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

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 Gryphon GoldCorporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Anthony D.J. Ker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company. 

| Date:    August 14, 2007 |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
|                     |   |   | By: /s/ Anthony D.J.    Ker |
|                     |   |   | Anthony D.J. Ker |
|                     |   |   | Chief Executive    Officer |

----
**
**Guide to E-Z Trial Procedures**

**Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission**

**September 1997**

**Table of Contents**

**Section 1 -- Introduction**
The Review CommissionWhat is an E-Z Trial?Purpose of this GuideRules of ProcedureTime is of the EssenceUsing this Guide            Employer's Notice of ContestNotice of DocketingQuestions About this Guide

**Section 2 -- E-Z Trial--An Overview for Employers and Employees**
What is an E-Z Trial?Major Features of E-Z TrialCases Eligible for E-Z TrialEmployee or Union ParticipationShould You Ask for E-Z Trial?            Complaint and AnswerBeginning E-Z TrialNotifying Other PartiesObjections to E-Z TrialDiscontinuing E-Z TrialRestrictions on Obtaining Information and Flexibility Regarding EvidenceRequired Information Disclosures            Pre-hearing ConferenceMotionsHearingsReview of the Judge's Decision

**Descriptive Table on Commission Process**
E-Z Trial Step by Step

**Section 3 -- Other Important Things to Know**
Appearances in Commission ProceduresPenaltiesPrivate (Ex Parte) DiscussionsPetition for Modification of AbatementExpedited Proceedings            Maintaining Copies of Papers Filed with the JudgeSeeking Review of the Judge's Decision

**Glossary**

**Appendixes/Sample Legal Documents**
Notices of ContestNotice of DecisionPetition for Discretionary ReviewDirection for ReviewNotice of Withdrawal

Last           Updated:           March 27, 2003

Home | About OSHRC | Procedural Rules | Decisions | Strategic Plan | Budget | PublicationsPress Releases | FOIA | Related Websites | Disclaimer | OSH Act | Job Opportunities | Info Quality
**
No. 46217.

#### Protest 549903-G of Tuey Chinese Herb Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 42588 the merchandise in question was held dutiable at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 762 as claimed.
Order entered June 25, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00338-CV

FSC ENTERPRISES, LLC, Appellant

V.

DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. TX-11-40912

ORDER

We GRANT appellees’ June 19, 2013 unopposed second motion for an extension of time 

to file a brief. Appellees shall file their brief on or before July 29, 2013. We caution appellees 

that no further extension will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
No. 58644.

protest 230130-K (New York)

#### Air-Freight Clearance Co. *v.*United States,

*483Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1363

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Scotty Iverson Floyd, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: July 30, 1998

 Filed: August 18, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Scotty Iverson Floyd appeals from the 151-month sentence imposed by the

district court after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute in excess of 130 grams 1

of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. Floyd argues that

the district court erred in calculating his criminal history score, in assessing a role-inthe-offense enhancement, and in declining to modify his plea agreement to state he
-2-

distributed cocaine powder rather than cocaine base. The government maintains that

Floyd waived his right to appeal his sentence because he agreed not to appeal so long

as the Guidelines range was based on a total offense level of 31 or below, and the court

had in fact calculated a total offense level of 31.

We conclude that Floyd waived his right to appeal his sentence, as the appealwaiver language in the written plea agreement was clear, Floyd does not contend that

his waiver was made unknowingly or involuntarily, and his sentence was within the

range contemplated by the plea agreement. See United States v. Rutan, 956 F.2d 827,

829 (8th Cir. 1992) (defendant who pleads guilty and expressly waives statutory right

to raise objections to sentence may not appeal sentence that was part of plea

agreement, so long as waiver results from knowing and voluntary decision to forego

right to appeal); see also United States v. Stuttley, 103 F.3d 684, 686 (8th Cir. 1997)

(defendant may not challenge sentence when he agrees in plea agreement not to appeal

if sentence is within contemplated range and district court ultimately sentences

defendant within that range), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 83 (1997). 

Accordingly, we now specifically enforce Floyd&s promise not to appeal by

dismissing his appeal. See United States v. His Law, 85 F.3d 379, 379 (8th Cir. 1996)

(per curiam).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
(Reap. Dec. 10524)

#### Henry A. Weiss, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1150, etc.

(Decided June 4, 1963)

*TompJcms & Tomplcins*for the plaintiff.

