alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 50165.

#### Protest 57475-K of Atlas Baby Carriage Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise was purchased with pounds sterling obtained in the New York market at the free rate of exchange for cable transfer for pounds sterling in effect on the date such pounds were obtained; that the date of exportation and the free rate of exchange for pounds sterling for that date, determined and certified by the Federal Reserve bank, were as set forth by the collector on each of the entries; and that the issue is the same in all material respects as that presented in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protest was sustained to this extent.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO . A

- 2872

- 17T4

ERIKA LEVIN,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and

CHERRY HILL TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF EDUCATION T/A

CHERRY HILL HIGH SCHOOL

EAST,

Respondents

- Respondents.

Submitted December 17, 2018

– Decided

Before Judges Gooden Brown and Rose.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of

Labor, Docket No. 107

, 654.

Erika Levin, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for

respondent Bo ard of Review (Melissa H. Raksa,

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jessica M.

Saxon, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief ).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough it is posted on the

internet

, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R

. 1:36

- 3.

January 4, 20192 A

- 2872

- 17T4 Respondent Cherry Hill Township Board of Education

T/A Cherry Hill High School East has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Claimant Erika Levin appeals from a February 23, 2018 final decisio n of

the Board of Review (Board) denying her claim for unemployment benefits from

her employer, Cherry Hill Township Board of Education t/a Cherry Hill High

School East (Cherry Hill) 1 because she left work "without good cause

attributable to such work." N .J.S.A. 43:21

- 5(a).

Pertinent to this appeal, the Board determined Cherry Hill had filed a

timely appeal. Before us, the Board acknowledges Cherry Hill's appeal was

untimely and, accordingly, seeks a remand to reexamine its determination. In

its brief, the Board represents claimant consented to that request. 2 Claimant

does not contend otherwise. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to reconsider

the timeliness of Cherry Hill's appeal from the Appeal Tribunal's decision

awarding claimant benefits, and he r eligibility for such benefits.

1 Cherry Hill did not file a responding brief on appeal.

2 According to the Board, claimant consented to a remand during a telephone

conversation on August 17, 2018.3 A

- 2872

- 17T4

Vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16

                                                                    CONFIDENTIAL

                                                           |__| Collins' Copy
                                                           |__| Company's Copy

                               FIFTH AMENDMENT TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

To WILLIAM L. COLLINS, III:

By signing below, you agree to an amendment (the "Amendment") to your Employment
Agreement with Metrocall, Inc. (the "Company") dated as of May 15, 1996 (the
"Employment Agreement") as previously amended. The Fifth Amendment is effective
as of April 1, 2001.

         New language in the Employment Agreement is shown as amended:

         Section 8(d)(v), as amended, reads:

                           "(v) the termination of employment of either Steven
                           D. Jacoby or Vincent D. Kelly (I) by the Company
                           without "Cause," or (II) by Jacoby or Kelly for "Good
                           Reason" as that term is defined and applied in their
                           respective employment agreements."

         The Employment Agreement, except as amended and modified above, remains
in effect.

                                       METROCALL, INC.



Date:                        By:      /s/ FRANCIS A. MARTIN, III
    --------------              ------------------------------------------------
                                       Francis A. Martin, III
                                       Chairman of the Compensation Committee


Date:                        By:       /s/ William L. Collins, III
    --------------              ------------------------------------------------
                                       William L. Collins, III
(Reap. Dec. 8337)

#### Milton Snedeker Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 785179, etc.

(Decided September 23, 1954)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

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

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been *524submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals to reappraisement listed herein are the same in all material respects as the issues in the case of *United States*v. *Schroeder & Tremayne, Inc., et al.,*Suit 4783 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the entered values of the merchandise involved in the cases listed herein are 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 and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise was no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be deemed submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the entered values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
October 25, 1944

No. 49782.

#### Protest 87688-K of Butler Bros.

C. D. 877. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
#### PAUL MANN, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, *ET ALS.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Messrs. Green & Lashey*and *Mr. Robert B. Silverman*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Porzio, Bromberg & Newman; Messrs. Mead, Gleeson, Hansen & Pantages,*and *Mr. Stanley G. Bedford*for the respondents.

April 18, 1967.

Denied.
No. 50159.

