alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 8,£>28.

#### In re LOUIS et al.

[7 Ben. 481.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

Oct., 1874.

Bankruptcy—Composition with Creditors— Sufficient Securitt.

1. A resolution of creditors accepting a composition proposed by bankrupts, provided for the payment of the amount at various times, such payment to be guaranteed by a satisfactory bond, in a penalty named, executed to three persons named, who were the committee appointed by the creditors in the investigation of the affairs of the debtors: *Held,*that it must be understood that the bond was not only to be given to the three persons named, but was to be satisfactory to them.

2. The provision was sufficient, and the resolution must be confirmed.

[In the matter of Solomon Louis and others, bankrupts.]

James Dunne, for debtors.

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

The resolution of composition in this case, after providing for a composition of thirty-seven and a half cents on the dollar, to be paid in cash, as follows, one-half in 60 days after the filing of the statement and the recording of the composition, and one-naif in 90 days after the filing of the statement and the recording of the composition, goes on to provide that such payment snail be guaranteed by the giving of a satisfactory bond, in the penal sum of $20,000, to three persons who are named in the resolution, and are stated therein to be the committee appointed by the creditors in the investigation of the affairs of the debtors, within 5 days after the filing of the statement and the recording of the resolution. This is a sufficient provision. It must be understood from it, that the bond is not only to be given to the three persons named, but is to be satisfactory to them, and that they and they alone are to decide upon its satisfactory character. This obviates the objection stated in the case of In re Reiman [Case No. 11,673], to the confirmation of the resolution of composition in that case.
Before the Third Division,

March 13, 1951

No. 55344.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 164161-K (New York).

"Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities citgd. in Abstract -15400" the court dismissed the protest.
#### William F. Kuntz, Resp’t, *v.*The C. C. White Co., App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,*

*Filed January 24, 1890.)*

Injunction—Dissolution op.

Where an injunction is granted upon the complaint alone, and the answer denies all the equities, the injunction should be dissolved.

Appeal by defendant from an order made at a special term,, appointing George F. Langbein the receiver of all the credits, ac*367counts and causes of action due or belonging to the defendant corporation on the 5th day of October, 1889, together with any moneys that may have been collected by the plaintiff, with the usual powers of such receiver, and the said receiver was directed to take possession of all the contracts, claims, demands, accounts and things in action, belonging or owing to the defendant, the 0. C. White Company, on the 5th day of October, 1889, and to collect, preserve and protect the same, and to manage and conduct any proceeding necessary with reference thereto.

*J.*Fromme, for app’lt; *W. T.*McQorlde, for resp’t.

Per Curiam.

The injunction in this case was granted upon the complaint alone, and the answer denies all the equities of the bill. Upon the principles which have long obtained in such cases this injunction should have been dissolved.

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the injunction dissolved.

Van Brunt, P. J., Brady, and Daniels, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATIONS



EXHIBIT 32 - CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION


Exhibit 32.1

Statement Furnished Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
OBN Holdings, Inc. (the "Company").  This Certificate is made pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification accompanies
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009 (the "10-Q Report").

The undersigned certifies that the 10-Q Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the 10-Q Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.


Date: October 5, 2009                   /s/ ROGER N. SMITH
                                       --------------------------------
                                           Roger N. Smith
                                           Chief Executive Officer

Date: October 5, 2009                  /s/ LARRY TAYLOR
                                      ---------------------------------
                                           Larry Taylor
                                           Chief Financial Officer
No. 54153.

#### Bohemian Distributing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 953302-G (A), etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 8338)

#### Armour and Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. W. H. 85; W. H. 86.

(Decided on rehearing [Reap. Dec. 8262] September 30, 1954)

*Eugene B. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule A hereto attached and made a .part hereof, consists of canned corned beef imported from Argentina;

> That the issues involved in said appeals for reappraisement are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *United States v. International Commercial Co., Inc. and Armour and Co.,*Reappraisement Decision 8112.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the value or price, at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise to the United States, *525at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market, of Argentina in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and covering of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was five dollars and fifty cents ($5.50) per case of 24 tins of 12 ounces each, f. o. b. Buenos Aires, less 9.4% for nondutiable charges.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise here involved, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Argentina.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in *United States v. International Commercial Co., Inc. and Armour and Co.,*Reappraisement Decision 8112, be incorporated in the record in the appeals for reappraisement set forth in the attached schedule of cases, which are submitted for decision on this stipulation.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals are abandoned as to any other merchandise listed on the invoices in either of these appeals for reappraisement.

