alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 40268.

#### Protests 767236-G(B), etc., of L. Oppleman, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Kwong*v. *United States*(C. D. 42) the mineral specimens in question were held free of duty under paragraph 1719 as claimed.
Exhibit 31.1 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, JohnR. Tuttle, President and Chief Executive Officer of DayStar Technologies, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of DayStar Technologies, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2005; 

 

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 thestatements 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 thefinancial 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 officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin 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, includingits 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 conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, 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 whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 13, 2005 

 

/s/ John R. Tuttle

John R. Tuttle, President

and Chief ExecutiveOfficer
No. 55353.

#### S. Jackson & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 162905-K/13051 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kelvitt Burgess, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 515]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carson, J.), rendered February 23, 1994, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in that there was no evidence establishing his requisite mental state. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Licitra,*47 NY2d 554). Moreover, the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

In addition, the defendant’s challenges to the court’s charge are unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit.

The defendant correctly notes that it is well settled that "a court may not impose *consecutive*sentences where the same act is the basis of convictions obtained on a multiple count indictment” *(People ex rel. Maurer v Jackson,*2 NY2d 259, 267). However, what the defendant overlooks is that, by his own admission, he possessed the loaded gun for a week prior to the shooting. Such an act, which constitutes a separate and distinct crime, is not a material element of his manslaughter conviction, and therefore the court properly imposed consecutive sentences *(see,*Penal Law § 70.25 [2]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpre*355served for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
#### Certain Lands Upon Which Taxes and/or Special Assessments Are Delinquent v. City of Sebastian.

176 So. 121

Opinion Filed September 3, 1937.

*Alto Adams*and *D. C. Smith,*for Appellant;

*Vocelle & Mitchell,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

City of Sebastian, a municipal corporation, filed bill of complaint under provisions of Chapter 15038,. Acts of 1931, against certain lands to enforce payment of delinquent taxes and delinquent speciál assessments.

In response to notice in that case W.- P. Sloan and his wife, Mattie Mae Sloan, filed an answer in the following language:

“1. That they are without knowledge as to the several allegations of fact contained in said Bill, of-Complaint.

“And for further answer to the said bill of complaint the defendant Mattie Mae Sloan does aver that she claims an interest in and to said property by virtue of a superior claim of the .complainant, to-wit, a State and County Tax Deed, *234which is hereto attached, marked Exhibit ‘A’ and made a part of this Answer.”

On motion the second paragraph of the answer was stricken and thereupon an amended answer was filed, paragraph 2 of which was as follows :

“That the defendant Mattie Mae Sloan is the owner of the absolute title to the following described property located in Indian River County, Florida, and involved in this suit, to-wit: Part of Wauregan East of Railway as in Deed Book 22, page 78 (except to Sallee, *et al.),*Town of Wauregan; that the said defendant obtained title to said property by virtue of a State and County Tax Deed which was duly and regularly issued to- her by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, on June 1st, 1936; that said Tax Deed was issued upon Tax Certificate No. 162, dated September 4th, 1933, and that said defendant purchased said Certificate and paid the sum of $221.18 for said Certificate and on subsequent taxes covering said property, all of which is more particularly shown by the original Tax Deed heretofore filed herein with the original answer of W. P. Sloan and Mattie Mae Sloan, his wife, and marked Exhibit ‘A’ and■ herebymade a part hereof; that the title of the defendant Mattie Mae Sloan to said above described property by virtue of said Tax Deed is superior to all claims, right, title and interest which the Complainant herein has in said property.”

On motion that paragraph of the amended answer was stricken.

Thereafter, final decree was entered. Appeal is from final decree.

The allegations of the answer constituted no defense to the bill of complaint and the paragraph involved was properly stricken on authority of the case of City of Miami v. *235Certain Lands Upon Which City of Miami Taxes and Liens Are Delinquent, filed January 8, 1937, reported 171 Sou. 798. Interested persons shall have five days from the filing of the Mandate in the Court below to' redeem under the térms of the final decree.

Therefore, the decree should be and is affirmed.

So ordered.

Terrell,- Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
(Reap. Dec. 8504)

#### Radiomarine Corp. of America *v.*United States

Entry No. 813918-1/2.

(Decided December 16, 1955)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

The proper value for duty purposes of certain depth-sounding devices and fish-locating equipment is before the court for determination.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact wherein it was agreed that, as to the depth-sounding devices covered by appeal for a reappraisement 238638-A, the market value or 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, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was for each depth-sounding device $2,027.65 less nondutiable charges of $83.20, United States currency, and that there was no higher foreign value.

It was further stipulated and agreed by the parties that, as to the fish-locating equipment, “Fischlupe,” 110 volts, wooden ship, covered by appeal for a reappraisement 238639-A, the market value or 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, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was $886, less nondutiable charges of $55.80, United States currency, and that there was no higher foreign value.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that export value, as that value is *440defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the merchandise in issue, and that said value is $2,027.65, less nondutiable charges of $83.20, United States currency, as to each of the depth-sounding devices covered by appeal for a reappraisement 238638-A, and $886, less nondutiable charges of $55.80, United States currency, as to the fish-locating equipment covered by appeal for a reappraisement 238639-A.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report")and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted in Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Tobey J. Russ, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

|          |                                                                                                                     |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1.  | Thereport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|          |                                                                                                                                                   |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.  | Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. |

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

Date: May 14, 2004

/s/ Tobey J.Russ                                            Tobey J. Russ (Principal ExecutiveOfficer)

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8908 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8908

  To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to limit the 
funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to an amount equal 
                                 to $1.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2024

  Mr. Self (for himself, Mr. Tiffany, and Mr. Donalds) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to limit the 
funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to an amount equal 
                                 to $1.