#### Protest 980017-G of Yee Sing Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as follows: (1) Bak hop, hoi shin lien, hoi pak lien, sui sut, wai san (stick form), sar sum (uncut), lo hon qua, yuen yuk, and mok qua (not sliced) were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as- crude drugs; and (2) wai san (sliced), yuk chuck, sar sum (cut), and mok qua (sliced) were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34 as drugs, advanced.
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-066

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

JOSE GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ

Defendant.

ORDER

On April 5, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28

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

the Amended Information charging him with being an alien found unlawfully in the United States after

previously being deported in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1326(a) and (b)(1). Defendant, represented by

counsel, waived his 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 his 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-00066-GCS Doc #: 23 Filed: 04/27/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-2-

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS

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

being an alien found unlawfully in the United States after previously being deported. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:11-cr-00066-GCS Doc #: 23 Filed: 04/27/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03922

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 03922\03922_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03922\03922_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 03922\03922_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03922\03922_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03922\03922_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

03922\Certification Statement Plant ID 03922.pdf Plant certification statement

03922\Supplemental Documents\03922_Map.JPG Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03922\Supplemental Documents\03922_WaterBalance.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
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, 2014 (the "Report") of New Mountain
Finance Corporation (the "Registrant"), as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert A. Hamwee, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



/s/ ROBERT A. HAMWEEName:

Robert A. HamweeDate:

March 2, 2015


---



QuickLinks
Before the Third Division,

January 2, 1941

No. 45088.

#### Protest 759904-G/82913 of Seagram Distillers Corp. (Chicago).

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. 59094.

protest 247170-K (New York).

#### Halper Brothers, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 60 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5830]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

National Communications System

[Docket No. NCS-2007-0001]


National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee; Notice 
of Cancellation of Committee Meeting

AGENCY: National Communications System, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Partially Closed Advisory Committee Meeting; Notice 
of Cancellation.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency is issuing this notice to cancel a meeting by 
teleconference of the President's National Security Telecommunications 
Advisory Committee (NSTAC). This meeting was originally announced in 
the Federal Register of March 15, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kelvin Coleman, 703-235-5643.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The March 29, 2007, National Security 
Telecommunications Advisory Committee teleconference has been 
cancelled. This meeting was originally announced in the Federal 
Register of March 15, 2007, in FR Doc 15mr07-70, on page 12179, in the 
second column.

    Dated: March 26, 2007.
Arnella Terrell,
Federal Register Certification Official.
[FR Doc. E7-5830 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 15, 2009

0708 

# Order

July 15, 2009

136029 & (21)(25)

SEVELTA W. LOFTON, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 136029 COA: 277845 WCAC: 01-000331 AUTOZONE, INC., and EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, Defendants-Appellants, and

SECOND INJURY FUND (DUAL EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS), Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of October 1, 2008, this Co urt vacated the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) ma iled April 4, 2007, and remanded this case to the Board of Magistrates for reconsideration in light of Stokes v Chrysler LLC

, 481 Mich 266 (2008), with instruction that the magistrate assigned to the case take additional proofs upon request of either party and issue a decision. This Court retained jurisdiction. On order of th e Court, the assigned magistrate having subseque ntly presided over an evidentiary hearing and having subm itted a new decision in accordance with this Court’s instructions, we REMAND this case to the WCAC for review of any challenges the parties may have to the magistrate’s d ecision pursuant to the standard of review
established in MCL 418.861a. The motion for leave to f ile brief amicus curiae is
GRANTED.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

K ELLY

, C.J., and W EAVER and H ATHAWAY

, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
SHEA & GARDNER
                         1800 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C. 20036

                                 (202) 828-2000
                               Fax: (202) 828-2195



                                 April 23, 2001


Board of Directors
The Prudential Insurance Company of America
751 Broad Street
Newark, NJ 07102


Ladies and Gentlemen:

     We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption "Legal
Matters" in the State of Additional Information filed as part of Post-Effective
Amendment No. 7 to the registration statement on Form N-4 for The Prudential
Discovery Select Group Variable Contract Account (File No. 333-23271). In giving
this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons whose
consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.

