alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8908)

Entry No. 05-4671.

#### Border Brokerage Company v. United States

(Decided July 10, 1957)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran*Doub, Assistant Attorney General *(Mollie Strum,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for appraisement involves the valuation of certain merchandise, described as “31 x *l}í*Fir Barrel Heads,” which was entered at a price of $6.70 per set and appraised at the same price.

At the trial, a stipulation was entered into between counsel for the respective parties as follows:

> Mr. Tuttle: * * * I offer to stipulate that the export value for that merchandise was $3.86, U. S. per set, and that there was no foreign value.

> Miss Strum: * * * the Government so stipulates.

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 of the value of the merchandise described as “31 x 1 *%*Fir Barrel Heads” and that such value is United States $3.86 per set.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1738

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Eugene Edwards, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 5, 2006

Filed: May 12, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Eugene Edwards guilty of possessing with intent to distribute

more than 50 grams of cocaine base and more than 500 grams of powder cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and carrying or possessing a firearm in connection

with those drug-trafficking crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The

district court1

 sentenced him to a total of 195 months in prison and 5 years of

supervised release. Edwards raises three arguments on appeal.
-2-

First, Edwards argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to

suppress evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant. We find

no error. See United States v. Solomon, 432 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard

of review). The information within the four corners of the affidavit submitted in

support of the search warrant application established probable cause. To the extent

that extrinsic testimony presented at the second suppression hearing had any bearing

on the probable-cause inquiry, the court expressly discredited it in favor of the

applying officer’s testimony.

Second, Edwards argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his drug

convictions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, as

we must, we cannot say that a reasonable juror must have harbored a reasonable

doubt regarding an essential element of the offenses. See United States v. Howard,

427 F.3d 554, 557 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review; elements of offense).

Third, Edwards argues that his firearm conviction is invalid under Bailey v.

United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), because he did not actively employ the firearm.

Edwards is mistaken because he was not convicted of “using” the firearm: he was

convicted of “carrying” or “possessing” it, an offense that does not require active

employment. See United States v. Alaniz, 235 F.3d 386, 389 (8th Cir. 2000), cert.

denied, 533 U.S. 911 (2001).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 13.1



Certification by the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Libo Yang, Chief Executive Officer of China Kanghui Holdings (the Company), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Companys annual report on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: June 3, 2011



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Libo Yang          
|Name:  |  | Libo Yang              
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
(Reap. Dec. 9229)

#### Harvard Clothing Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 22616.

(Decided October 7, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

*558Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision under stipulation made between counsel for the Government and the representative of the plaintiff herein as follows: That the correct dutiable export value of the item which is invoiced as B306 cloth, 259% yards, which was entered at 25 shillings per yard, and appraised at 25 shillings, 3 pence per yard, is the entered value, namely, 25 shillings per yard, less 4 per centum, plus packing, and that there was no higher foreign value.

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 involved merchandise, and that such value is represented by the entered value for the item in question, namely, 25 shillings per yard, less 4 per centum, plus packing.

Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise, it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
H. R. 8932 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To establish an earlier application processing cycle for the FAFSA. 

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 ‘‘FAFSA Deadline Act’’. 

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF EARLIER APPLICATION PROCESSING 

CYCLE. 

Section 483(d)(4) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 1090(d)(4)) is amended by striking ‘‘not later than January 

1 of the applicant’s planned year of enrollment, to the maximum 

extent practicable, on or around October 1 prior to the applicant’s 

planned year of enrollment’’ and inserting ‘‘not later than October 

1 prior to the applicant’s planned year of enrollment’’. 

SEC. 3. CERTIFICATION AND TESTIMONY REQUIREMENTS. 

Section 483(d)(4) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 1090(d)(4)) is further amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) CERTIFICATION AND TESTIMONY REQUIREMENTS.— 

The Secretary shall, with respect to each application processing cycle, prior to the initiation of such processing 

cycle— 

‘‘(i) on a date that is not later than September 

1— 

‘‘(I) certify to the authorizing committees that 

the Department will meet the October 1 deadline 

specified in subparagraph (A) for such processing 

cycle; or 

‘‘(II) certify to such committees that the 

Department will not meet such deadline; and 

‘‘(ii) in the case of a certification described in clause 

(i)(II), on a date that is not later than September 

30, testify before the authorizing committees on— 

‘‘(I) the anticipated failure to meet such deadline; and 
H. R. 8932—2 

‘‘(II) the financial impact such failure will have 

on students and families.’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Case: 2:11-cv-00179-EAS-NMK Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/06/11 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T21:19:37-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
March 16, 1951

No. 55368.

#### The British Industries Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 142872-K.

Plaintiff’s' application for rehearing denied.
No. 48642.

#### Protest 742581-G of Antolini & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269. In accordance therewith the court held that -an allowance of *2)4*percent should have been made in the net weight for the foreign substances on the outside. Following *Kraft Phenix Cheese Corporation*v. *United States*(T. D. 47955) it was held that an allowance for the weight of the paper or foil, or both, should have been made by the collector in computing the duty thereon. The protest was therefore sustained in accordance with stipulation of counsel.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Mark S. Robinow, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kona Grill, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information;andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.                                                       /s/ Mark S. Robinow   Mark S. Robinow   *Chief Financial Officer*   Date: November 2, 2006
#### The People *ex rel.*James Ryan, Resp’t, *v.*Frederick W. Bleckwenn, Treasurer, etc., App’lt.

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

*Filed February 10, 1890.)*

Municipal corpobations—Assessments—Laws 1874, chap. 326.

