alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Operators Manual

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_User_Manual_v1.2_en.pdf Safety Guidelines http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Safety_Guidelines_Disclaimer_en.pdf Battery Guidelineshttp://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines_en.pdf
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 - 0514

_________________ PAUL WILKIE,

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a/k/a THE HARTFORD; RICHARD L. SPROUT; and SH AUNA SPROUT,

Defendants and Appellees. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Rienne McElyea , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 30 2021

06/30/2021
Case Number: DA 20-0514
#### Raymond D. KLEMP and Ann L. Klemp, Appellees, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellant.

No. 81-7744.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued Dec. 8, 1982.

Submitted Feb. 22, 1984.

Decided Feb. 22, 1984.

Gary R. Allen, John A. Dudeek, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Kevin O’Connell, O’Connell, Goyak, Hagen, Elliott & Krage, Portland, Or., for appellant.

Before GOODWIN, PREGERSON and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this case, taxpayers initially filed fraudulent income tax returns for the years 1970-1973. In 1974, after being contacted by the Internal Revenue Service regarding those returns, taxpayers filed *non*fraudulent, amended returns for those years. ' The Commissioner issued notices of deficiency on July 9, 1979, nearly five years after taxpayers filed their amended returns. The question presented by this appeal is whether the filing of the original fraudulent returns permitted the Commissioner to assess the deficiency “at any time” as provided by 26 U.S.C. § 6501(c)(1), or whether the subsequent filing of nonfraudulent returns requires that deficiencies be assessed within three years thereafter as provided in 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a).

We withdrew this case from submission because the Supreme Court had granted certiorari to decide this very question in *Badaracco v.*Commissioner, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 756, 78 L.Ed.2d 549, *cert. granted,*— U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 2084, 77 L.Ed.2d 296 (1983). On January 17, 1984, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Badaracco, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 2084, 77 L.Ed.2d 296 holding that the filing of a fraudulent return permits a deficiency to be assessed at any time pursuant to section 6501(c)(1), despite the fact that nonfraudulent amended returns may have been filed more than three years prior to assessment.

*Badaracco*controls this case. This appeal is ordered submitted, the judgment of the Tax Court, 77 T.C. 201 is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Tax Court for further proceedings in light of *Badaracco.*

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
No. 48619.

#### Protests 760377-G, etc., of B. Spiliades & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the cheese is similar to that involved in Abstract 39667 and *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706). As to these items an allowance of 2J4 percent was made, as claimed, and an allowance of 1 percent was made as to certain other cheese similar to that involved in said C. D. 706. Protests sustained to that extent.
EXHIBIT 13.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Amendment No. 2 to the annual
report of Mirae Corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Soon Do Kwon, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S.
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: November 30, 2005



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Soon Do Kwon       
|Soon Do Kwon           
|Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mirae Corporation, and will be retained by Mirae Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification will not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 or the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 even if the document with which it is submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is so incorporated by reference.
#### Bonwit Teller, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6631.

Entry No. 727770.

Invoice dated London, England, March 31, 1943.

Certified April 1943.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 18, 1943.

(Decided December 17, 1946)

*J ames W. Bevans*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Tilson, Judge:

This appeal was filed by the importer to test the validity of the action of the appraiser in including as a part of the dutiable value of the merchandise the amount of the so-called British purchase tax. In submitting the case for decision counsel for the respective parties have agreed that the issues herein are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record therein has been admitted in evidence in this case.

*224Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise covered by this appeal to be the values found by the appraiser, less any additions made by the importer to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

REGION IX
 

75 Hawthorne Street
 

San Francisco, CA 94105·3901
 

JAN 1 4 2009 

Leo Drozdoff 

Administrator 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

901 South Stewart Street, Suite 4001 

Carson City, NV 89701-5249 

Dear Mr. Drozdoff: 

I am writing today to notify you that the State of Nevada has failed to submit for 

EPA action a regional haze state implementation plan (SIP). The purpose of the plan is 

to address regional haze in mandatory class I Federal areas (our national parks and 

wilderness areas) as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and federal regulations. EPA 

will soon publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing its finding of failure to 

submit your regional haze SIP as required under 40 CFR 51.308. The finding will be 

effective upon publication of the notice. 

