alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 59113.

protests 209406-K, etc. (New York).

#### Judson Sheldon Division, National Carloading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects 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 or as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, but not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 874 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to allow the Administrator of the 

Maritime Administration to finance vessel retrofit, repair, or similar 

work required for the vessel to be a vessel of the United States, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2023 

Mr. GARAMENDI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to allow the Administrator of the Maritime Administration to finance vessel 

retrofit, repair, or similar work required for the vessel 

to be a vessel of the United States, 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 ‘‘Federal Ship Financ5 ing Improvement Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 874 IH

1 SEC. 2. LOANS FOR RETROFITTING TO QUALIFY AS A VES2 SEL OF THE UNITED STATES. 

3 Section 53706(a) of title 46, United States Code, is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(8) Financing (including reimbursement of an 

6 obligor for expenditures previously made for) the re7 construction, reconditioning, retrofitting, repair, or 

8 similar work in a shipyard located in the United 

9 States— 

10 ‘‘(A) required for the vessel to be a vessel 

11 of the United States; 

12 ‘‘(B) required for the vessel to be issued a 

13 coastwise endorsement under chapter 121; 

14 ‘‘(C) to convert a civilian vessel of the 

15 United States to a more useful military configu16 ration; 

17 ‘‘(D) for any vessel under contract to the 

18 Federal Government; or 

19 ‘‘(E) for any vessel participating in— 

20 ‘‘(i) the Maritime Security Program 

21 or the Emergency Preparedness Program 

22 under chapter 531; 

23 ‘‘(ii) the Cable Security Fleet under 

24 chapter 532; 

25 ‘‘(iii) the Tanker Security Fleet under 

26 chapter 534; or 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 874 IH

1 ‘‘(iv) the National Defense Reserve 

2 Fleet under section 57100.’’. 

3 SEC. 3. BUY AMERICA REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPYARD 

4 MODERNIZATION AND IMPROVEMENT PRO5 GRAM. 

6 Section 53733 of title 46, United States Code, is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(f) BUY AMERICA.—Section 54101(d)(2) shall apply 

9 to any funds obligated by the Administrator under this 

10 section.’’. 

11 SEC. 4. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS. 

12 (a) CHAPTER 537.—The analysis for chapter 537 of 

13 title 46, United States Code, is amended by striking the 

14 item relating to section 53703 and inserting the following: 

‘‘53703. Application and administration.’’. 

15 (b) CHAPTER 541.—The analysis for chapter 541 of 

16 title 46, United States Code, is amended to read as fol17 lows: 

‘‘CHAPTER 541—MISCELLANEOUS

‘‘Sec. 

‘‘54101. Assistance for small shipyards.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Case No. 9,141.

#### MARSTIN v. McREA.

[Hempst. 688.] *1*

Circuit Court, Arkansas.2

April, 1854.

Deposition — Reducing to Writing.

A deposition taken under the 30th section of the judiciary act of 1789 [1 Stat. 88] must be reduced to writing by the magistrate or witness, and no other person is competent to perform that duty.

[This was a suit by Charles A. Marstin against Bracy McRea, as administrator of John D. Bracy, deceased.]

J. M. Curran, for plaintiff.

A. Fowler, for defendant.

Before RINGO, District Judge.

2

 [District not given.]

The court suppressed depositions taken on the part of the plaintiff under the 30th section of the judiciary act of 1789(1 Stat. 88), because the judge taking the same certified that the testimony of the witnesses taken by him, “was reduced to writing under my direction.” It was held, that the act of congress must be strictly complied with, and, as according to the express requisitions of that act, the deposition of a witness shall be reduced to writing “only by the magistrate taking the deposition or by the deponent in his presence;” no other person was legally competent to perform that duty, and that the magistrate could *857not depute any one to perform It; that the act itself excluded the Idea that any others than those named could perform It, and so it was a fatal defect. Deposition suppressed.
No. 52668.

protests 102680-K, etc. (New York).

#### Gutmann Mayer Glove Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of knit fabric the same in all material respects as the fabric of which the gloves the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333) were made. The claim of the plaintiffs was therefore sustained.
No. 54765.

#### Mutual Buying Syndicate, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 156668-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400

the court dismissed the protests.
Case No. 14,533.

#### UNITED STATES v. BARTON.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 132.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1803.

Witness — Competency—Manumitted Suaves.

Manumitted slaves are good witnesses for or against a free mulatto in Washington county.

[Cited in U. S v. Mullany, Case No. 15,832.]

Indictment for stealing a handkerchief. Upon the prisoner being brought to the bar, he appeared to be a mulatto.

*1025Two black witnesses, manumitted, were produced by the United States. Objection overruled and witnesses admitted, after read-ins the acts of assembly of Maryland, 1717, c. 13, and 1796, c. 77. •

Barton was indicted as a freeman.
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K   Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Source Rock, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies that, to his knowledge:   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.  /s/ Mark MroczkowskiMark MroczkowskiPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)     Date: March 16, 2012
#### Frank B. Chapman, Resp’t, *v.*Lucius Gleason, Impleaded with Patrick Lynch, App’lt.

