alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

May 20, 1958

No. 61956.

#### Cities Service Oil Co. *v.*United States,

protest 193360-K (New York).

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties in the above-entitled case have submitted the same for decision upon a stipulation of fact. It appears that the merchandise consists of crude petroleum imported into the United States from Venezuela. The petroleum arrived and was landed and delivered to the importer on or before December 31, 1951, under special permit for delivery authorized by section 448 (b), Tariff Act of 1930. Formal entry and payment of estimated duties took place on January 2, 1952.

The merchandise was assessed with tax or duty at the rate of J4 cent per gallon under sections 3420 and 3422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and the Presidential proclamations relating to the Venezuelan Trade Agreement (T. D. 50015), to the termination of the Mexican Trade Agreement (T. D. 52559), and allocating the tariff rate quota on petroleum for the calendar year 1951 (T. D. 52641), that being the rate applicable to overquota importations of petroleum entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the year 1951.

The protest claim is for tax or duty at the rate of *%*cent per gallon under the said Internal Revenue Code sections, as modified by the Presidential proclamations reported in T. D.’s 50015, 52559, and 52905, the latter relating to quantities and allocation of the tariff-rate quotas for the calendar year 1952 on petroleum entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the calendar year 1952.

The issue turns on the meaning of the term “entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption” as used in the cited proclamations.

In the brief filed in its behalf, plaintiff’s counsel has cited the cases of *Tassini & Salisch-Parver, Inc.*v. *United States,*6 Cust. Ct. 571, Abstract 45512; *John A. Conkey & Co.*v. *United States,*11 Cust. Ct. 217, Abstract 48554; and *F. B. Wilcon*v. *United States,*13 Cust. Ct. 96, C. D. 876, all to the effect that, in addition to other requirements, merchandise is not entered for consumption until the entry is completed by the payment of estimated duties.

Counsel for the defendant has not replied to the brief filed on behalf of the plaintiff but, in lieu thereof, has filed a notice stating that, upon consideration of the record made and the brief filed by counsel for the plaintiff, it did not desire to file a brief on behalf of the United States. This we construe to be a tacit concession of the correctness of the authorities cited by the plaintiff in support of its position and their applicability to the facts in the case at bar.

We, therefore, sustain the protest claim for duty at the rate of J4 cent per gallon under section 3422 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 45067.

#### Protest 983746-G of F. W. Woolworth Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the rubber mice in question are in part of bamboo and similar to those the subject of Abstract 40389. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 was therefore sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Francis M. Crafts *v.*The Fire Commissioners of Brooklyn.

—Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Opinion by Dykman, J.
SEC Reference 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Eco Science Solutions, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ending January 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Jeffery Taylor, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and






(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/Jeffery TaylorJeffery TaylorPrincipal Executive OfficerDate: June 20, 2016
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 4.10.1

SCHEDULE IDENTIFYING SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL AGREEMENT  TO EXHIBIT 4.10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Guarantee, dated as of August 17, 2000, made by Edison Mission Energy, as
Guarantor in favor of Joliet Trust II, as Owner Lessor.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Timothy P. Lynch, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Tercica, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results
of operations of Tercica, Inc.



By:

/s/ Timothy P. LynchTimothy P. LynchChief Financial Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided by Tercica, Inc. and will be retained by Tercica, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 35.1

1123  Servicer Compliance Statement

I, Joseph Guage, Vice President of The Student
Loan Corporation (SLC), the administrator under the administration agreement and the servicer under the servicing agreement, each among SLC, SLC Student Loan Receivables I, Inc. and certain others (together, the servicing
agreement), relating to SLC Student Loan Trust 2010-1, certify that:



|(a) | A review of SLCs activities as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the Reporting Period) and of SLCs performance under the
servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, SLC has fulfilled all of its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2012.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 28, 2013



By:

/s/ Joseph GuageName: Joseph GuageTitle: Vice President
EXHIBIT 4.11


                                    SCHEDULE

                   Information on six substantially identical
                                 Deeds of Trust
                           dated as of March 23, 2001
                  with First Union National Bank as Beneficiary


       (Six additional documents are identical, except as set forth below,
                    to the document included as Exhibit 4.3)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                    Principal Amount
Apartment Property                              Grantor                                              of Debt Secured
------------------                              -------                                              ---------------
<S>                                             <C>                                                        <C>
Harbour Club Apartments                         CRIT-VA II, Inc.                                           8,475,000
Virginia Beach, Virginia