Congress established as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas 

which impairment results from manmade air pollution (CAA 169A(a)(l)). The EPA 

promulgated regulations (40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309) requiring states to develop and 

submit SIPs to address regional haze. However, we have not received a formal 

submission of any of the required SIP elements, which were due to EPA by December 

17,2007. 

Upon the effective date of the Federal Register notice, EPA must within two years 

either fully approve Nevada's regional haze SIP or promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) as required by CAA section 110(c)(l). Please be aware that EPA needs 

approximately 12 months after receipt of a SIP to take final action. If we do not have 

sufficient time to review and approve a submitted SIP revision, the CAA requires that 

EPA impose a FIP. In order to avoid having EPA issue a FIP, we strongly recommend 

that you submit your revised SIP within a year of this finding. 

Should EPA determine it necessary to begin development of a FIP, EPA may 

withhold a portion of section 105 grant funds to your State for the FIP development work. 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
I want to acknowledge that Nevada has made substantial progress in meeting its 

obligations under the Act. It is my understanding that Nevada's regional haze SIP is 

currently under review by the Federal Land Managers, and scheduled for completion over 

the next few months. We look forward to receiving the State's formal submittal in the 

near future. 

Please be assured that we will continue to work closely with your office to 

undertake all necessary efforts to ensure that the submittal meets all Federal 

requirements. I look forward to working with you to ensure that the CAA requirements 

are met in a timely and effective manner. 

Sincerely, 

/~/

~borah Jordan 

Director, Air Division 

cc: Colleen Cripps 

Michael Elges 

Adele Malone
## PACIFIC AEROSPACE 

# MANDATORY SERVICE Pacific Aerospace Umited Airport Road, Hami lton Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, N ew Zealand TEL +64 7 843 6144 FAX +64 7 843 6134 EMAIL paci fic @ aerospace.co.nz WEB \WNiaerospace.co .nz 

## PACSB 

## I FU 

## I 095 ISSUE 2 

## CONTROL COLUMN CRACKING 

# B 

# u L L E T 1 . PLANNING INFORMATION A. EFFECTIVITY 

### B . REASON 

### C . DESCRIPTION



### D . COMPLIANCE



### E . TOOLING 

### F . WEIG HT AND BALANCE 

### G . REFERENCE 

### H . HOURS REQUIRED 

### I. WARRA NTY COVER

Issued : 28 May 2014 All FU24 

### & FU24A series aircraft. There has been one reported incident of cracking of the Control Column due to mechanical damage at the location of 5116 dia hole for electrical wiring . Control Column (PIN 08-45031132) to be inspected for any cracking , mechanical damage or modification at the location of 5116 dia hole for electrical wiring (refer to Figure 1). Before further flight, carry out Accomplishment Instructions (Para 2 . ) . Thereafter refer to FU24 950 

### & 954 Maintenance Manuals, Chapter 05 , for the repetitive inspection requirements of the control column . No special tools are required . Not affected. FU24 

### & FU24A-950 

### I FU24 

### & FU24A-954 Maintenance Manua l TR FU I MM I051001 . 0 .5 hours Normal warranty conditions apply . 

# I N

Page 1 of 2

## PACIFIC AEROSPACE PACSB 

## I FU 

## I 095 ISSUE 2 2. ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS (Refer to Figure 1) 1) Inspect Control Column for any cracks , mechanical damage or modification at the location of 5/16 dia hole for electrical wiring . 2) If any cracks are found , replace the control column before further flight (refer to applicable FU24 MM , Chapter 27) . 3) If any mechanical damage or modifications are found , accomplish the following : a) Carry out a liquid penetrant inspection IAWASTM E1417 (or equivalent approved standard) of the control column at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS until replacement. b) Replace the control column at the next maintenance inspection , or within the next 150 hours TIS , whichever is the later. NOTE : Replacement of damaged or modified control columns is a termination action to the repetitive NOT inspections required by this 

### 58 .

FIGURE 1 CONTROL COL UMN IN SP ECTION 

### 3. CERTIFICATION Record the compliance with this Service Bulletin in the Airframe Log Book. 

### 4 . MATERIAL REQUIRED: N/A Page 2 

### of 2 Issued : 28 May 2014
No. 58607.

protest 227996-K (New York).

