alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8603)

#### Empire Steel Trading Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5733, etc.

(Decided June 22, 1956)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiffs.

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

Johnson, 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:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, subject to the approval of the Court, that the items marked “A” and initialed ACW by Examiner Allan C. Walker on the invoices covered by the above named reappraisement appeals, consist of cold rolled steel sheets.

> That said items marked “A” and initialed by the Examiner were freely offered for sale in Belgium, the country of exportation, at the time of exportation to all purchasers in the principal markets of Belgium for exportation to the United States, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade at the *621below-listed prices, less 2%, plus $2.00 for each skid (packing), and less transport charges to Antwerp, putting on board expenses, and Consular invoice fees, as specified on the said invoices:

> Reappraisement appeal Entry Price per metric ton, U. S. $

> 24225l-[ A-XXXX XXXX ] $161. 00

> 242252-[ A-XXXX XXXX ] 161. 00

> 242253-[ A-XXXX XXXX ] 165. 60 (1st item on invoice — 223,883 tons) 160. 60 (2nd item on invoice — 74,522 tons)

> 242254^ [ A-XXXX XXXX ] 165. 60

That there was no higher “foreign value” for such or similar merchandise as defined in Section 402 (c), Tariff Act of 1930.

> The above-named reappraisement appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and upon the official papers.

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 items marked “A” and initialed

ACW by Examiner Allan C. Walker on the invoices, and that such values are as follows:

> Reap. No. Entry No. United States dollars per metric ton

> 242251-A 5733 161. 00

> 242252-A 5940 161. 00

> 242253-A 6057 165. 60 (1st item on invoice — 223,883 tons)

> 160. 60 (2nd item on invoice — 74,522 tons)

> 242254^-A 6327 165. 60

> All less 2 per centum, plus $2 for each skid (packing), and less transport charges to Antwerp, putting on board expenses, and consular invoice fees, as specified on the invoices

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

July 29, 1943

No. 48600.

#### Protests 847483-G, etc., of Katz Berk Hat Body Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record established that certain of the items consist of hats composed of manila hemp similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218). In accordance therewith the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was sustained.
Exhibit
31.1




Certification
of Chief Executive Officer




I, John
E. Stuart, Chief Executive Officer of Full Circle Capital Corporation certify
that:




1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Full Circle Capital
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 registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
registrant’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 registrant 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 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 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 registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
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 officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the 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 reasonably likely 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 control over financial
reporting.




Dated
this 28th day of September 2010.





By:
              /s/
      John E. StuartJohn
      E. Stuart
                Chief
      Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8528 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8528

 To increase the criminal penalties for assaulting a Bureau of Prisons 
                         correctional officer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2024

Mr. D'Esposito introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To increase the criminal penalties for assaulting a Bureau of Prisons 
                         correctional officer.

    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 ``Safer Prisons Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR ASSAULT ON BUREAU OF PRISONS 
              CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS.

