alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9209)

#### Guy B. Barham Company, for Supreme Olive Oil Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 8339.

*517(Decided August 13, 1958)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows concerning the merchandise referred to below:

> 1) The issues herein are the same in all material respects as in Friedberg v US, 36 Cust Ct 596, RD 8590, and the record in that case may be incorporated herein.

> 2) The appraised value of said merchandise, less an addition made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for home consumption, and the export value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> 3) This appeal is abandoned as to any other items than are above indicated, and the ease may be deemed to be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was the appraised value, less an addition made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Susan Wong, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tercica, Inc.; 

 

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 suchstatements 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, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) 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 suchdisclosure 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, particularlyduring 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 thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

 

c. Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the 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 reasonablylikely 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 controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 4, 2005
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ex parte Jesse Andrew Lopez

Appellate case number: 01-17-00586-CR

Trial court case number: 17-DCR-077033

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

Represented by appointed counsel, appellant, Jesse Andrew Lopez, filed a notice 

of appeal of the trial court’s order denying his pretrial habeas corpus application. We 

abated the appeal, remanded the case, and directed the trial court to determine whether 

appellant wished to waive counsel on appeal and should be allowed to proceed pro se 

after being properly admonished. On March 6, 2018, the trial court clerk filed a 

supplemental clerk’s record that includes a signed “Waiver of Attorney under Art. 

1.051(g), T.C.C.P.,” and the trial court’s February 28, 2018 order, stating that appellant is

“responsible [to] file a brief and represent himself on appeal.” We reinstated the appeal, 

directed the Clerk of this Court to file appellant’s pro se “Supplementation/Correction of 

Appellant’s Brief” and “Supplementation to Appellant’s Brief,” and set a due date for the 

State’s brief. On April 10, 2018, we granted the State’s “First Motion for Extension of 

Time” and extended the time to file the State’s brief to June 8, 2018, with no further 

extensions.

On April 23, 2018, appellant filed a “Response and Objection to ‘State’s First 

Motion for Extension of Time’” in which he requests that the Court deny the State’s 

extension request, rescind any order granting the requested extension and decide the 

appeal without a State’s brief, or grant the State an extension of less than sixty days. 

Appellant’s motion is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d). The State’s brief remains due 

on June 8, 2018, with no further extensions.

In connection with his “Response and Objection,” appellant has filed a “Request 

for Judicial Notice,” asking that we “take notice of the record” in this appeal, and a 

“Motion for Suspension of Rules,” asking that we suspend Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure 9.3(a)(1), 9.4(f), and 9.5(a). The “Motion for Suspension of Rules” and 

“Request for Judicial Notice” are dismissed as moot.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 17, 2018
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 20, 2015 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00842-CR 

No. 05-15-00843-CR 

No. 05-15-00844-CR 

BRADLEY THOMAS CHANEY, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. MA13-13389-C, MA13-13390-C, MA13-13391-C 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill 

Appellant has filed motions to dismiss the appeals. Appellant’s counsel has approved the 

motions. The Court GRANTS the motions and ORDERS that the appeals be DISMISSED and 

this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

PER CURIAM 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

150842F.U05 
Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

BRADLEY THOMAS CHANEY, Appellant

No. 05-15-00842-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Criminal Court 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. MA13-13389-C. 

Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices 

Francis, Lang-Miers. and Whitehill. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered July 20, 2015. 
Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

BRADLEY THOMAS CHANEY, Appellant

No. 05-15-00843-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Criminal Court 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. MA13-13390-C. 

Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices 

Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered July 20, 2015. 
Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

BRADLEY THOMAS CHANEY, Appellant

No. 05-15-00844-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Criminal Court 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. MA13-13391-C. 

Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices 

Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered July 20, 2015.
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

          I, Peyton R. Patterson, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer hereby certify that NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.

|   |   | / s / Peyton R. Patterson                     |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Peyton R. Patterson                                                                                                                               |
|   |   | Chairman of the Board, President and                                                                                                              |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                           |

Date: August 3, 2007

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

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER    PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2011 (the "Report") of
New Mountain Finance Holdings, L.L.C., New Mountain Finance Corporation and New Mountain Finance AIV Holdings Corporation (the "Registrants"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, I, Robert A. Hamwee, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrants, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



/s/ ROBERT A. HAMWEEName:

Robert A. HamweeDate:

March 7, 2012


---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.22







Katy Industries, Inc.


Director Compensation Arrangements








	1.	Retainer











		a.	Each director earns a $10,000 annual retainer.











		b.	Each director earns the cash equivalent of 2,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at the closing stock price the day prior to the annual meeting.











		c.	The chair of the Compensation Committee and the chair of the Audit Committee each earn an additional $6,000 annual retainer.











	2.	Meeting Fees











		a.	Each director earns $2,500 for each full meeting of the board of directors he or she attends in person and $1,000 for each full meeting of the board of directors he or she attends telephonically.











		b.	Each director earns $1,000 for each full committee meeting of the board of directors he or she attends in person and $500 for each full committee meeting of the board of directors he or she attends telephonically.