#### J. & K. Trading Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Thalle Construction Company ) ASBCA No. 63178

)

Under Contract No. W912EP-13-C-0025 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Lochlin B. Samples, Esq.

Karl Dix, Jr., Esq.

Alexander S. Hoppestad, Esq.

 Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP

 Atlanta, GA

Alexander Gorelik, Esq.

 Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Kristin M. Bigham, Esq.

Susan E. Symanski, Esq.

James M. Zaleski, Esq.

Bruce E. Groover, Esq.

 Engineer Trial Attorneys

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: March 3, 2023

LAURA EYESTER

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals
2

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63178, Appeal of Thalle 

Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: March 3, 2023

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
(Reap. Dec. 10517)

#### Takashimaya, Inc., et al. *v.*Unites States

Entry No. 33568, etc.

(Decided May 16, 1963)

*J ordan <& Klingaman*for the plaintiffs.

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

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision on the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto:

> 1. That the merchandise the subject of the reappraisement appeals enumerated in Schedule A, hereto annexed and made a part hereof, consists of vinyl thong slippers exported from Japan during the months of March, April and May 1960; and that said merchandise is included in the Final List (T.D. 54521), published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> 2. That at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein neither such nor similar merchandise was freely offered for sale or sold for home consumption in the country of exportation.

> 3. That at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation for exportation to the United States, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were as set forth in the said Schedule A.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the reappraisement appeals herein may be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402a(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise listed in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of the stipulation herein, and that such values for the merchandise involved in the respective entries *477covered by the pertinent appeals were those as are shown in said schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part of the decision herein.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### LOUIS W. HILL, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES J. HILL, APPELLANT, v. NEWTON A. K. BUGBEE, COMPTROLLER, &c., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Argued June 24, 1918

Decided October 11, 1918.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 91 N. J. *L.*454.

*515For the appellant, *Coult & Smith.*

For the respondents, *John W.*Wescott, attorney-general.

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Bergen in the Supreme Court.

• *For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Minturn, Kalisch, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 10.

*For reversal*— None.
**Exhibit32**

 

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 theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of theUnited States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Pelican Financial,Inc., does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of PelicanFinancial, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the “Report’)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 theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Registrant.

 

 
| Date: May  13, 2004 | /s/ Charles  C. Huffman                |   |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                | Charles C. Huffman                     |
|                | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                |                                   |
|                |                                   |
| Date: May  13, 2004 | /s/ Howard  M. Nathan                  |   |
|                | Howard M. Nathan                       |
|                | Principal  Financial Officer           |
|                     |                                        |        |  |

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of theUnited States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as aseparate disclosure document.

 

1

----
Exhibit 13.1




CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Annual Report of Galaxy Strategy & Communications Inc., a British Virgin Islands corporation (the “Company”), on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Qiang Wu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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.





/S/    QIANG WUQiang WuChief Executive Officer




February 28, 2011
No. 51105.

#### Protests 52227-K, etc., of Domenico D’Angiola, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) *2)4*percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269; and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained to this extent.
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, 2006, 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, 2007



By:

/s/ Patricio E. de la GarzaPatricio E. de la GarzaChief Financial and Administrative Officer




1
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 20, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 20, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16A0941. NEMESIO WALTERS v. THE STATE.
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On April 15, 2016, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than April 27, 2016. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
No. 53098.

#### Judson-Sheldon Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 59382-K (A) (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Return to Naval HistoricalCenter home page.
August 3, 1943

No. 48611.

Suit 4410.

#### *United States*v. *Siegfried Lowenthal Co.*

C. A. D. 244.
EXHIBIT 10(k)

                    MATERIAL DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS
                                     -------








Name of Executive               Date of Employment Agreement
-----------------               ----------------------------

Gary L. Conradi                        November 29, 1999

Thomas Iacarella                       November 29, 1999