                                         Very truly yours,

                                         SHEA & GARDNER

                                         By: /s/ CHRISTOPHER E. PALMER
                                                 ----------------------
                                                 Christopher E. Palmer
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





In connection with the Annual Report of CenterPoint Energy Transition Bond Company, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Marc Kilbride, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:





1.           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.           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Marc KilbrideMarc KilbrideVice President and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)March 25, 2011
---

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

In
connection with the Annual Report of IntelGenx Technologies Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul
Simmons, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

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

|March 29, 2010 | By: | /s/Paul Simmons               
|-------------- | --- | ------------------------------
|               |     | Paul Simmons                  
|               |     | Chief Financial Officer       
|               |     | (Principal Accounting Officer)

---
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Judicial Conference of the United States
 AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: Modification of 
                        **Federal Register**
                         notice that certain dollar amounts in title 11 and title 28, United States Code, are increased. [Original notice appeared in the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         of February 14, 2007].


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following provides (1) An updated list of the adjustments to 11 U.S.C. Section 707(b) and (2) an updated list of the Bankruptcy Forms which will be amended to reflect the adjusted dollar amounts. 11 U.S.C.
Dollar amount to be adjusted
New 
                             (adjusted) dollar amount707(b)—dismissal of a case or conversion to a case under chapter 11 or 13 (means test):(1)—in paragraph (2)(A)(i)(I)
$6,000
$6,575(2)—in paragraph (2)(A)(i)(II)
10,000
10,950(3)—in paragraph (2)(A)(ii)(IV)
1,500
1,650( print page 15163)(4)—in paragraph (2)(B)(iv)(I)
6,000
6,575(5)—in paragraph (2)(B)(iv)(II)
10,000
10,950(6)—in paragraph (5)(B)
1,000
1,100(7)—in paragraph 6(C)
525
575(8)—in paragraph 7(A)(iii)
525
575
 Official Bankruptcy Forms 1, 6C, 6E, 7, 10, 22A, and 22C also will be amended to reflect these adjusted dollar amounts. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis F. Szczebak, Chief, Bankruptcy Judges Division, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1900. Dated: March 26, 2007. Francis F. Szczebak, Chief, Bankruptcy Judges Division.


[FR Doc. E7-5922 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8730 

To require the United States Postal Service to apply certain requirements 

when closing a processing, shipping, delivery, or other facility supporting 

a post office, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 13, 2024 

Ms. HAGEMAN (for herself and Mr. CLEAVER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To require the United States Postal Service to apply certain 

requirements when closing a processing, shipping, delivery, or other facility supporting a post office, 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 ‘‘Postal Processing Pro5 tection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

7 Section 404(d) of title 39, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8730 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘any post of2 fice’’ and inserting ‘‘any post office, or any accept3 ance, processing, shipping, delivery, distribution, or 

4 other facility that is owned or operated by the Postal 

5 Service that supports 1 or more post offices’’; 

6 (2) in paragraph (2)— 

7 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

8 (A), by striking ‘‘a post office’’ and inserting ‘‘a 

9 post office, or an acceptance, processing, ship10 ping, delivery, distribution, or other facility that 

11 is owned or operated by the Postal Service that 

12 supports 1 or more post offices’’; and 

13 (B) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking 

14 ‘‘post offices’’ and inserting ‘‘post offices, or ac15 ceptance, processing, shipping, delivery, dis16 tribution, or other facilities that are owned or 

17 operated by the Postal Service that support 1 

18 or more post offices,’’; 

19 (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘a post office’’ 

20 and inserting ‘‘a post office, or an acceptance, proc21 essing, shipping, delivery, distribution, or other facil22 ity that is owned or operated by the Postal Service 

23 that supports 1 or more post offices,’’; 

24 (4) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘a post office’’ 

25 and inserting ‘‘a post office, or an acceptance, procVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:28 Aug 03, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8730.IH H8730

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8730 IH

1 essing, shipping, delivery, distribution, or other facil2 ity that is owned or operated by the Postal Service 

3 that supports 1 or more post offices,’’; and 

4 (5) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘any post of5 fice’’ and inserting ‘‘any post office, or any accept6 ance, processing, shipping, delivery, distribution, or 

7 other facility that is owned or operated by the Postal 

8 Service that supports 1 or more post offices,’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HERBERT W. BAYTOPS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Myron P.. Maurer*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Leo Eaplowilz*and *Mr. Raymond 8. Londa*for the respondent.

June 5, 1967.

Denied.