alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THOMAS S. CAMPISI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued January 24, 1967

Decided May 1, 1967.

*239
      *Mr. Michael A. Querques*argued the cause for appellant *{Mr. Daniel E. Isles,*on the brief; *Messrs. Querques and Isles,*attorneys).

*Mr. Brendan T. Byrne,*Esses County Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent *{Mr. Barry H. Evenchick,*Assistant County Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

*240The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted of bookmaking in violation of *N. J. S.*2A:112-3 and sentenced to serve one to two years and to pay a fine of $1,000. We certified his appeal before argument in the Appellate Division.

Defendant seeks to question a search made under a search warrant. The challenge comes too late. A motion to suppress must be made before trial and may be made at trial only if the court finds it could not reasonably have been made prior thereto. *R. R. 3*:2A-6 (a). No motion was made before trial nor was there any motion or objection at the trial itself. In any event, there is no factual basis for the challenge. The officers demanded entry, identifying themselves as the police, did not attempt to break in until defendant failed to respond to their demand, and in fact were admitted by defendant before they had succeeded in forcing the door. Meanwhile defendant burned something in the kitchen and the officers detected the odor from the outside. The belated attack upon the mode of executing the warrant is specious.

The trial court properly denied the motion for acquittal. The evidence supports the conviction. The testimony that the officers took a series of telephone calls for “Tom” from bettors was properly received. *State v. Carbone,*38 N. *J.*19, 26 (1962); *State v. Smith,*21 *N. J.*326, 334 (1956); *State v. Tamburello,*69 *N. J. Super.*166, 170 *(App. Div.*1961); Annotation, 13 *A. L. R. 2d*1409, 1414 (1950). The trial court did not err in permitting the officers to give their expert understanding of the messages. With respect to the claim that the State failed to prove the bets were written down by defendant, the answer is that in fact an inference could be drawn that it was precisely such a record that defendant burned after the police demanded entry, but in any event a tangible record of the bets made by a bookmaker is not prerequisite to guilt, as we this day made clear in *State v. DeStasio,*49 *N. J.*247 (1967).

*241The final point made is that the sentencing procedure was improper. The objections are the same ones rejected in *State v. De*Stasio, *supra.*

The judgment is affirmed.

*For*affirmance—Chief Justice Weintbaub and Justices Jacobs, Ebancis, Hall, Schettino and Haneman—6.

*For*reversal—Mone.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Monitronics International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael R. Meyers,Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                          | By:    | /s/  Michael R. Meyers                       |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                          |   | Michael  R. Meyers                           |
|                          |   | Chief Financial Officer and Vice President   |
|                          |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
| Date:  February 13, 2007 |   |                                         |

 

 

1

----
No. 61972.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 326550-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is not an entirety, but is susceptible of use and is used separately. Following *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 

          - [CBP Dec. 07-15] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice of re-approval Intertek Caleb Brett of Pasadena, Texas, as a commercial gauger.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, Intertek Caleb Brett, 3741 Red Bluff Road, Pasadena, Texas 77503, has been re-approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity for gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger services this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *http://www.cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​org_​and_​operations.xml*.                     

# DATES:

The re-approval of Intertek Caleb Brett as a commercial gauger became effective on February 18, 2005. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for February 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene J. Bondoc, PhD, or Randall Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060. 

Dated: March 22, 2007. 

Ira S. Reese, 

Executive Director,  Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. E7-5710 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
(Reap. Dec. 9292)

#### Pan Pacific Overseas Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 12609.

(Decided January 15, 1959)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain birch plywood exported from Finland and entered at the port of Boston

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise is foreign *444value, as defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value therefor is the appraised value, less 4 per centum, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Gerald Pohida, Appellant *v.*Zoning Board of Kline Township, Appellee.

Argued April 6, 1981,

before Judges Bogers, Williams, Jr. and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three.

*Stephen P. Ellwood, Krasno & Krasno,*for appellant.

*Joseph P. Semasek,*for appellee.

*263May 27, 1981:

Opinion by

Judge Rogers,

Gerald Pohida filed an application for a variance which would allow him to operate a junkyard on his commercially zoned land in Kline Township, Schuylkill County. A hearing, attended by appellant, his counsel, and protesting neighbors, was held before the Zoning Hearing Board on February 14, 1978. As the hearing judge in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County later found,1 Pohida, during the course of the hearing, in dissatisfaction with either the conduct or substance of the proceeding, gathered together the maps and exhibits which constituted his documentary evidence, told the Board “I don’t want the God-damned junkyard” and left the meeting. Three months later Pohida’s counsel wrote to the Zoning Hearing Board asking for a copy of any decision it might have made. The Board responded in writing to the effect that the Board had concluded that Pohida was not entitled to his junkyard because his land was too close to a residential area. Pohida thereupon filed a zoning appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, asserting that the variance should be deemed approved because the Zoning Hearing Board had not rendered a decision in writing within forty-five days of the February 14, 1978 hearing, citing Section 908(9) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, *as amended,*53 P.S. §10908(9), or in the alternative that the Zoning Hearing Board’s conclusion that he was not entitled to the variance was without merit.

