alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 53064.

#### Catz American Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 143059-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed were not in fact landed. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the merchandise, insofar as it involves the quantities reported by the inspector as “not landed, not found,” is subject to an allowance in duties. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 50558.

#### Protests 42737-K/89645, etc., of Murphy & Nye (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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            3850
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              15
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      17350
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           88056
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             85440
<LOANS>                                         454381
<ALLOWANCE>                                       6309
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  581116
<DEPOSITS>                                      400174
<SHORT-TERM>                                    113837
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               7119
<LONG-TERM>                                      20650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          4673
<OTHER-SE>                                       34664
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  581116
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  35481
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 6415
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   423
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 42318
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               18601
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               23293
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            19025
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      805
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  12087
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9081
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        6000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.66
<LOANS-NON>                                        352
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  5569
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       68
<RECOVERIES>                                         3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 6309
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           6309


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.27

                                AdStar.com, Inc.

                         4553 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300
                        Marina del Rey, California 90292
                                 (310) 577-8255

                                                February 13, 2001

Paulson Capital Corporation
811 SW Naito Parkway, #200
Portland, Oregon 97204
Attn: Mr. Chet Paulson, President

            Re:   The Payment and Satisfaction of The $1.1 Million Promissory
                  Note From AdStar.com, Inc., as Maker, to Paulson Capital
                  Corporation, as Payee, Dated October 21, 1999 (the "Note")

Dear Mr. Paulson:

      This letter will serve as our agreement for the payment and satisfaction
of the Note:

      1. Paulson shall accept and AdStar shall issue such number of unregistered
shares of common stock, as shall equal, when multiplied by $2.00 per share the
total amount of principal and accrued interest due and payable on the Note
through the date of issuance of the shares. Fractional shares, if any, shall be
rounded to the nearest whole number. The shares will be released to you by our
counsel against receipt of the Note.

      2. AdStar has advised Paulson, in confidence, that under recently adopted
accounting rules it will be restating revenues to report only net proceeds
(without any effect on the results of operations.

      3. Paulson Capital Corporation represents and warrants that it is taking
the shares for its own account, for investment and not with a view to the resale
or distribution within the meaning of Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Act") and that until such time as a registration statement under the Act,
becomes effective with respect to the Shares, AdStar shall have the right to
place upon the face of any stock certificate or certificates evidencing the
Shares issuable such legend as the Board of Directors of AdStar may prescribe
for the purpose of preventing disposition of such Shares in violation of the
Act.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        AdStar.com, Inc.


                                        By: /s/ Leslie Bernhard
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Leslie Bernhard, Chief Executive
                                            Officer
Accepted and agreed to
this 13th day of February, 2001
Paulson Capital Corporation


By: /s/ Chester Paulson
    -----------------------------
Name:
Title:
(Reap. Dec. 10193)

#### M. Wimpfheimer & Son, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. J-734.

(Decided March 6, 1962)

*Eugene R. Piclvrell*for the plaintiff.

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

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been limited, under the terms of a stipulation of submission, to certain mild steel round wire rods, represented by the invoice items marked “A” and initialed “EWH,” that were exported from West Germany and entered at the port of Jacksonville, Fla.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case is before me, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the articles in question, as here-inabove identified, is statutory export value and that such value for these items is $90 per metric ton, f .o.b. port, less inland charges allowed in the amount of $1,033.15, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION 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 nine months ended September 30, 2006;

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 officers 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 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 recent evaluation, 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 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.

Date:
November 14, 2006



By:

/s/    JOHN R. TUTTLEJohn R. Tuttle, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Commonwealth *v.*Tate, Appellant.

Argued April 29, 1969.

Before Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*John A. O’Brien,*for appellant.

*Theodore A. Parker,*First Assistant District Attorney, with him *Olarenoe O. Newcomer,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

June 27, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Bell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### Peter L. Osterhout, *Appellant, v.*The Town of Shawangunk, *Respondent.*

— Motion to go to Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RONNIE C. GOAD, Airman Apprentice, U. S. Navy, Appellant

18 USCMA 371, 40 CMR 83

No. 21,923

May 23, 1969

*Captain Jeffery W. Maurer,*USMCR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. R. Larouche,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

DARDEN, Judge:

Following a guilty plea, the accused was convicted by a special court-martial at the U. S. Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida, of absence without leave, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886. He was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for three months, and forfeiture of $106.00 per month for three months. Both the finding and sentence have been approved at each intermediate level of appellate review.

We initially granted review of this case to consider:

> Whether the president’s instruction that the previous convictions “logically indicate that a more severe sentence should be adjudged,” prejudiced the accused.

This same instruction — also containing advice on the matter that “logically indicate that a more lenient sentence should be adjudged” — was the subject of our deliberations in United States v Wright, 18 USCMA 348, 350, 40 CMR 60. In that case, a majority of the Court deemed the instruction correct and proper. Cf. United States v Wheeler, 17 USCMA 274, 38 CMR 72. For the reasons there stated, the same result obtains here.

*372The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

FERGUSON, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in United States v Wright, 18 USCMA 348, 40 CMR 60.
June 12, 2000


                         DOMAIN NAME PURCHASE AGREEMENT
                            Between Site HQ, Inc. And
                      Internet Properties Development, Inc.



This letter is an agreement between Internet Properties Development, Inc. (the
"Buyer"), a wholly owned subsidiary of KwikWeb.com Inc., a Nevada Corporation,
and Site HQ, Inc., a California Corporation (the "Seller"), regarding the
transfer and sale of the Seller's ownership interest in the Internet domain
names and their corresponding Internet and Intellectual assets described in
Exhibit "A".