    Section 111 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
    ``(c) Enhanced Penalties for Assault on Bureau of Prisons 
Correctional Officers.--In the case of any violation of this section 
against a correctional officer of the Bureau of Prisons, the applicable 
maximum term of imprisonment under this section shall be doubled, and 
the applicable maximum fine shall be adjusted accordingly.''.
                                 <all>
```
(Reap. Dec. 9199)

#### United States *v.*Evans Products Company

Entry No. 23204.

(Decided July 29, 1958)

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

*John C. Bay*for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This is an appeal filed by the collector of customs for reappraisement of the values of certain bicycles imported from France.

When the case was called for trial counsel for the parties stipulated that the correct basis of value for the merchandise in issue is export value, as defined in section 402 (d), as amended, Tariff Act of 1930, and that such value as to the items involved was the invoice unit prices less $2.54 for each bicycle as nondutiable charges, net, packed, and that there was no higher foreign value therefor at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.3

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UCDP FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCDP Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 1, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R.
Sprouls 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 13, 2007



By:

/s/ JOHN R. SPROULSJohn R. Sprouls President (Principal Executive Officer)
No. 50556.

#### Protest 36831-K of S. Hata Shoten, Ltd. (Honolulu).

*287Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Mutual Supply Co.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 136, C. D. 842), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
#### Emeline T. Rooney, *Respondent, v.*Delilah A. Stearns and others, *Executors, etc., Appellants.*

— Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered in the Onondaga County Court, costs to abide event. Opinion by Smith, P. J.
#### Stephen D. Coleman *v.*Thomas R. Sharp, *Receiver,*etc.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Cullen, J.;

Dykman, J., dissenting.
----

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**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), theundersigned officer of Gryphon Gold Corporation, (the "Company") does herebycertify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report") that: 

1. 

The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

2. 

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

Date: August 13, 2008 

/s/ Michael Longinotti                                                                                Michael Longinotti Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer 

 

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

 

----
#### In the Matter of James B. McCabe, Petitioner, v New York State Employees’ Retirement System, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 432]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner was employed as a Correction Officer with the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department. After an accident in March 1986 in which he slipped and fell on a wet floor while at work, petitioner was given a light duty assignment. Petitioner’s subsequent application for accidental disability retirement *797benefits was denied on the basis that he was not permanently incapacitated for the performance of duty as a natural and proximate result of the March 1986 accident. Petitioner contends that this determination is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. While there was medical evidence adduced at the hearing to establish that petitioner was disabled from performing active duty assignments, no such evidence was adduced to establish that he was permanently incapacitated from performing light duty assignments of the type he had performed since the March 1986 accident. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb respondent’s determination.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1




WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES — OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (“the Company”), each hereby certifies that to his/her knowledge, on the date hereof:




(a) the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section l3(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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






May 13, 2011

By:
/s/ CHARLES N. HAZENCharles N. HazenPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 13, 2011

By:
s/ SHERRI W. SCHUGARTSherri W. SchugartChief Financial Officer
CERTIFICATIONS

I, JOSEPH BATTY, certify,  pursuant to Rule 13a-4 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
with respect to the Annual Report of 1-900  Jackpot,  Inc.  (formerly  Pultronex
Corporation) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2002 ("Report") that:

(1) I have reviewed this Report;

(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 1-900 Jackpot, Inc.
(formerly  Pultronex  Corporation) as of, and for the periods  presented in this
Report;

(4) I am responsible for  establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
procedures  (as  defined in  Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14 and  15d-14)  for 1-900
Jackpot,  Inc.  (formerly  Pultronex  Corporation) and I have: (a) designed such
disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material  information relating
to 1-900 Jackpot,  Inc. (formerly Pultronex  Corporation) is made known to me by
others,  particularly  during the period in which this Report is being prepared;
(b) evaluated the  effectiveness  of 1-900  Jackpot,  Inc.  (formerly  Pultronex
Corporation)'s  disclosure  controls and  procedures as of a date within 90 days
prior  to the  filing  date of this  Report  (the  "Evaluation  Date");  and (c)
presented  in  this  Report  my  conclusions  about  the  effectiveness  of  the
disclosure  controls and procedures  based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;

(5) I have disclosed,  based on my most recent  evaluation,  to our auditors and
the audit  committee  of our  board of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the
equivalent  function):  (a)  all  significant  deficiencies  in  the  design  or
operation  of  internal  controls  which could  adversely  affect our ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for our
auditors  any  material  weaknesses  in  internal  controls;  and (b) any fraud,