Judge John E. Lavelle who conducted the hearing below limited his inquiry to that of whether Pohida had withdrawn his application at the Febru*264ary *14,*1978 hearing, leaving nothing for the Zoning Hearing Board to decide and therefore nothing to appeal. Judge Lavelue, based on the description of Pohida’s abrupt departure from the hearing, found that he had withdrawn his application, and that no decision of the matter was required of the Board. He dismissed the appeal. We agree with this determination.

Having withdrawn his appeal, Pohida may make a new application for a variance for a junkyard; and we are informed at oral argument that he has indeed now applied for a use of his property other than as a junkyard.

Order affirmed.

Order

And Now, this 27th day of May, 1981, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County is affirmed.

1

 No verbatim record was kept by the Zoning Hearing Board. The court below made a record of the issue it heard.
#### George Winter, *Respondent, v.*Margaret Eckert, *Appellant.*

Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Brady, J.
John Doe and Jane Doe, Individually and as Next Friends of XXX, a



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas** 

December 18, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00673

- CV

USAA TEXAS LLOYD’S COMPANY

, Appellant

v.

John DOE and Jane Doe, Individually and as Next Friends of XXX, a Minor, Appellees

From the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 392757 Honorable Walden Shelton, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This court routinely examines the clerk’s record to determine our jurisdiction over newly

filed appeals. After examining the clerk’s record in this case, we issued a show cause order questioning our jurisdiction over this appeal because it appeared , based on the stamp placed on appellant’s notice of appeal by the trial court clerk

, that appellant’s notic e of appeal was untimely filed

. Although the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely, it also appe ared that it

was filed within the fifteen

- day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3. We, therefore, gave appellant an opportunity to file a response and offer a reasonable explanation for fail ing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26).

On December 1 5 , 2015, appellant filed a response to our show cause order. I n its response, appellant sta te s that its notice of appeal was timely filed because it was delivered to its counsel’s electronic service provider in a timely manner . Furthermore, a ttached to appellant’s

response is documentation establishing that appellant’s not ice of appeal was in fact filed in a timely manner

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.2 (providing that, as a general rule, an electronic ally filed

document is deemed filed when transmitted to the filing party’s electronic service provider). In light of the documentation provided

, we conclude that appellant’s notice of appeal was timely

filed.Our previous order suspending all appellate deadlines in this appeal is LIFTED. Appellant’s brief is due thirty days from the date of this order.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereun to set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 18th day of December, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 35.1





1123 – Servicer Compliance Statement








I, Beth Reitzel, Director of Operations of The Student Loan Corporation (“SLC”), the servicer under the servicing agreement and the administrator under the administration agreement each among SLC, SLC Student Loan Receivables I, Inc. and certain others (together, the “servicing agreements”) relating to 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 Private Student Loan Trust 2006-A, 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, (each, a publicly issued “trust”), certify that:





(a)
A review of SLC’s servicing activities as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Reporting Period”) and of SLC’s performance under the servicing agreements has been made under my supervision.





(b)
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, SLC has fulfilled all of its servicing obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010.








March 17, 2011





By: /s/ Beth Reitzel


Name:  Beth Reitzel


Title:  Director of Operations
No. 54158.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

protests 101324-K, etc. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8868 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

609 Portsmouth Avenue in Greenland, New Hampshire, as the ‘‘Chief 

Michael Maloney Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2024 

Mr. PAPPAS (for himself and Ms. KUSTER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 609 Portsmouth Avenue in Greenland, New 

Hampshire, as the ‘‘Chief Michael Maloney Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CHIEF MICHAEL MALONEY POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 609 Portsmouth Avenue in 

7 Greenland, New Hampshire, shall be known and desVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:08 Aug 09, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8868.IH H8868

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8868 IH

1 ignated as the ‘‘Chief Michael Maloney Post Office Build2 ing’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Chief Michael Maloney 

7 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LTD.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City
Development Partners, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 3, 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: May 16, 2005



By:

/s/ MICHAEL J. SHORTMichael J. Short Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES — OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (“the Company”), each hereby certifies that to his/her knowledge, on the date hereof:
 
 (a) the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section l3(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 May 17, 2010

By:
/s/ CHARLES N. HAZENCharles N. HazenPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 17, 2010