The agreed terms and points of the sale are as follows:

         In consideration of the transfer of the domain, the Buyer will;

         (1) pay the Seller $50,000 Fifty thousand and none, within 30 (thirty)
             days of today's date, following a reasonable period of due
             diligence.
         (2) In the event of the Sale of any of the Assets purchased in this
             transaction (Exhibit "A"), the Seller a BONUS PAYMENT(S) equal to
             25% (twenty-five percent) of the Sale proceeds.
         (3) In the event of a re-capitalization of any of the Assets purchased
             in this transaction (Exhibit "A"), issue the Seller a BONUS
             PAYMENT(S) equal to 25% (twenty-five percent) of the property's
             re-capitalization.



Buyer:


/s/ Matthew Hayes
------------------------------
Internet Properties Development, Inc.
MATTHEW HAYES



Seller:


/s/ H. Page Howe
------------------------------
Site HQ
H.PAGEHOWE
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)

         In  connection  with the  quarterly  report of  Strategy  International
Insurance  Group,  Inc. (the "Company")  on Form  10-QSB for the  period  ending
January 31, 2005 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Stonhill,  Chief Executive 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, 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


March 22, 2005
                                              /s/ Stephen Stonhill
                                              ---------------------------
                                              Stephen Stonhill
                                              Chief Executive Officer

A signed  original of this  certification  has been  provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and  furnished  to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                      -20-
Case No. 7,971.

#### LADD v. DULANY.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 583.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1809.

Sale — Merchantable Quality — Conflict of Laws — Place of Delivery.

The law of the place where the goods are to be delivered, according to the contract of sale, determines the merchantable quality of the goods.

*921This was an action for money paid, laid out. and expended, in tlie purchase oí plank in Boston to he shipped here for the defendant.

The plaintiff offered in evidence a deposition of Haskins, who had shipped the plank to Ladd, to prove that the boards were merchantable.

Hr. Youngs and Hr. Taylor, for defendant,

objected that Haskins was interested to prove the plank merchantable, because if he does so the plaintiff will recover from Dulany, and will not bring an action against Haskins to recover Back the money paid him for the plank: but if Ladd fails against Dulany, he may resort to Haskins, and this verdict will be evidence against him.

THE COURT admitted the deposition; for the chance of a suit being brought by Ladd against Haskins was but a contingency, and this verdict would not be evidence for Ladd in such a suit, because not between the same parties.

1. The defendant prayed the court to instruct the jury that if no particular quality of plank was ordered by the defendant, he was not bound to receive it unless it was merchantable according to the inspection of Alexandria.

2. And if the order was for plank of a particular quality, the defendant vas bound to receive only plank of that quality.

Hr. Swann, for plaintiff,

contended that if the defendant requested the plaintiff to send to Boston for merchantable white pine boards, and these were merchantable according to the inspection in Boston, the defendant was bound to take them. The defendant employed tlie plaintiff to make a contract for him in Boston; the law of that place must govern as to the quality. Suppose an order for flour in Alexandria. It must be merchantable according to the Alexandria inspection.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE CO OUT

instructed the jury that if they should be of opinion from the evidence that the plaintiff was prevailed upon by the defendant to procure in Boston for the defendant, and as his agent, the plank in question, and as his agent, to cause it to be transported to Alexandria, and that no particular orders were given as to the quality, and that the plank was of a quality merchantable according to the inspection in Boston, and transported to Alexandria, then the defendant was bound to receive it according to the Boston inspection. But if the plaintiff had contracted to sell and deliver the plank to the defendant in Alexandria, 'the defendant was not bound to receive it unless it was merchantable according to the Alexandria inspection. And that if any particular quality was contracted for or ordered, the defendant was not bound to receive any other quality.'
No. 48612.

Suit 4424.

#### Colum*bia Malleable Castings Corp.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 697 affirmed (31 C. C. P. A. 14, C. A. D. 243).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6701

JOSE MORA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SUHASINI N. SHAH, Doctor; NANCY PENDERGRASS, Bureau of 

Prisons Petersburg Medium Dietician; M. DUPREE; MIGUEL A. 

CINTRON, Dr, Medical Department – FCC Coleman; JORGE 

PASTRANA, Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:08-cv-00635-RAJ-DEM)

Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: October 21, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Mora, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Richard Leonard, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Dorinda 

Parkola Burton, POOLE MAHONEY, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Mora appeals the district court's order denying 

relief on his complaint, which the district court properly 

construed as one filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named 

Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Mora v. 

Shah, No. 2:08-cv-00635-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va. March 31, 2011). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Amendment No.1 to the Annual
Report of World Moto, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Giles, Chief Executive Officer and President
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, 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.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Annual
Report or as a separate disclosure document.

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

/s/ Paul Giles
Name:           Paul Giles
Title:           
 Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)

Date:            
June 3, 2014

---
MORRISON, BROWN, ARGIZ & COMPANY



                                                                  Exhibit 10.25

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, NE
Washington, D.C.



Gentlemen:

         We were previously principal accountants for Pelican Properties
International, Inc. ("Company") and on April 2, 1999 we reported on the
consolidated financial statements of the company as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1998. We have read the Company's statements included under Item 4
of its Form 8K dated January 19, 2000, and are in agreement with the statements
contained in Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) on Page 2, therein. We have no basis to
agree or disagree with other statements of the registrant contained therein.




/s/ MORRISON, BROWN, ARGIZ & CO.
-------------------------------------
MORRISON, BROWN, ARGIZ & CO.
Certified Public Accountants
Miami, Florida
February 3, 2000
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF


UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD.


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 27, 2009 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: October 20, 2009





By:

/s/ John R. SproulsJohn R. Sprouls
Principal Executive Officer