    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 ``Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
Withdrawal Cap Adjustment Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. LIMITING FUNDING OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU TO AN 
              AMOUNT EQUAL TO $1.

    Section 1017(a) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 
(12 U.S.C. 5497(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the amount determined 
        by the Director to be reasonably necessary to carry out the 
        authorities of the Bureau under Federal consumer financial law, 
        taking into account such other sums made available to the 
        Bureau from the preceding year (or quarter of such year)'' and 
        inserting ``an amount equal to $1'';
            (2) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
            (3) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
        (2) and (3), respectively.
                                 <all>
```
(Reap. Dec. 10178)

#### Humble Oil *&*Refining Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 224-C.

(Decided February 20, 1962)

*Sharretts, Paley <£ Carter*for the plaintiff.

*William H. Orrieh, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*570Johnson, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and *between*counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the above named appeal for reappraisement consists of A.P.I. Line Pipe exported from Erance in the second quarter of 1957.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that 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, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was $123.78 per 100 feet less nondutiable charges as invoiced and that there was no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal may be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that tbe export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein and that such value is $123.78 per 100 feet, less nondutiable charges, as invoiced.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 56552.

protests 177862-K (A), etc. (New York).

#### E. Behrman & Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 4.4

                               ARS NETWORKS, INC.

         The undersigned  hereby agrees that for a period commencing on the date
hereof and expiring on the  termination  of the Equity Line of Credit  Agreement
dated March ___, 2001,  between ARS Networks,  Inc., (the "Company") and Cornell
Capital Partners,  L.P., (the "Investor") (the "Lock-up Period"),  he, she or it
will not,  directly  or  indirectly,  without the prior  written  consent of the
Investor,  issue,  offer,  agree or offer to sell, sell, grant an option for the
purchase  or sale of,  transfer,  pledge,  assign,  hypothecate,  distribute  or
otherwise  encumber  or dispose of except  pursuant  to Rule 144 of the  General
Rules and  Regulations  under the  Securities Act of 1933, any securities of the
Company, including common stock or options, rights, warrants or other securities
underlying,  convertible into, exchangeable or exercisable for or evidencing any
right to purchase or subscribe for any common stock (whether or not beneficially
owned by the undersigned), or any beneficial interest therein (collectively, the
"Securities").

         In  order  to  enable  the  aforesaid  covenants  to be  enforced,  the
undersigned  hereby  consents  to the  placing of legends  and/or  stop-transfer
orders with the transfer agent of the Company's  securities  with respect to any
of the  Securities  registered in the name of the  undersigned  or  beneficially
owned by the undersigned,  and the undersigned hereby confirms the undersigned's
investment in the Company.

Dated: _______________, 2001.

                                    Signature


                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Peter Hoult
                                    Address:
                                            ------------------------------------

                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    City, State, Zip Code:


                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Print Social Security Number or Taxpayer
                                    I.D. Number
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 Equal Energy Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2012 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott Smalling, Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Equal Energy Ltd., 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 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Scott Smalling
Scott Smalling Senior Vice
President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Equal Energy Ltd.

December 26, 2013
No. 38945.

#### Protest 824148-G of Wagner-Watrous, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallingeb, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on -the authority of *United States*v. *Oppleman*(25 C. C. P. A. 168, T. D. 49271) the .-aneroid barometers in question were held dutiable at 27)4 percent under paragraph :372 as claimed.
No. 65618.

#### Louis Greenberg *&*Son, Inc., and Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/28816 and 60/27271 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, G. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass ornamental novelties similar in all material *480respects to those the subject of Abstract 62984, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROBERT D. WHITROCK, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

8 USCMA 185, 23 CMR 409

No. 9630

Decided July 26, 1957

*Major R. D. Humphreys,*USMC, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused.' With him on the brief was *Lieutenant (jg) W. W. McNeilly, Jr.,*USNR.

*First Lieutenant Daniel P. Reardon, Jr.,*USMCR, argued the cause for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

GEORGE W. LatimeR, Judge:

The accused was convicted by a general court-martial of a number of violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The only one of importance to this decision is the transgression of Article 122, which proscribes robbery. The sentence imposed was confinement at hard labor for five years, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority reduced the confinement to four years and otherwise approved the sentence. The board of review affirmed.

This is a companion case to United States v Smith, 8 USCMA 178, 23 CMR 402, decided this day, in that Whitrock was involved with Smith in stealing a pistol from a guard by means of force and violence. The two boards of review reached diametrically opposite results, but the question certified by The Judge Advocate General of the Navy is identical with that certified to this Court in the Smith case. It concerns the convening authority’s directive to trial counsel to amend a charge and-specification of larceny to robbery so as to have the charge conform with evidence developed at the pretrial hearing.

The determination we make in the *186Smith case is fully dispositive of the question certified here. Accordingly, the question is answered in the negative, and the decision of the board of review in this case is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Judge FERGUSON concurs in the result.
No. 46837.

#### Protest 837030-G of R. W. Gresham (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

When the case was called for trial the protest was submitted without evidence in support of the claim made. There was nothing in the record to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s decision. The protest was therefore overruled.