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

August 7, 1939

No. 41889.

#### Protest 172468-G of Salem Shawiry (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with agreement of counsel that the merchandise consists of laces similar to those involved in *Amrein*v. *United States*(T. D. 49551) the claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was sustained.
Exhibit 32(b)



TXU ENERGY COMPANY LLC

Certificate Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CFO



The undersigned, Kirk R. Oliver, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of TXU Energy Company LLC (the Company), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed
this 12th day of August, 2005.



/s/ Kirk R. OliverName:

Kirk R. OliverTitle:

Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TXU Energy Company LLC and will be retained by TXU Energy Company LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:11-cr-97

Jose Solona-Morales 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 14) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the information, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: May 17, 2011 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cr-00097-JLG Doc #: 20 Filed: 05/17/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case No. 8,522.

#### LOTTIMER v. REDFIELD.

TCited in Greenleaf v. Schell. Case No. 5,782. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
#### John Gula, Jr., Appellant *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee.

May 29, 1981:

■Submitted on briefs, April 8, 1981,

to Judges Mencer, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three.

*Stephen P. Ellwood,*for appellant.

*Harold H. Cramer,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *Ward T. Williams,*Chief Counsel, Transportation, for appellee.

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

The Secretary of Transportation suspended appellant John Gula’s official inspection mechanic certificate and his official inspection station certificate for three years on the ground that Gula had issued an inspection sticker without actually conducting the re*353quired inspection. Gula appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County which, after a hearing de novo, affirmed the suspensions but reduced them to one year. The secretary has not appealed from the reduction.

The court’s findings recite that, in late April 1978, an off-duty Pennsylvania State Police trooper visited Gula’s station to have his personal vehicle inspected. "When he requested the inspection, Gula said, “Give me your card. That’s a brand new vehicle,” and then left the trooper’s presence, returning shortly with an inspection sticker which he affixed to the car without performing any inspection.

Gula testified that the trooper, known to Gula to be such, had stated that another station had inspected the vehicle, but that station’s proprietor had no stickers available; Gula presented two witnesses who corroborated that version of the transaction. Based on this conflict, Gula argues that the trooper’s testimony is somehow “incompetent” and thus cannot support the conclusion of violation.

That issue is clearly one of credibility, which the trial court expressly resolved against Gula. Reflecting negatively on Gula’s credibility is the finding that Gula’s own records recite purported details of a brake lining examination of the trooper’s car, an examination which — as the trial judge could perceive — never occurred because Gula’s own testimony was that he affixed the sticker to the vehicle without inspecting it.

That testimony alone established the violation of Section 4727 of The Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C. S. §4727.

Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order.

Order

And Now, May 29,1981, the October 22,1979 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County at No. 1291 of 1978, is affirmed.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 1/22/97 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. MONTGOMERY C. AKERS,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-1398 (D.C. No. 96-CR-13-B) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the documents and appellate record filed in this case, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument.-2-

This bail appeal is before us for consideration of the government’s motion to dismiss because of defendant’s status as a fugit ive. Counsel for defendant has not responded to the motion, but we are advised that defendant remains a fugitive.
Federal courts have the authority to dismiss an app eal if the party seeking relief is a fugitive while the matter is pending. Degen v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 1777, 1781 (1996). See also United States v. O’Neal , 453 F.2d 344, 345 (10th Cir. 1972)(appeal of defendant freed on appeal bond who failed to appear when ordered by district court would be dismissed unless he surrendered within thirty days). The rule has long been that “although a pri soner’s fugitive status does not necessarily strip a case of its character as a just iciable controversy, it does however disentitle a petitioner in absentiato call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims.” Gonzales v. Stov er , 575 F.2d 827, 828 (10th Cir. 1978)(citing Molinaro v. New Jersey , 396 U.S. 365, 366 (1970)). This appeal is taken from the setting of certain co nditions of release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). Since defendant has now estab lished that he is a flight risk, it seems unlikely he would again be subject to the same release conditions. The appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue f orthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM
Servicer Compliance Statement
 
 The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.), the Administrator and Servicer
          for the Student Loan Corporation Trusts1 (the “Trusts”), does hereby certify that:
 
 (a) this certificate is delivered pursuant to Item 1123 of
          Regulation AB;
 
 (b) a review of the servicing activities of the Servicer
          and the Administrator as of December 31, 2018 and for the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) and their performance under the applicable servicing and administration agreements for each of the Trusts has been
          made under my supervision; and
 
 (c) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the
          Servicer and Administrator have fulfilled all of their obligations under the servicing and administration agreements for the Trusts in all material respects through the Reporting Period.
 