whether or not material,  that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in our internal controls; and





DATE:   NOVEMBER 22, 2005

BY:      /S/ JOSEPH BATTY
      ---------------------------
             JOSEPH BATTY
    PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
**Exhibit 3.3.1**

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT 

OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF 

HIGHLANDHOSPITALITY, L.P. 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF HIGHLAND HOSPITALITY, L.P.(this “First Amendment” to the “Partnership Agreement”), dated as of June 30, 2004, is entered into by HHC GP Corporation, as general partner (the “General Partner”) of Highland Hospitality, L.P. (the“Partnership”), for itself and on behalf of the limited partners of the Partnership (the “Limited Partners”). 

WITNESSETH 

WHEREAS, as of June 25, 2004, the Partnership issued 13,492 Partnership Units to one of its currentpartners, Sugar Land Hotel Developers, LLC, as consideration for certain cost savings in the development of the Sugar Land Marriott Hotel; 

WHEREAS, Sugar Land Hotel Developers, LLC has previously agreed by separate agreement to be bound by all of the terms, conditions and other provisions of the Partnership Agreement; 

WHEREAS, on various dates from January 2004 through May 25, 2004, the General Partner acquired an aggregate of 99,511 Partnership Units from thePartnership in connection with the issuance by the Company of a corresponding number of shares of common stock. All but 11 of which constituted restricted stock pursuant to the Company’s 2003 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan; 

WHEREAS, to maintain the General Partner’s 0.1% General Partnership Interest pursuant to Article VII of the Partnership Agreement, 113 of the 99,511Partnership Units so acquired represented General Partnership Interests, and 99,398 Partnership Units represented Limited Partnership Interests; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XI of the Partnership Agreement, the General Partner desires to amend the Partnership Agreement to amend and restate Exhibit A to the Partnership Agreement to reflect all of theissuances of Partnership Units described in the foregoing recitals, as such are set forth on Exhibit A thereto which is incorporated herein by reference. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for good and valuable consideration, the General Partner hereby amends and restates Exhibit A to the Partnership Agreement as set forth on Exhibit Aattached hereto, with the issuance or transfer of Partnership Units as reflected on such Exhibit having effect as of the respective dates specified in the foregoing recitals. 

All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in thePartnership Agreement. Except as modified herein, all covenants, terms and conditions of the Partnership Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, which covenants, terms and conditions the General Partner hereby ratifies and affirms.

 

2 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this First Amendment as of the 30th day of June, 2004.

 
HHC GP CORPORATION      as General Partner of      Highland Hospitality, L.P.By: 
/s/ Tracy M. J. Colden
 Tracy M. J. Colden Executive Vice President
 

3
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 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 New Media Insight Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended April 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Carpenter, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sect. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sect. 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) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 28th day of July, 2011.  David Carpenter David Carpenter, CEO, CFO
iionorable Saa 5. Ea.11

County Attorney, Harrison County Xarsball, Terse

Dear Sir i Attent ion:

ing a copy **thereof** to each witness tbcreln na2x:d. wrticle 443CCY as ainanqed in 1931, requirsa the Clerk of D&BDistrict ‘0iu.t in a felony case, to iss!:e a 3ubpoena after sworn appl.icathn for s:;ch witness is arde. 1 find no provision uh!oh a2- plies to t:k* issuance of coplss of a subgoexta.Honorable San B. Hail,

“1 find front talkin& with several. old-tim Shrtriff*s Deputies and %strict Clerks, thtlt it &ISaaver been tke ousfoia for the Clerk to issarJ a co>y of an out-of-county subpoem, alId it &,s alwaga bean the csstoro for the jhei’iff
or hia deputy to presre this Copy to Serve Ou th%wYYitn393,80thst he alayba gaid for witnesfi fat323upon p?sc:iteti,on to the proper cleric. I
**do not**  **fin ’** **% WhaS** **’ Q**  **this QUaStS.GZl**  **k&S** 6V8f **be%a** passed upon by the courta, 

### oryour dewrt!%ent. Tile old C8Sc1or EallE+L3P. Ce?lpbell, 57 Pex:.e, t-14,seem to ?x agplieable to this sitmtion, h0:ever, In that caas the queution Pa3 whf,ther
or not Distritt Clerks were sxtitled to a

### res of 754 for a oopy of i oltatlon required to be served
on tile dafend23t. *be stat&t unde^l”consideration in that ease prov?ded the Clerk sha.i.1 isam a cttatfoo, and th3t the 32eriilf s:20~ld scfve a co>y thereof oli the d&en&at; but it did not preooribe by wboratt;la true co?y should be prt?Fred,

“In discussing tho case, Jujtlce Bonnsr ssfd :

“‘It ha3 long be2n the general practice, usdex- a statilCe not subst:antiallp differcat il*o:fi tk **OBO** under oocsideratioa (Pasch, Dig. arte, 1430, 1433), for the clerk to pre,?r^re tke copy of t;% altation to be som-‘d by tkxz ~hariff on the defer,daA

. This practice, we think,ts
**ElG3 ’** **6** conducive to the rlececsary accuracy an8 d!a>atch of buaioaea thim it’ pregased by thc sh?rilf; it bal?~ consi&nt with the genor%l d!ltles of the clerk t~h,h-t he ppeeplre al1 proger **prGC8SS,** an3 xit hthose of tie sheriff t,hat he execute then as thlls prep-ared and delivered to hl,.(

“It would see:a fros th1a decidfon that the se:.* rule would asply, and that it would be the District Clerk’s duty to prepare efficient oopiea of each subpoena for the nii:lh~eSof witncases subpoensad out of his county.”niirt. 475. Whesaa wittaos resides out of

the coufrty in which the prosecution is pending, the State or the defenda??t s&lab be entitled, either in term timclor in vaoatfoa, to e subpoana to Compel the attendanoe of auoh witnesseo on application to **the** proger **clerk or**  **mgi5tsate.** Such applioatton shall, be in the manner and fora as provided by ATtic1e 463."Article 4BS, Vrrnon*r Annotate4 Code of Crirnlml Proa86ure‘ nhlch is referred to in ,\rtlola 475, sups, reads as POllOWS :.

.