Highland Hills Apartments                       CRIT-NC III, LLC                                          14,775,000
Carrboro, North Carolina

Canyon Hills                                    CAC II Limited Partnership                                12,675,000
Austin, Texas

Park Village                                    CAC II Limited Partnership                                 8,500,000
Bedford, Texas

Summertree                                      CAC II Limited Partnership                                 7,750,000
Dallas, Texas

The Courts on Pear Ridge                        CAC II Limited Partnership                                10,575,000
Dallas, Texas
</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, David R. Bradley, Chief Executive Officer of United National Group,
Ltd. (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 (1) the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June
30, 2004 (the Form 10-Q), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: August 11, 2004 /s/ David R. BradleyName: David R. BradleyTitle: Chief Executive Officer
#### Gerson Goldstein, Resp’t, *v.*George Walters, App’lt.1

*(New York Common Pleas, General Term,*

*Filed February 3, 1890.)*

1. Bbokebs—Commissions.

Plaintiff failed to induce defendant to make a sale to one T. Thereafter defendant sold to one M., who in reality purchased for T.; but this was concealed from defendant. *Held,*that plaintiff was not entitled to brokerage on such sale.

2. Same.

The fact that a person is a purchaser of real estate does not necessarily prevent his being also the procuring cause of the sale.

Motion for reargument, and for leave to go to the court of appeals.

*D. A.*Sullivan, for motion; *Wm. H. Hamilton,*opposed.

1

 See 28 N. Y. State Rep., 177.

Per Curiam.

This actionwas commenced in a district court to recover broker’s commissions upon the sale of certain real estate, and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. On appeal to this court, such judgment was reversed, the opinion delivered conclusively establishing the fact that the plaintiff was not the procuring cause of the sale, but that Martin & Wray were, and further on holding that the sale was made to Martin. The plaintiff claims that because Martin was the purchaser, he cannot at the same time be the procuring cause of the sale. We fail to see the force of this argument, because it is an every-day occurrence that a party making a purchase does so without the intervention of any broker, and although Martin may have acted as the agent for Thomas, this fact was concealed from the defendant. At any rate it is clear that Goldstein, the plaintiff, had failed to induce the defendant to make the sale which Martin & Wray subsequently induced him to make, and that in no event is he entitled to brokerage for a sale consummated by other parties.

The motion for a reargument, or for leave to go to the court of appeals is, therefore, denied, with ten dollars costs.

Bookstaver and Bischoff, JJ., concur.
#### Matthew McTaggart, Resp’t, *v.*The Putnam Corset Company, App’lt.

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

*Filed February 10, 1890.)*

Attachment—Affidavit—Fraud, how shown.

Stoppage of business and insolvency are not necessarily evidence of intent to defraud; but these facts, coupled with removal of property, and especially of machinery from a factory, add to the inference from the removal and justify a plaintiff in swearing to such intent, and are sufficient to authorize a warrant of attachment.

Appeal from order denying motion to vacate a warrant of attachment.

*K G. Krenter,*for app’lt; *Frederic S. Barnwn,*for resp’t.

Barnard, P. J.

The defendant is a manufacturing company, organized under the laws of New York, having its place of business at Brewsters, New York. The papers state that the company is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of eighty-four dollars for four weeks’ work and labor at an agreed price of twenty-one dollars per week, which has not been paid.

The plaintiff obtained an attachment against the defendant upon the ground that the defendant had assigned, disposed of and secreted, and was about to assign, dispose of and secrete its properly with intent to defraud its creditors.

The question presented on the appeal is as the sufficiency of the affidavit to authorize the attachment The facts stated in the affidavit are all such as would presumably be within the knowledge of the plaintiff. These facts are, that the defendant had stopped business for some six weeks before the warrant was obtained. All its manufactured material had been taken away, except certain machinery and plant That a few days before the application for the attachment the president of the company removed parts of the machinery and sent them to places not known. That the president directed the entire machinery to be removed from the factory. The company has discharged all its employees, is insolvent and there is a suit pending for a receiver. These facts are sufficient to authorize the warrant; stoppage of business and insolvency are not necessarily evidence of an intent to defraud. Taken in connection with a removal of the property and especially of a removal of the machinery from the factory, where it can only be of much value or of any use, then the facts of stoppage of business and insolvency add to the inference from the removal and justify the plaintiff in swearing to the evil intent to defraud. No other conclusion is fairly to be deduced from the facts.