 [Signature Page Follows]
 
 
  1 SLC Student Loan Trust 2004-1, SLC Student Loan Trust 2005-1,  SLC Student Loan
            Trust 2005-2,  SLC Student Loan Trust 2005-3,  SLC Student Loan Trust 2006-1, SLC Student Loan Trust 2006-2,  SLC Student Loan Trust 2007-1,  SLC Student Loan Trust 2007-2, SLC Student Loan Trust 2008-1, SLC Student Loan Trust 2008-2, SLC
            Student Loan Trust 2009-1, SLC Student Loan Trust 2009-2, SLC Student Loan Trust 2009-3, and SLC Student Loan Trust 2010-1.
 
 
 /s/ JEFFREY STINEJeffrey StineVice President,Core ProcessingNavient Solutions, LLCMarch 29, 2019
 
 Servicer Compliance Statement
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Synergy  Financial  Group,
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, John S.  Fiore,  President,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Chief  Financial
Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
               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.




/s/John S. Fiore
--------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Fiore
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)

Date: August 9, 2005
#### Ballester Hermanos, by Ballester Hermanos, Inc., Successors v. United States

No. 7506.

Entry No. 1561.

Invoice dated. Havana, Cuba, February 1944.

Certified February 1944.

Entered at San Juan, P. R., February 26, 1944.

(Decided January 14, 1948)

*Guillermo Sulva*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LaweeNCE, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement was submitted on the following stipulation:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption plus, when not included in such price, the costs of all containers of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed, ready for shipment to the United States, is fifteen (15) cents per barr (sic) of one pound packed.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there is no higher export value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation.

> sjc ‡ ;Jí ifc ^

Upon the agreed facts, I find the foreign value of the involved merchandise to which this appeal relates, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for determining the value of said merchandise, and that such value is 15 cents per bar of one pound, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8892 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8892

To modify certain provisions relating to bilateral agreements and AUKUS 
 defense trade cooperation under the Arms Export Control Act, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2024

  Mr. Huizenga (for himself and Mr. McCaul) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modify certain provisions relating to bilateral agreements and AUKUS 
 defense trade cooperation under the Arms Export Control Act, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Missile Technology Controls Revision 
Act'' or the ``MTCR Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO BILATERAL 
              AGREEMENTS AND AUKUS DEFENSE TRADE COOPERATION UNDER THE 
              ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
U.S.C. 2778) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (j)(1)(C)(ii)--
                    (A) by striking subclauses (I), (II), and (III); 
                and
                    (B) by redesignating subclauses (IV), (V), (VI), 
                and (VII) as subclauses (I), (II), (III), and (IV), 
                respectively; and
            (2) in subsection (l)(4)(B), by striking ``subsection 
        (j)(1)(C)(ii)'' and inserting ``any of subclauses (I), (II), 
        (III), or (IV) of subsection (j)(1)(C)(ii)''.
    (b) Statement of Policy.--
            (1) In general.--It shall no longer be the policy of the 
        United States to apply a ``strong presumption of denial'' to 
        exports of materials considered Category 1 or 2 of the Missile 
        Technology Control Regime to North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
        (NATO) allies or countries of the ``Five Eyes'' intelligence 
        alliance.
            (2) Five eyes intelligence alliance defined.--In this 
        subsection, the term ``Five Eyes intelligence alliance'' means 
        Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the 
        United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### Fred William Heuacker v. H. Farrelly and R. T. Comber.

176 So. 98.

Opinion Filed September 8, 1937.