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 canned corned beef here involved, and that such value was $5.50 per case of 24 tins of 12 ounces each, f. o. b. Buenos Aires, less 9.4 per centum for nondutiable charges.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.3

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 on Form 10-Q of The First Marblehead Corporation (the Company) for
the quarter ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel Meyers, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, hereby 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: May 16, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ DANIEL MEYERS                              
|                    |  |  |  | Daniel Meyers                                  
|                    |  |  |  | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained by
The First Marblehead Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>


                                                                EXHIBIT 10.45





Irwin J. Gruverman                                   December 31, 2000
16 Tanglewood Road
Needham, MA 02494

Dear Mr. Gruverman:

This will confirm our Agreement concerning charges you will incur in
connection with your activities for G&G Diagnostics Corporation, and other
arrangements.

You may maintain an office in our premises at 30 Ossipee Road and will pay
MFIC $900.00 per month for space, incidental administrative support, minor
supplies usage, and limited use of the telephone and copying resources. You
will reimburse MFIC for express charges, accounting help and materials and
services purchased through our system. This arrangement will end when G&G
Fund ceases its activities, projected as July, 2001.

Jack Swig will be an employee of MFIC. He will be available to G&G on a
limited consulting basis. G&G will reimburse MFIC at a rate of $1500.00 per
month for such services, for so long as G&G carries on its activities,
projected to end by July, 2001.

MFIC CORP.

/s/ Robert Bruno                                 /s/ Irwin Gruverman
---------------------------                      ----------------------------
Robert Bruno, COO                                Irwin Gruverman
                                                   for myself and as
/s/ Irwin Gruverman                                President, G&G
---------------------------                        Diagnostics Corp.
Irwin Gruverman, CEO, Chairman
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Ma rilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Cou rt.

_________________________________________ Clerk September 4, 2012

d0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

145203

RICHARD R. ROBERTS and STACY D.

ROBERTS,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 145203

COA: 300547

Leelanau CC: 10

- 008259

- NM

LAWRENCE R. LASUSA, LASUSA LAW

OFFICES, PLC, and CALCUTT, ROGERS &

BOYNTON, PLLC,

Defendants

- Ap pellees,

and

JOSHUA M. REYNOLDS,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

p ersuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 62 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6052]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


The 10th Annual Food and Drug Administration-Orange County 
Regulatory Affairs Educational Conference

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following 
conference: 10th Annual Educational Conference co-sponsored with the 
Orange County Regulatory Affairs Discussion Group (OCRA). The 
conference is intended to provide the Drug, Device, and Biologics 
industries with an opportunity to interact with FDA reviewers and 
compliance officers from the Centers and District Offices, as well as 
other industry experts. The main focus of this interactive conference 
will be product approval, compliance, and risk management in the three 
medical product areas. Industry speakers, interactive questions and 
answers, and workshop sessions will also be included to assure open 
exchange and dialogue on the relevant regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The conference will be held on June 11 and 12, 2007, 
from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The conference will be held at the Irvine Marriott, 18000 
Von Karman Ave., Irvine, CA 92612.
    Contact: Linda Hartley, Food and Drug Administration, 19701 
Fairchild, Irvine, CA 92612, 949-608-4413, FAX: 949-608-4417, or OCRA, 
Attention to Detail (ATD), 5319 University Dr., suite 641, Irvine, CA 
92612, 949-387-9046, FAX: 949-387-9047, Web site: www.ocra-dg.org.
    Registration and Meeting Information: See OCRA Web site, www.ocra-dg.org. Contact ATD at 949-387-9046.
    Before May 11, 2007, registrations fees are as follows: $575.00 for 
members, $625.00 for non-members and $400.00 for FDA/Govt/Students. 
After May 11, 2007, $625.00 for members, $725.00 for non-members, and 
$400.00 for FDA/Govt/Students.
    OCRA student rate applies to those individuals enrolled in a 
Regulatory or Quality related academic program at an accredited 
institution. Proof of enrollment required.
    The registration fee will cover actual expenses including 
refreshments, lunch, materials, parking and speaker expenses. If you 
need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Linda 
Hartley at least 10 days in advance.

    Dated: March 26, 2007.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E7-6052 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
#### Samuel A. Morrow, *Appellant, v.*Robert H. Morrow, *Respon*dent.

Decree of surrogate affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Pratt, J..
Filed March 4, 1890.

#### The People *v.*The American Bell Telephone Co.

No papers.

Motion to amend remittitur granted.

See 27 N. Y. State Rep., 459.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8909 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8909

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 82-6110 Mamalahoa Highway in Captain Cook, Hawaii, as the ``Army 1st 
           Lt. John Kuulei Kauhaihao Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2024

 Ms. Tokuda (for herself and Mr. Case) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 82-6110 Mamalahoa Highway in Captain Cook, Hawaii, as the ``Army 1st 
           Lt. John Kuulei Kauhaihao Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ARMY 1ST LT. JOHN KUULEI KAUHAIHAO POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 82-6110 Mamalahoa Highway in Captain Cook, Hawaii, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Army 1st Lt. John Kuulei Kauhaihao Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Army 1st 
Lt. John Kuulei Kauhaihao Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 3-22-11 Meeting with Industry Coalition and EPA on the 2011 NHSM Final Rule

FROM: Tab Tesnau Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329

On June 21, 2011, EPA met with various members of an industry coalition (including the forest product industries) to discuss their issues and co ncerns with the rulema kings on “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) That are Solid Waste,” (76 FR 15456 and 76 FR 80452).

