

to print $500 Federal reserve notes featuring a portrait of the 45th 

President of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 5, 2024 

Mr. GOSAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to require the Secretary 

of the Treasury to print $500 Federal reserve notes 

featuring a portrait of the 45th President of the United 

States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Treasury Reserve Un5 veiling Memorable Portrait Act of 2024’’ or the ‘‘TRUMP 

6 Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8620 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRINTING OF $500 FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES. 

2 The 8th undesignated paragraph of section 16 of the 

3 Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 418) is amended by add4 ing at the end the following: ‘‘The Secretary of the Treas5 ury shall print Federal reserve notes in the denomination 

6 of $500 and, notwithstanding section 5114(b) of title 31, 

7 United States Code, such notes shall feature a portrait 

8 of the 45th President of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHNNIE WILLIAMS, Basic Airman, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

9 USCMA 36, 25 CMR 298

No. 10,866

Decided March 14, 1958

*Lieutenant Colonel Ellis L. Gottlieb*and *Captain Richard C. Bochen*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Michels*and *Captain Lawrence J. Gross*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Robert E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

The accused was convicted of the larceny of $300 from a fellow airman, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921. The question before us is whether the accused was prejudiced by the inclusion of unfavorable matter in the staff judge advocate’s review which he did not have an opportunity to disclaim or explain. See United States v Griffin, 8 USCMA 206, 24 CMR 16.

The challenged matter is contained in certain “clemency evaluation” statements submitted by the accused’s commanding officer, his first sergeant, and other persons. In substance, some of the statements implicate the accused in other acts of barracks thievery. Also included are references to the accused’s involvement in a fight, his insubordination to a noncommissioned officer, and várious instances of drunkenness. Finally, some of the statements commented unfavorably on the accused’s “attitude” toward his work.

In his review, the staff judge advocate “completely disregarded” the imputations of “further criminal liability” in the barracks thefts because “independent inquiry” indicated that the “accusations were based on conjecture.” No> mention is made of the other purported acts of misconduct, but they are so> minor in relation to the circumstances of the offense that we are constrained to *37conclude that they had no measurable impact upon the convening authority. Considered as a whole, the review is thorough, and so plainly accords the accused every consideration of clemency that the failure to give him an opportunity to challenge the “new” matter in the clemency statements did not deprive him of a substantial right. See United States v Taylor, 9 USCMA 34, 25 CMR 296.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judge Latimer concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting)

I dissent for' the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in United States v Taylor, 9 USCMA 34, 25 CMR 296.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. EMMA D. LYNN, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Messrs.*Schapira, *Steiner & Walder*and *Mr. Joseph*P. *Miele*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Brendan T. Byrne*and *Mr. George A. Franconero*for the respondent.

March 14, 1967.

Denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, John R. Tuttle, President and Chief Executive Officer of DayStar Technologies, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of DayStar Technologies, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2004; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof 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 financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

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

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, 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 registrant’s disclosure controlsand 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 registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’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 reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

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

 

Date: November 12, 2004 

 

By:
 
/s/ John R. Tuttle
  
John R. Tuttle, President
  
and Chief Executive Officer
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 12
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 12
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 12
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 12
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 12
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 12
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 12
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 12
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 12
EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 12
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 12
EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 12
(Reap. Dec. 8879)

Entry Nos. 12470 #1/3; 848747.

#### D. Hauser, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided June 25, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

*549Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated above at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States' was the unit invoice values plus two per centum plus packing.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED THAT there was no higher domestic value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER 'STIPULATED AND AGREED that Reappraisement Appeal No. 242919-A is limited to the *“Second Invoice’’*and abandoned as to all other invoices. '

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that Reappraisement Appeals enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

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 covered by re-appraisement 244307-A and the “Second Invoice” covered by re-appraisement 242919-A, and that such values were the unit invoice values, plus 2 per centum, plus packing.

Reappraisement 242919-A having been abandoned insofar- as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

SUCCESSION OF LUCIEN HARRY MARIONEAUX, SR. NO. 2021 CW 1597 

### MARCH 28, 2022

In Re: Lucien H. Marioneaux, Jr., 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs, 

### 1st Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo, No. 

### 594, 235.

BEFORE: McDONALD, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Relator 

### failed to provide 

### documentation that this writ application was 

## timely filed under Rules 4- 2 and 4- 3, Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, in accordance with the provisions of La. Code Civ. P. art. 

### 1914(A) and ( B). There 

### is no evidence that a 

### judgment was ordered 

## by the trial court or that a written request for 

### judgment was 

## filedwithin 10 days ofthe ruling in open court so as to require a written 

### judgment. Furthermore, the writ application 

### is missing the notice of 

### judgment which was mailed to relator along with the written 

### judgment which could 

### demonstrate that the notice of intent filed on November 16, 2021 

### is 

### timely. Moreover, the writ application does not contain the 

## pleading upon which this ruling is based, the motion to enforce and contempt, 

### nor does it contain a 

### copy of the opposition, 

### in violation of Rules 4- 5(C)( 8) and ( 

### 9), 

### Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal. 

## Theapplication does not containacopyofthe court minutes, 

### in violation of Rule 4-5(0)( 10), 

### Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal. In addition, this court requires a 

## copy ofthe pertinent hearing transcript.

Supplementation of this writ application and/ or an application for 

### rehearing will not 

### be considered. Rules 

### 2- 18. 7 and 4- 9, 

## Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts ofAppeal.

In the event relator seeks to 

### file a new application with this court, 

### it must contain all pertinent 

### documentation 

## including documentation to show the original writ application was 

### timely, and 

### any other 

### documents listed above, and must 

### comply with Rule 

### 2- 12. 2, Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal. 

## Anynewapplication must be filed on or beforeApril 28, 

# 2022andmustcontainacopyofthisruling.
JMM WIL EW



### COURT OF APPEAL, 

### FIRST CIRCUIT

PUTY

# WRI

OFOURT 

### FOR THE COURT
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

MAR 2 7 2015 

Mr. Jarred Gentile 

Certification Manager, Aircraft Engineering 

Gogo, LLC 

1250 N. Arlington Heights Rd. 

Itasca, IL 60 14 3 

Dear Mr. Gentile: 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057-3356 

The FAA has received your petition via e-mail March 13, 2015, requesting an extension to 

the time limit for exemption from the requirements of Title 14, Code ofFederal Regulations 

(14 CFR) 25.571(e)(l). Exemption no. 10817 allows installation ofKa Band radomes on 

Boeing Model 767 airplanes that do not meet FAA bird-strike-damage tolerance 

requirements. 

Your petition has been uploaded to docket no. FAA-2013-0562 in regulations.gov. We are 

in the process of reviewing your extension request, and will contact you if we need 

additional information. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register for public comment because the requested amendment to the 

exemption would not set a precedent, no public comments were received on the original 

petition, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Gogo fleet 

operations. 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Todd Martin at 425-227-1178, or e-mail todd.martin@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Mark Forseth 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service 

Federal Aviation Administration
ALASKA SEAFOOD C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2013

- 0652

DCN: 00 310 CBI

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

.
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Anthony J. Orlando, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Holdings LLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 4, 2006         By: /s/ Anthony J. Orlando             Anthony J. Orlando      Chief Executive Officer and President