By:
s/ SHERRI W. SCHUGARTSherri W. SchugartChief Financial Officer
**ZF 8 -** **Speed Auto**  **Trans Analysis Create 6**  **- Speed**  **with Similar Technology Status Update**  **– 16Sept2010** brake A brake B twin damper clutch E clutch C clutch D gearset 1 gearset 2 gearset 3 gearset 4 Cross section – parts 8 speed

torque converter clutch mechatronics oil pump park lock ring
Transmission Control Unit (TCU) 3 - line torque converter Source: ZF at SSO Symposium, 2008

## ZF 8 -speed Auto Transmission
• Developed since the Lepellerier- based 6 - speed transmission could not be optimized to satisfy stiffening fuel consumption and CO2 emission goals. • ZF developers were searching for the “ideal planetary gear set”. • Transmission control unit (TCU) built into transmission “Mechatronic Module”.

## ZF 8 -speed Auto Transmission
• Built in hybrid functionally with no change to the standard transmission design. • Full hybrid requires the same installation space as a conventional version. • Hydraulic Impulse Storage (HIS) integrated with stop/start function yields 11% fuel savings.

## ZF 8 -speed Auto Transmission
• External starting element can be eliminated by utilizing one of the internal multi - disk brakes as a wet starting system. • Transmission pump is a double stroke vane type with roller style gear chain • Torque converter is 3 - line for optimal cooling and flooding even with a closed converter clutch.

## ZF 8 -speed Auto Transmission
• Sensors – Speed, hall, temperature and position. • Hydraulics - 2 valve housings and a separator, 14 valves and 7 pressure regulators. Lower has a solenoid housing with 7 valves and inserts. • Dynamic pressure equalization chambers and disk springs (piston return).

## ZF 8 -speed Auto Transmission
• Shift elements contain multidisc clutches and brakes with separate outer and lined disks. Ondular washer for shifting quality. • 5 shift elements and 4 simple planetary gear sets. • 2 open shift elements per gear. • 2 Brakes 3 Clutches

## ZF 8 -speed Auto Transmission
• Carriers 1 & 2 are molded. • Gear set 3 is low load ( transmits power to the 4 th gear and upwards).

– All Aluminum die cast • Gear set 4 has drive shaft and parking brake integrated (2 part welded). • All Gear sets can be utilized as 3 or 4 planet designs.

## ZF 8 -speed Auto Transmission
• Gear set 1 has a 5 planet option. • Reported that lost torque is reduced by 1/3 compared to a 6 -speed. • Reported Gear set efficiency exceeds 98%.

## ZF 8 -speed Auto Transmission
• Next Steps

– Teardown of ZF 6 -speed (Completed 14Sept2010 ).

– Catalog and compare 8 - speed vs 6 -speed Catalog and compare 8 speed vs 6 components for scaling and analysis (current).

– Compile possible eliminations/reductions in content and material to achieve 6 -speed auto transmission (current).

## ZF 8 -speed Auto Transmission

– Meet with P. Latham to discuss other possible content/design changes to incorporate into analysis.

– Revise assumption and enter data into MAQS worksheet.

– Summarize into CMAT for review

## ZF 8 -speed Auto Transmission
• Spare Charts

## Clutch schedule Gear brake

A brake B clutch C clutch D clutch E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R = closed

= openZF 6H28
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES E. MOORE, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

14 USCMA 418, 34 CMR 198

No. 17,379

March 6, 1964

*Lieutenant John Thomas Montag,*USNR, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*419
      *Lieutenant Colonel Remmel H. Dudley,*USMC, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Convicted of numerous offenses in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the accused stands before us sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge (suspended), confinement at hard labor for six months, forfeiture of $55.00 per month for six months, and reduction. At the trial, his mental responsibility was reasonably placed in issue by the evidence, and the law officer instructed the court members with respect thereto. Plowever, he included in his advice, as a governing test, that the accused could not be said to have been unable to adhere to the right if he “would not have committed the act if the circumstances were such that he could have expected immediate detection and apprehension.” Such instruction was prejudicially erroneous. United States v Jensen, 14 USCMA, 353, 34 CMR 133; United States v Jordan, 14 USCMA 393, 34 CMR 173, decided February 14, 1964.

The question of mental responsibility, however, related only to the offenses set forth in Charges III through VI and the specifications thereunder. As to the unauthorized absence offenses set forth under Charge I and the missing movement offense set forth under Charge II, the accused’s mental responsibility was not placed in issue, and the instructional error could not have affected the findings of guilty relating to the offenses. Accordingly, they may be affirmed.

The findings of guilty of Charges III through VI and the specifications thereunder are set aside. The decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The board of review may reassess the sentence on the remaining findings of guilty or direct a rehearing on the charges set aside and the penalty.