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

Richardson, Judge:

The reappraisement appeals enumerated in the attached schedule of cases, designated schedule A, have been submitted upon a stipulation reading as follows:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the items marked “A” and initialed LEM or JFJ by Examiner Louis E. Mangett *483or James F. Jedlieka on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the reappraisement appeals listed in the Schedule A below, which Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, consist of mechanical robot calendars exported from Denmark to the United States during the period from March, 1952 through June, 1954, appraised on the basis of “cost of production” as defined in Section 402(f) Tariff Act of 1930 (prior to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956) at 16.2585 Danish Kroner per piece, net packed, including a royalty of 1.96 Danish Kroner to Gleerup Moller and a commission of 0.5176 Danish Kroner to Hansen & Co., of the same kind in all material respects, and sold to the importer herein under the same marketing and sales conditions as the merchandise and market and sales conditions involved in the case of *United States*v. *Henry A. Wess, Inc., A.R.D. 142,*wherein it was held that the royalty and commission should not be included as a part of the “cost of production” dutiable value, and that the said “cost of production” was 13.7809 Danish Kroner per calendar.

> That at or about the time of exportation, neither such nor similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale for home consumption in Denmark, nor for exportation to the United States, nor freely offered for sale in the United States.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the record in the ease of *United States*v. *Henry A. Wess, Inc.,*A.R.D. 142, be incorporated in the record in this case, and that the reappraisement appeals be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find:

1. That cost of production, as that value is defined in 19 U.S.O.A., section 1402(f) (section 402(f), Tariff Act of 1930), is the proper basis for determination of the value of the merchandise described in the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the reappraisement appeals listed in schedule A, attached hereto.

2. That the cost of production of such merchandise does not include a royalty of 1.96 Danish kroner per piece and a commission of 0.5176 Danish kroner per piece.

3. That the cost of production of such merchandise is 13.7809 Danish kroner per piece.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit_1038


		
			FIRST ALLONGE TO SUBORDINATED TERM NOTE
		

		
			 
		

		
			THIS FIRST ALLONGE is made this 22nd day of December, 2009, to be part of and attached to the subordinated term note of the undersigned, Embassy Bancorp, Inc.  (“the Maker”) to UNIVEST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST CO. (the “Payee”) dated November 21, 2008, in the original principal amount of $6,000,000 (as amended, from time to time, the “Note”).  The Payee is the holder of the Note.  As of the date of this Allonge, the Note is subject to no defense, set-off, counterclaim or other claim of avoidance.
		

		
			 
		

		
			For fair and adequate consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereby agree to amend and modify the Note as follows:
		

		
			 
		

		
			1.Maturity Date.  Notwithstanding anything contained in the Note to the contrary, the entire unpaid principal of the Note and any accrued interest then unpaid shall be due and payable on or before November 30, 2015.
		

		
			 
		

		
			2.Ratification.  Except as otherwise expressly set forth above, all terms and provisions of the Note (including, without limitation, the warrant of attorney to confess judgment) are ratified, confirmed, and restated as though set forth at length.
		

		
			 
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally bound, the undersigned has executed this First Allonge as of the date first above written.
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						EMBASSY BANCORP, INC.

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Witness:

					
					
						/s/ Judith A. Hunsicker

					
					
						/s/ David M. Lobach

				



		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			Accepted the 22nd day of December, 2009
		

		
			 
		

		
			UNIVEST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST CO.
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ Philip C. Jackson

				
	
					
						Name:

					
					
						Philip C. Jackson

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Market President

				



		
			 
		

		 


		

			 

		


		

			1
No. 57381.

protest 200691-K (New York).

#### Julius Loewith, Inc. *v.*United States,

*471Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bird’s-foot trefoil seed *(Lotus*corniculatus) similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Transcontinental Seed, Inc.*(Alltransport, Incorporated) v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 163, C. D. 1462), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

January 28, 1943

No. 47967.

#### Protests 40847-K/12169, etc., of Half Moon Mfg. & Trading Co., Inc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the peat moss in question is similar to that the subject of *Half Moon Manufacturing & Trading Co.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 37, C. D. 656) the claim for free entry was sustained.
STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 

PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000 

711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 

September 5, 2014 

Dennis McLerran 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA Region 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Suite 900 

Seattle, WA 98101 

RE: PSD Perruitting of Greenhouse Gases, Results ofUARG v. EPA Supreme Court Decision 

and Washington's State Implementation Plan 

DearMr~, ~"-'D 

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) requests that the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10 (Rl 0) withdraw a portion of our request to approve the 

state PSD regulations into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The specific provision that 

Ecology is withdrawing is that portion of WAC 173-400-720( 4)( a)(vi) that incorporates 

§52.21 (b)( 49)(v) by reference. 

·The state regulation was submitted on January 14,2014 to RIO for SIP approval. The minor 

New Source Review provisions in Chapter 173-400 WAC have previously been proposed for 

approval by Rl 0. 