Order affirmed, without costs.
Before the Third Division,

March 15, 1951

No. 55359.

#### John N. Germack *v.*United States,

protest 72507-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
##### 



Exhibit 32
 Certification pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.
  November 7, 2007
    
    /s/ Richard J. JarosinskiDate
    
    Richard J. Jarosinski, President and Chief Executive Officer November 7, 2007
    /s/ John N. PesarsickDate
    John N. Pesarsick, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theAmendment No.1 to Quarterly Report of Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscalquarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report")and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted in Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Tobey J. Russ, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

|          |                                                                                                                     |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1.  | The report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and |

|          |                                                                                                                                                    |
|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.  | The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. |

Date: May 13, 2005

/s/Tobey J. Russ            Tobey J. Russ(Principal Executive Officer)

----
Exhibit 10.4

DYNAMIC WORLDWIDE SOLAR ENERGY, LLC

1501 Broadway

25thFloor

New York, NY 10036

As of April 29, 2010

DayStar Technologies, Inc.

7373 Gateway
Boulevard

Newark, CA 94560

Attention: Mr. Magnus Ryde,

Chief Executive Officer

Dear Sirs and Madams:

Reference is made to the First Secured Convertible Promissory Note issued on April 29, 2010 (the Note) by you (the
Company) to the undersigned (DWSE) in the principal sum of $650,000.00.

DWSE hereby agrees that
Section 2(a) of the Note (which, as issued, permits the holder thereof, upon written notice to the Company, to convert all or any part of the Note into shares of the Companys Common Stock at any time prior to the payment in full of the
Note) is hereby amended, from and after the issuance thereof, to provide that the holder of the Note may not so convert all or any part of the Note until the date which is 150 days after the issuance thereof.

In connection with the aforesaid amendment, the Company agrees that Section 3(a) of the Note (which permits the Company to prepay
the Note at any time after one month following the issuance thereof by giving the holder of the Note at least 30 days advance written notice of the Companys intent to prepay the Note, whereupon such holder would have the right to convert all
or any portion of the Note during such 30-day period) is hereby amended to permit the Company to prepay all or any part of the Note only after the date which is 150 days after the issuance thereof and then only by giving the holder of the Note at
least 30 days advance written notice of the Companys intent to prepay the Note, specifying the date on which such prepayment will be made, whereupon such holder shall have the right to convert all or any part of the Note on the date scheduled
for such prepayment.

Please confirm the foregoing by signing a copy hereof and returning same to DWSE. Electronic and
facsimile signatures hereon shall have the same legal effect as original signatures.



---

DayStar Technologies, Inc.

As of April 29, 2010

Page 2 of 2

Very truly yours,



|                                    |  |                      
|----------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|DYNAMIC WORLDWIDE SOLAR ENERGY, LLC
|                                    | 
|By:                                 |  | /s/ Brad Zackson     
|                                    |  | Brad Zackson, Manager

The undersigned hereby confirms the

foregoing amendment to the Note

and
agrees to be bound thereby:



|                           |  |                        
|-------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|DAYSTAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
|                           | 
|By:                        |  | /s/ Magnus Ryde        
|Name:                      |  | Magnus Ryde            
|Title:                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6722

VIDAL O’NEAL GREEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SUPERINTENDENT SMILEY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp,

Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-75-1)

Submitted: July 18, 2002 Decided: July 24, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vidal O’Neal Green, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Vidal O’Neal Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Green v. Smiley, No. CA-01-75-1

(M.D.N.C. Apr. 26, 2002). 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.22


                       Global Power Equipment Group, Inc.
                           c/o Harvest Partners, Inc.,
                                 280 Park Avenue
                                   33rd Floor
                               New York, NY 10017


April __, 2001

Harvest Partners, Inc.
280 Park Avenue
33rd Floor
New York, NY 10017
Attention:  Stephen Eisenstein

         Re:      Harvest Management Agreement

Mr. Eisenstein:

         Reference is made to that certain Management Agreement, dated as of
August 1, 2000 (the "Agreement"), by and among Global Energy Equipment Group,
L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (the "Company") and Harvest
Partners, Inc., a New York corporation ("Harvest"). Capitalized terms used and
not otherwise defined in this letter shall have the respective meaning given
such terms in the Agreement.

         In connection with the impending reorganization of the Company from a
limited liability company into a Delaware corporation (the "Successor Entity")
(such transaction to be referred to herein as the "Conversion"), which will
occur in advance of the contemplated initial public offering (the "IPO") of the
Successor Entity, we are hereby asking you to waive, subject to the consummation
of the Conversion, any and all of your rights pursuant to Section 3(b) of the
Agreement with respect to a Transaction Fee that may be or may have become
payable to you in connection with the offering of the Successor Entity's
securities in connection with the consummation of the IPO.