	3.	Stock Appreciation Rights











		a.	Each director receives an annual stock appreciation right (SAR) grant of 2,000 stock appreciation rights at the May meeting of the board of directors each year.  The exercise price is the fair market value on the date of grant.  The director may exercise these stock appreciation rights at any time during the ten years from the date of grant.











	4.	Meeting Expenses











		a.	Katy reimburses directors for their expenses incurred in attending meetings of the board of director and committee meetings of the board of directors.











	5.	Deferred Compensation Plan











		a.	Each director may defer directors’ fees, retainers and other compensation paid for services as a director until the later of the director’s attainment of age 62 or ceasing to be a director.  Each director has 30 days before the beginning of a Plan Year (as defined in the Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan) in which to elect to participate in the Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan.  Directors may invest these amounts in one or more investment alternatives offered by Katy.  Directors may elect to receive distributions of deferred amounts in a lump sum or five annual installments.










Note:  Class II directors and those directors that are also officers do not receive the compensation described in this section for their service on the Board of Directors.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

N. ANN PIWINSKI,

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:10-cv-01087

vs. Judge George C. Smith

 Magistrate Judge E. A. Preston Deavers

WELLS FARGO BANK NA, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Continue to

Stay Discovery (ECF No. 16). On March 10, 2011, following the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference, the Court stayed discovery in this case pending further briefing. On March 24,

2011, Defendants filed their Motion to Continue to Stay Discovery. Defendants maintain that

the Court should stay discovery until it has resolved Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss

(ECF Nos. 5, 6). Defendants assert that a stay is justified in part because they assert immunity

defenses in their Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ Motion to

Continue to Stay Discovery.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “permit[] a district court to issue a protective order

staying discovery during the pendency of a motion for ‘good cause shown.’ ” Bowens v.

Columbus Metro. Library Bd. of Trs., No. 2:10-cv-00219, 2010 WL 3719245, at *1 (S.D. Ohio

Sept. 16, 2010) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)). This Court has broad discretion in determining

whether to “stay discovery until preliminary questions which may dispose of the case are

Case: 2:10-cv-01087-GCS-EPD Doc #: 20 Filed: 04/21/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
answered.” Bangas v. Potter, 145 F. App’x 139, 141 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Hahn v. Star Bank,

190 F.3d 708, 719 (6th Cir.1999)). Furthermore, this Court has noted that a stay of discovery

pending ruling on dispositive motions may be appropriate when the dispositive motion “raises an

issue such as immunity from suit . . . .” Williams v. New Day Farms, LLC, No. 2:10-cv-0394,

2010 WL 3522397, at *2 (Sept. 7, 2010).

Because Defendants raise an issue of immunity in their pending Motions to Dismiss, and

because Plaintiff has not responded in opposition to a stay, the Court finds that a stay of

discovery is appropriate in this case. Accordingly, discovery is STAYED in this case pending

resolution of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. If these Motions do not dispose of the case, the

Court will set a status conference to address the pretrial case schedule. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: April 20, 2011 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

 United States Magistrate Judge

2

Case: 2:10-cv-01087-GCS-EPD Doc #: 20 Filed: 04/21/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 56538.

protests 142235-K, etc. (New York).

#### J. Benzaria et al. *v.*United States,

*448Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 32.4



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UCDP FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the quarterly report of UCDP Finance, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 2, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Short, 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: November 15, 2005



By:

/s/ MICHAEL J. SHORTMichael J. Short Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)




29
----

EXHIBIT 31.1 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Anthony D.J. Ker, Chief Executive Officer of Gryphon GoldCorporation, certify that: 

1.       I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Gryphon Gold Corporation; 
2.        Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.        Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small businessissuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.        The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer andhave: 

(a)      designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b)      evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c)      disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registration’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5.        The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

(a)      all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and 

(b)      any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal controlsover financial reporting. 

 

Date: February 14, 2007 
 By:   /s/ Anthony D.J. Ker            Anthony D.J. Ker         Chief Executive Officer
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS





We hereby consent to the use of our name in the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the "Annual Report") of Equal Energy Ltd. (the "Registrant"). We hereby further consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report of the Registrant's Annual Information Form dated March 23, 2011 for the year ended December 31, 2010, which document makes reference to our firm and our report entitled “Appraisal of Oil and Gas Reserves Owned by Equal Energy Ltd. located in Various Oklahoma Counties as of December 31, 2010”, dated February 18, 2011, evaluating the Registrant's oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids interests effective December 31, 2010.











Dallas, Texas, USA


March 23, 2011


Haas Petroleum Engineering Services, Inc.





Signed “Robert W. Haas”





Robert W. Haas, P.E.


President
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:11-cr-167

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP

ANGELA FIELDS, 

Defendant.

ORDER

On January 25, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant Fields’s guilty plea to

Count One of the Indictment charging her with counterfeiting obligations of the United States, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471. Defendant, represented by counsel, waived her right to appear on the

matter before a District Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted the colloquy required by Rule 11

of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, free from

coercion, and had a basis in fact. 

Defendant was specifically informed of her right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 14 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

not file any objections. 

Case: 2:11-cr-00167-GCS-EPD Doc #: 32 Filed: 02/14/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment. Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty of

counterfeiting obligations of the United States.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

Case: 2:11-cr-00167-GCS-EPD Doc #: 32 Filed: 02/14/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>