The case UARG v. EPA, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 23,2014, 

determined EPA did not have the authority to require PSD perruitting of new sources when only 

the greenhouse gases were above the perruitting thresholds established for the program in 40 

CFR 51.166.(b)(48) and 52.2l(b)(49). 

Ecology adopted the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21, as it existed on August 13, 2012, by 

reference into state regulations. EPA has assisted Ecology in identifying the specific subsection 

that the Supreme Court has indicated to be invalid. The Court Order with the final vacatur of the 

provision has not yet been issued, nor has action by EPA to remove the vacated text from 40 

CFR 52.21 been proposed. 
Mr. Dennis Mcl.ettan 

September 5, 2014 

Page2 

However to align with the Supreme Court decision and to facilitate expeditious SIP approval of 

Ecology's PSD program, we ask that EPA endorse our request to remove the inconsistent 

language from consideration in Washington's SIP submittal. 

Ecology is not proposing to remove this subsection from its own regulation. We are only 

withdrawing the provision from consideration as a component of the PSD program approved into 

Washington's SIP. Ecology plans on implementing the state rule as currently adopted, including 

the greenhouse gas permitting provisions adopted by reference by WAC 173-400-720(4)(a)(vi). 

Ecology will continue to work with applicants to clarify issues related to the specific differences 

between the EPA and Ecology PSD permitting program requirements. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Alan Newman at 

(360) 407-6810. 

Sincerely, 

Stu ~ Clark 

Air Quality Program Manager 

Cc: Debra Suzuki, EPA Region 10 

Donna Deneen, EPA Region 10 

Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10 

Maia Bellon, Director Ecology· 

Alan Newman, Ecology 

SAC/mt
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge for the U.S. **

District Court for Nevada, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO ALFONSO ARREOLAARREOLA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71830

Agency No. A011-434-117

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted December 8, 2011

San Francisco, California

Before: TROTT and BEA, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE, Senior District Judge.** 

Sergio Alfonso Arreola-Arreola (“Arreola”) petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the reinstatement of a prior order

of removal from the United States. We have jurisdiction to review Arreola’s

FILED

DEC 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

challenge to the reinstatement order under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a). In exercising that

jurisdiction, we are not precluded by 8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(5) from reviewing a

collateral constitutional attack on the prior order of removal underlying the

reinstatement order. 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(D).

Arreola’s alleged deprivation of due process in his underlying removal

proceedings cannot support his claim before this court: that his due process rights

were violated by the reinstatement of that prior order. The “[r]einstatement of a

prior removal order–regardless of the process afforded in the underlying

order–does not offend due process because reinstatement of a prior order does not

change the alien’s rights or remedies.” Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d

484, 497 (9 Cir. 2007) (en banc). th

AFFIRMED.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alan Ziegler, Nicolas Bene, Lissette :

Chevalier, Jose Munoz, and Efrain :

Caban, Individually and on Behalf of :

all Similarly Situated Persons :

:

 v. : No. 1777 C.D. 2019

: 

The City of Reading and Reading :

Area Water Authority :

:

Appeal of: City of Reading :

AMENDING ORDER

AND NOW, this 1

st day of March, 2021, the Opinion in the above 

matter, filed January 8, 2021, is AMENDED to correct the misstatements that the 

Court of Common Pleas of Berks County (trial court) held additional evidentiary 

hearings on remand. The corrections, which appear on pages 5, 9, 10 and 11, clarify 

that the trial court decided the matter based on the evidentiary record previously 

established. 

In all other respects, the Court’s Opinion and Order remains intact, and 

a corrected copy is attached. 

__________________________________

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: EASYSAVER REWARDS

LITIGATION,

JOSUE ROMERO; DEANNA HUNT;

KIMBERLY KENYON; GINA BAILEY;

ALISSA HERBST; GRANT JENKINS;

BRADLEY BERENTSON; JENNIFER

LAWLER; DANIEL COX; JONATHAN

WALTER; CHRISTOPHER DICKEY,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

 v.

BRIAN PERRYMAN,

 Objector - Appellant,

 v.

PROVIDE COMMERCE, INC.; REGENT

GROUP, INC., a California corporation,

DBA Encore Marketing International;

ENCORE MARKETING

INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

No. 13-55373

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02094-AJBWVG

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM*

FILED

MAR 19 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 19, 2015** 

Pasadena California

Before: REINHARDT and GOULD, Circuit Judges and MOTZ,*** Senior District

Judge. 

This case is resubmitted as of the date of this order.