During that meeting, industry members expresse d concerns with the NHSM Rulemaking. EPA asked clarifying questions regarding the informa tion presented, particularly for resinated wood, TDF, Wastewater Treatment Residuals, Paper re cycling residuals/OCC reje cts, Processed C&D, and Non-hazardous treated wood.

Agenda

The Industry Coalition’s agenda is attached.

Meeting Attendees

Members from Industry: Sarah Amick (RMA), Susan Bodine, Corey Brandt (RockTenn), Mike Curtis (GP) Tim Hunt (AF&PA/AWC) Gary Melow (BPA) Paul Noe, (AF&PA) Tracey Norberg (RMA) Jeff Shumaker (IP) Bill Turley (CRMA) Vipin Varma (NCASI)Steve Woock (Weyerhaeuser)

EPA Invitees: Suzanne Rudzinski Jim Berlow Mimi Guernica

Staff: Alan Carpien Kenneth Dixon George Faison Mike Svizzero Tab Tesnau Marc ThomasIndustry Coalition meeting with EPA on NHSM March 22 from 1 to 2:30

Logistics:

o Location : ORCR, Two Potomac Yard (North Building); 2733 Crystal Drive; Arlington/Crystal Cit y, VA; Room 6100

o Attending: Tim Hunt (AF&PA/AWC), Paul Noe (AF&PA), Jeff Shumaker (IP), Mike Curtis (GP), Corey Brandt (RockT enn), Steve Woock (Weyerhaeuser), Rob Kaufmann (Koch), Vipin Varma (NCASI), Susan Bodine, Tracey Norberg (RMA), Sarah Amick (RMA), Bill Turley (CRMA), Gary Melow (BPA)

Draft Agenda Introductions Legal issues (5 minutes) Program Structure (35 minutes)

• Contained gas

• Contaminant comparisons

• Definitions

• Petition process

• Homogeneous material

• Comfort letters

Non-waste fuel listing (45 minutes)

• Resinated wood

• TDF

• Wastewater Treatment Residuals

• Paper recycling residuals/OCC rejects

• Processed C&D

• Non-hazardous treated wood

• Other materials

Wrap Up (5 minutes):

• Summarize key outstanding questions

• Other issues – rule schedule
Exhibit 10(b)

CONSENT OF SWIDLER BERLIN SHEREFF FRIEDMAN, LLP

      We hereby consent to the reference to our firm included in Part A and Part
B of Amendment No. 10 to Registration Statement on Form N-1A (No. 811-7885) of
Quantitative Master Series Trust.

                                      /s/Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP
                                      ---------------------------------------
                                      Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP
New York, NY
April 30, 2001
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8724 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to allow States to waive 

certain administrative requirements for recertification, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 13, 2024 

Ms. BARRAGA ́N (for herself, Ms. NORTON, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. TLAIB, 

and Mr. CARSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to allow 

States to waive certain administrative requirements for 

recertification, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SNAP Recertification 

5 Reform Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8724 IH

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIRE2 MENTS FOR RECERTIFICATION UNDER SUP3 PLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PRO4 GRAM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 11(e)(6) of the Food and 

6 Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(6)) is amend7 ed— 

8 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

9 the end; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(C) the State agency may waive recertifi12 cation interviews required by the Secretary sub13 ject to the condition that the applicant— 

14 ‘‘(i) waives the interview; and 

15 ‘‘(ii) has already demonstrated eligi16 bility for the continuation of benefits; and 

17 ‘‘(D) if the Secretary requires an applicant 

18 interview for recertification, the State agency 

19 shall give the applicant the option to conduct 

20 the interview in-person, by phone, virtually, or 

21 through any other medium determined by the 

22 Secretary to reduce administrative burden;’’. 

23 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

24 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 180 

25 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v MICHAEL E. MADDEN, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

18 USCMA 374, 40 CMR 86

No. 21,953

May 29, 1969

*Lieutenant Colonel Martin S. Drucker, Major John Wall Hanft,*and *Captain Howard L. Kaplus*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Edwin P. Wasinger*was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CuRiam:

*We*granted review in this case to consider whether the accused was prejudiced by trial counsel’s argument relative to the conviction of Private Lawrence.

Lawrence, a coaccused, who testified for the Government, had been previously tried and convicted. Trial counsel frequently referred to Lawrence’s conviction in his argument to the court on the issue of accused’s guilt. The fact of Lawrence’s guilt, however, had initially been made known to the court through cross-examination by defense counsel.

The issue was before us in United States v Domenech, 18 USCMA 314, 40 CMR 26. The reasoning developed in that case is applicable here.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.