*553The order should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurs; Dykman, J., not sitting.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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, 2012 (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, David M. Cordova, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrants, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



/s/ DAVID M. CORDOVAName:

David M. CordovaDate:

March 6, 2013


---



QuickLinks
No. 53617.

Suit 4610.

#### Olavarria & Co., Inc. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1107 affirmed June 28, 1949. C. A. D. 409.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8759 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to allow certain payments 

made by public service employees to qualify for public service repayment, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2024 

Mr. FOSTER (for himself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. GARCI ́A of Illinois, Mr. NADLER, Ms. KUSTER, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Ms. CLARKE of New York, 

and Ms. LEE of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to allow certain 

payments made by public service employees to qualify 

for public service repayment, 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 ‘‘Public Service Loan 

5 Forgiveness Inclusion Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8759 IH

1 SEC. 2. QUALIFYING PAYMENTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 455(m) of the Higher 

3 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(m)) is amend4 ed— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1)(A) by inserting ‘‘subject to 

6 paragraph (5),’’ before ‘‘has made’’; and 

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

8 ‘‘(5) FIRST 60 MONTHLY PAYMENTS.— 

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of 

10 meeting the requirement under subparagraph 

11 (A) of paragraph (1), the first 60 monthly pay12 ments may be payments under a repayment 

13 plan under subsection (d)(1) or (g). 

14 ‘‘(B) APPLICABILITY.—This paragraph 

15 shall apply to borrowers who on or after the 

16 date of the enactment of this paragraph have 

17 made less than 120 monthly payments under 

18 paragraph (1)(A).’’. 

19 (b) NOTIFICATION TO BORROWERS.—Not later than 

20 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

21 Secretary of Education shall— 

22 (1) inform each borrower of a loan made under 

23 part D of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 

24 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq.) of— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8759 IH

1 (A) paragraph (5) of section 455(m) of the 

2 Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

3 1087e(m)), as amended by this Act; and 

4 (B) the effect of such paragraph on loan 

5 cancellation under such section 455(m) (20 

6 U.S.C. 1087e(m)); and 

7 (2) provide information to such borrowers on 

8 how to change repayment plans. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
SCWC-14-0000930 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF WAIPOULI BEACH RESORT, through its Board of Directors,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. UPONOR, INC., DORVIN D. LEIS CO., INC., and

GROUP BUILDERS, INC., Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees,

and UNLIMITED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., UNLIMITED WBR, LLC, and STO CORP., Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-14-0000930; CIV. NO. 08-1-1350-07) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee Uponor, Inc.’s application for writ of certiorari filed on September 25, 2017, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees Dorvin D. Leis Co., Inc. and Group Builders, Inc.’s application for writ of certiorari filed on September 25, 2017, and Respondent/Defendant-Appellee Sto Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0000930 06-NOV-2017 12:41 PMCorp.’s substantive joinder filed on September 25, 2017, are

hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, November 6, 2017. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 Certification of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, John S. Cooper, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:1.
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Portec Rail Products, 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 such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting. May 12, 2005 Date
    /s/ John S. CooperJohn S. CooperPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF MEDLEY CAPITAL CORPORATION



|Name                                 |  | Jurisdiction
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------
|MOF I BDC LLC                        |  | Delaware    
|Medley SBIC LP                       |  | Delaware    
|MCC Investment Holdings LLC          |  | Delaware    
|MCC Investment Holdings AAR LLC      |  | Delaware    
|MCC Investment Holdings AmveStar LLC |  | Delaware    
|MCC Investment Holdings Omnivere LLC |  | Delaware    
|MCC Investment Holdings RT1 LLC      |  | Delaware    
|MCC Investment Holdings Sendero LLC  |  | Delaware
(Reap. Dec. 9558)

#### Bruce Duncan Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3866.

(Decided December 16, 1959)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

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

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain cigarette lighters exported from Japan and entered at the port of Los Angeles, Calif.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case is before me, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is the values returned by the appraiser, less the 8 per centum commission, as shown on the invoice, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.