*Hendricks & Hendricks,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*240*McKay, Dixon & DeJarnette*and *A. Lee Bradford,*for Defendants in Error.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff in error brought an action against

defendants in error Farrelly and Comber, for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by Farrelly’s negligent driving of an automobile belonging to Comber, which Farrelly was driving with Comber’s knowledge and consent. There was some conflict in the evidence, both as to the questions of negligence of the driver of the car and the ownership of the car by Comber. There was a general verdict in favor of plaintiff in error against both defendants for $5,000.00 damages. Both defendants interposed motions for new trial, and Comber also filed motion for judgment *non obstante veredicto.*

The trial judge rendered a judgment *non obstante veredicto*in favor of Comber, on the ground that the evidence was sufficient to prove several of the pleas interposed by him and in doing so stated that the entry of said judgment made it unnecessary to rule upon Comber’s motion for new trial.

As to defendant Farrelly’s motion for new trial, the trial court ordered that said motion be granted “unless the plaintiff shall within ten days enter a remittitur in the sum of $2,500.00, whereupon said motion shall stand denied. To this order both the plaintiff and defendant excepted.

The case is now before us on writ of error sued out by the plaintiff in the court below.

The judgment *non obstante veredicto*in favor of Comber. must be reversed upon authority of the recent cases of Dudley v. Harrison McCready & Co., 128 Fla. 338, 173 So. 820, and Talley v. McCain, 128 Fla. 418, 174 So. 841, and the cause remanded with directions that the lower court proceed to hear and dispose of defendant Comber’s motion *241for new trial just as if the judgment *non obstante veredicto*had never been entered.

In view of the evidence in this case, we find no error in the trial court’s order granting Farrelly a new trial unless plaintiff entered a remittitur of $2,500.00, which order is hereby affirmed.

Reversed and remanded with directions as to defendant in error, R. T. Comber, and affirmed as to order granting defendant in error, H. Farrelly, a new trial unless plaintiff Heuacker entered a remittitur, as provided in said order.

Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, . Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AlphaSmart, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2004, I, Ketan D. Kothari, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of AlphaSmart, Inc., 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. | this Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 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 this Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
AlphaSmart, Inc. for the periods presented therein.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                     
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: November 10, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Ketan D. Kothari                
|                        |  |     |  | Ketan D. Kothari                    
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
|                        |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
hive-ex 4.6x20141231




February 19, 2015
Aerohive Networks. Inc.
330 Gibraltar Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Attn: Gordon Brooks, CFO
RE:    Extension of Term;
Plain English Warrant Agreement 0532-W-03 dated August 23, 2013 (“Warrant Agreement”) by and between Aerohive Networks, Inc. (“Aerohive’’) and TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (“Warrant Holder”)
Dear Gordon:
This letter agreement will refer to the above referenced Warrant Agreement.  Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this letter agreement shall have the same meaning as in the Warrant Agreement.
Pursuant to section Section 2 of the Warrant Agreement the term of the Warrant Agreement shall expire on March 27, 2015.  Warrant Holder has requested a one year extension of the term of the Warrant Agreement to March 27, 2016 (the “Extension”).
For good and valuable consideration, including reduction of the End of Term Payments under the Loan Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged.  Aerohive agrees to the Extension conditioned upon the receipt of this letter agreement executed by Aerohive and Warrant Holder.
Except to the extent specifically amended or superseded by the terms of this letter agreement, all of the provisions of the Warrant Agreement and related documents shall remain in full force and effect.  This letter agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and delivery of an executed counterpart signature to this letter agreement by facsimile or electronic mail transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart.
If this meets with your approval, please execute on the signature block below and return to the attention of Warrant Holder.
Sincerely,
TRIPLEPOINT CAPITAL LLC
/s/ Harold Zagnnis
Chief Financial Officer
ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:
AEROHIVE NETWORKS, INC.
By:     /s/ Gordon C. Brooks    
Title: CFO
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8919 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8919

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 5, 2024

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 151 Highway 74 South in Peachtree City, Georgia, as the ``SFC Shawn 
                        McCloskey Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SFC SHAWN MCCLOSKEY POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 151 Highway 74 South in Peachtree City, Georgia, shall be 
known and designated as the ``SFC Shawn McCloskey Post Office''.
    (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 ``SFC Shawn 
McCloskey Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Bryan Miller, 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/A of Sunergy, Inc. for the period
          ended March 31, 2011 (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 Sunergy, Inc.

Date: March 30, 2012


By: /s/ Bryan Miller
    ------------------------------------
Name:  Bryan Miller
Title: President and Director (Principal
       Executive Officer, Principal
       Financial and Principal
       Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Sunergy, Inc. and will be retained
by Sunergy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.