Objector-Appellant Brian Perryman appeals the district court’s approval of

the class settlement agreement reached by Defendant-Appellee Provide Commerce,

Inc., Defendant-Appellee Regent Group, Inc., d/b/a Encore Marketing

International, and Plaintiffs-Appellees. Perryman contends that the district court

abused its discretion in approving the settlement agreement and the attorney’s fee

award, because the $20 credit offered to the class was a coupon subject to the Class

Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1712. Perryman further contends that the district

court abused its discretion in approving the cy pres distribution.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

2
This case was originally set for argument on February 2, 2015. That

argument date was vacated, and submission was deferred pending resolution of

Frank v. Netflix, No. 12-15705+. On February 27, 2015, we decided Frank v.

Netflix (In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig.), No. 12-15705, __F.3d __, 2015

WL 846008 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2015). Having reviewed the parties’ submissions,

we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings

consistent with Frank. Because class settlement is a package deal that must “stand

or fall in its entirety,” we need not now address whether the district court abused its

discretion in approving the cy pres distribution. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150

F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). Pursuant to General Order 4.5(e), each party

shall bear its own costs on appeal. 

VACATED AND REMANDED.

3
# Capacitor Sta rt Resilient Base Motors

1 0 www.aosmithmotors.com 

## Features

• Class “B” Insulation • Reversible • 2, 4 and 6 Pole • High Start Torque • Sleeve & Ball Bearing • 40° C Ambient • Open Construction • 60 HZ

F.L. Stock Pro- A p p r o x . Dim. Conn. HP RPM Volts Amps S.F. Frame Number Alternate Bearings tector “C” “AG” Enclosure Dia. Notes
1⁄4 1725 115/230 5.0/2.5 1.35 48 RS1024A Sleeve Auto 9.4 7.5 Open 38
1⁄3 3450 115/230 5.6/2.8 1.8 48 BF1032 Ball Auto 10.2 8.3 Open 22 5,6,7,8 1725 115/230 5.6/2.8 1.35 48 RBF1034A Ball Auto 9.4 7.5 Open 38 10

115/230 7.0/3.5 1.00 48 RS1030A Sleeve Auto 9.4 7.5 Open 38 115/230 5.6/2.8 1.35 48 RS1035A Sleeve Auto 9.9 8.0 Open 38 115/230 5.6/2.8 1.35 48Z RS1034A Sleeve Auto 9.8 7.6 Open 38 2 115/230 5.6/2.8 1.35 56 RB1034A C403 Ball Auto 9.8 7.6 Open 38
1⁄2 3450 115/230 6.2/3.1 1 25 48 RBF1052AB590 Ball Auto 10.4 8.5 Open 38 10

115/230 7.4/3.7 1.25 48 RS1052ARB1052A Sleeve Auto 10.4 8.5 Open 38 10 115/230 8.8/4.4 1.25 56 RB1052A Ball Auto 10.4 8.2 Open 38 115/208-230 7.2/3.6 1.6 48 BF1052 Ball Auto 10.5 8.6 Open 22 5,6,7,8 115/208-230 7.2/3.6 1.6 56 BK1052 Ball Auto 10.9 8.7 Open 22 5,6,7,8 1725 115/230 8.6/4.3 1.00 48 RS1050A Sleeve Auto 10.3 8.4 Open 38

115/230 8.6/4.3 1.00 56 RS1051A Sleeve Auto 10.3 8.1 Open 38 115/230 8.8/4.4 1.25 56 RS1054 C634 Sleeve None 10.8 8.6 Open 101 10 115/230 8.8/4.4 1.25 56 RS1054A Sleeve Auto 10.3 8.1 Open 38 115/230 8.8/4.4 1.25 56 RB1054 C634 Ball None 10.8 8.6 Open 101 10 115/230 8.8/4.4 1.25 56 RB1054A Ball Auto 10.8 8.6 Open 38 115/208-230 7.6/3.8 1.25 56 BK1054 Ball Auto 11.6 9.4 Open 22 5,6,7,8 1425 110/220 8.6/4.3 1.25 56 RS1055 Sleeve None 10.8 8.8 Open 101 9

Notes: 2.48Z = 5/8” dia x 2” shaft, with 3” height 5. Sealed switch design 6. Start capacitor inside 7. Terminal board 8. Moderate start torque 9. 50 HZ 10. Item to be discontinued when stock is depleted See page 117 for mounting dimensions



### Shaft Dimensions 48 = 1/2” Flat x 1-5/8” 56 = 5/8” Keyed x 1-7/8” Continued on next page BK1054 RB1054A 

### Features:Class “B” Insulation • High Start T orque • Open Construction • Reversible • Sleeve & Ball Bearing • 2, 4 and 6 Pole• 40° C Ambient • 60 HZ • Volts at 1.0 S.F
No. 54781.

#### A. R. Mayeri *v.*United States,

protest 158799-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed'the protest.