         Subject to receiving your consent to the waiver of the above-mentioned
rights, the Company agrees to pay Harvest an advisory fee of $500,000.00 in
consideration of Harvest's advisory services provided in connection with the
refinancing of the Company's senior credit facility in connection with the IPO.
Such fee shall be paid on the date on which the agreement relating to such
refinancing is executed.
<PAGE>   2
         Please acknowledge the waiver of any and all of your rights pursuant to
Section 3(b) of the Agreement with respect to a Transaction Fee that may become
payable to you in conjunction with the consummation of the IPO by signing and
dating the enclosed duplicate of this letter in the space indicated below and
returning it to us no later than April __, 2001.

                              Yours sincerely,



                              Global Energy Equipment Group, L.L.C.



                              By:
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                  Name:
                                  Title:



Agreed and accepted this ____ day
April, 2001


By:   Harvest Partners, Inc.


By:
  -----------------------------------
     Name:
     Title:



                                      -2-
#### Jedediah Hoose, App’lt, v. Solomon S. Alexander, Resp’t.

Order reversed with printing disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondents, *v.*George W. Robinson, *Appellant.*

— Judgment and conviction reversed,, and case remitted to Court of Sessions of Erie county for a new trial. Opinion by Smith, P. J.
Before the Third Division,

July 23, 1940

No. 44131.

#### Protest 993054-G of Pacific Beverage Distributors, Ltd. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protest was dismissed.
No. 61964.

#### H. Bates Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 130222-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *E. C. Carter & Son, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 368, C. D. 1889), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control

5600 Sand Lake Road Orlando, Florida 32819-8907

Exemption Letter for § 91.151: Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR conditions:

4/13/2015

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

FAA Rule Making Office (ARM), Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590

Mr. Ryan,

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control (LMMFC) is re-applying for a special airworthiness 

certificate “Experimental Category” for its unmanned aircraft system (UAS). LMMFC proposes 

to operate the UAS at its corporate owned test facility (ETS Test Site) near Orlando, Florida. 

Presently, 14 CFR 91.151 States:

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and 

forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, 

assuming normal cruising speed—

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or 

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes. 

(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and 

forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, 

assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes. 

Current configuration of the UAS does not permit extending fuel capability to meet the minimum 

requirements of 14 CFR 91-151. The UAS at Maximum Gross Weight carries ~10lbs fuel. Fuel 

capacity is between 1 1⁄2 - 2 1⁄2 US gallons depending on aircraft payload configuration. Fuel 

burn rate is ~ 5 gal/hr. Therefore 2.5 gallons of fuel is ~ 00:30 min of flight time. LM test profiles 

do not exceed 00:15 minute intervals. Remainder fuel is reserved for landing and cool-down of 

the turbine post landing. LMMFC is requesting exemption from this rule 14 CFR 91.151; 

considering current configuration and operational limitations previously accepted by the FAA.

This exemption poses no risk to general public safety.

Please contact me if you require additional information:

4/16/2015

X Jacob A. Senior

Orlando Aviation Consultants

P.O. Box 621295, Orlando FL 32862

Signed by: Jacob Senior (affiliate)
<PAGE>



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



     We hereby consent to the use in the Statement of Additional Information
constituting part of this Registration Statement on Form N-4 (the "Registration
Statement") of (1) our reports dated February 5, 2001 relating to the financial
statements of Separate Account Nos. 4, 191, 200 and 206 of The Equitable Life
Assurance Society of the United States; and (2) our reports dated February 16,
2001 relating to the financial statements of Separate Account Nos. 8 and 30 of
The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States; and (3) our report
dated February 5, 2001 relating to the consolidated financial statements of The
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. We also consent to the
use in the Prospectus Supplement constituting part of this Registration
Statement of our report dated February 5, 2001 relating to the financial
statements of Separate Account No. 4 of The Equitable Life Assurance Society of
the United States. We also consent to the references to us under the headings
"Condensed Financial Information" and "About our Independent Accountants" in the
Prospectus.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
April 26, 2001
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10(ii)




                        Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors
GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company
  and
Contractholders
GE Life & Annuity Separate Account 4:

We consent to the use of our reports included herein and to the reference to our
firm under the heading "Experts" in the Statements of Additional Information.

Our report on the consolidated financial statements of GE Life and Annuity
Assurance Company and subsidiary dated January 22, 2001, contains an explanatory
paragraph that states the Company changed its method of accounting for
insurance-related assessments in 1999.



                                            /s/ KPMG LLP

Richmond, VA
April 19, 2001
Before the Third Division,

June 3, 1954

No. 58149.

protests 166485-K/3097, etc. (Chicago).

#### International Expediters, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fontana Hollywood Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1503), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.