Redemption from a sale for assessments under chap. 326, Laws 1874, can be made in improvement certificates issued under that act to the extent of the amount due on the assessment for principal and interest accrued at the time of sale.

Appeal from final order granting motion for *mandamus.*

Proceeding to compel the treasurer and receiver of taxes of Long Island City to accept improvement certificates for redemption of property sold for nonpayment of assessment under chap. 326, Laws 1874.

The following opinion was delivered at special term.

Cullen, J.—While the mode of sale was governed by the act of 1886, the disposition of the funds arising upon the sale is prescribed by the original act of 1874, which provided for the improvement for which the assessment has been laid. By that act the moneys produced either by the payment of the assessments or by the sale for an unpaid assessment do not pass into the general treasury of the city, but are held as a separate and distinct fund to be applied only to satisfaction of the improvement certificates; by § 9 of the act it is provided that those certificates shall “ At all times ” be receivable at par and interest in payment of the assessments!

The language of the statute is very broad “ Shall be receivable at all times ” in payment of the assessments. I do not think the *827'certificate on the sale is a substantially different thing from the assessment. ■

The owner has the right to redeem within a given time, and until the expiration of the time for redemption is not divested of his property, the redemption is substantially a payment of the assessment with the expenses of the sale and interest. I think therefore a payment in improvement certificates good, and no harm or loss can occur to the city if enough is paid in cash to defray the expenses of the sale and the interest payable to the purchaser. This the petitioner is willing to do. To the extent of the amount due on the assessment for principal and interest accrued at the time of sale, the redemption in my opinion can be made in the certificates.

Motion granted.

Dykman, J.

The order appealed from should be affirmed on the opinion of the court below, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Pratt, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., dissents.
Before the First Division,

January 12, 1940

No. 43000.

#### Protests 971041-G, etc., of Dan Brechner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of sirens the same as those the subject of Abstract 40480. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was therefore sustained.
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

          I, Peyton R. Patterson, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer hereby certify that NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.

|   |   | / s / Peyton R. Patterson                     |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Peyton R. Patterson                                                                                                                               |
|   |   | Chairman of the Board, President and                                                                                                              |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                           |

Date: November 6, 2007

The foregoing certification is being furnishedsolely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report oras a separate disclosure document.

Note: A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided toNewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0502

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

NICHOLAS LEE WINZENBURG,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 12, 2021, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 7 2021

10/07/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0502
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8899 

To provide for the issuance of a Ko’ko’ Bird Semipostal Stamp, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2024 

Mr. MOYLAN (for himself and Mr. SABLAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 

and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to 

be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for the issuance of a Ko’ko’ Bird Semipostal 

Stamp, 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 ‘‘Ko’ko’ Bird Initiative 

5 to Restore Bio-Diversity Semipostal Stamp Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘Ko’ko’ BIRDS Stamp Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8899 IH

1 SEC. 2. KO’KO’ BIRD SEMIPOSTAL STAMP. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The United States Postal Service 

3 shall issue a semipostal stamp (hereinafter in this Act re4 ferred to as the ‘‘Ko’ko’ Bird Semipostal Stamp’’) in ac5 cordance with this section. 

6 (b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The issuance and sale 

7 of the Ko’ko’ Bird Semipostal Stamp shall be governed 

8 by the provisions of section 416 of title 39, United States 

9 Code, and regulations issued under such section. 

10 (c) DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS.— 

11 (1) IN GENERAL.—All amounts becoming avail12 able from the sale of the Ko’ko’ Bird Semipostal 

13 Stamp (as determined under section 416(d) of such 

14 title 39) shall be transferred to the Division of 

15 Aquatic and Wildlife Resources of the Guam Depart16 ment of Agriculture for wildlife conservation efforts, 

17 programs for native bird rehabilitation and breeding 

18 efforts, and brown tree snake eradication, through 

19 payments which shall be made at least twice a year. 

20 (2) PROCEEDS NOT TO BE OFFSET.—In accord21 ance with section 416(d)(4) of such title 39, 

22 amounts becoming available from the sale of the 

23 Ko’ko’ Bird Semipostal Stamp (as so determined) 

24 shall not be taken into account in any decision relat25 ing to the level of appropriations or other Federal 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8899 IH

1 funding to be furnished in any year to the United 

2 States Postal Service. 

3 (d) DURATION.—The Ko’ko’ Bird Semipostal Stamp 

4 shall be made available to the public for a period of not 

5 less than four years, beginning not later than 12 months 

6 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

7 (e) SEMIPOSTAL STAMP DEFINED.—In this Act, the 

8 term ‘‘semipostal stamp’’ refers to a stamp described in 

9 section 416(a)(1) of title 39, United States Code. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
----

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form S-8 of IntelGenx Technologies Corp. of our reportdated March 22, 2007 relating to our audits of the financial statements ofIntelGenx Technologies Corp. (Formerly Big Flash Corporation) as of and for theyears ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 appearing in this Annual Report on Form10-KSB of IntelGenx Technologies Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

Signed: RSM Richter LLP 

Chartered Accountants 

Montreal, Quebec March 28, 2007 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

      I, Peyton R. Patterson, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer hereby certify that NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.’s report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.

|   | / s / Peyton R. Patterson            |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   | Peyton R. Patterson                  |
|   | Chairman of the Board, President and |
|   | Chief Executive Officer              |

Date:   May 10, 2005

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered May 10, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00147-CV

SLD, LLP, Appellant

V.

DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. TX-19-01904

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s May 5, 2021 second agreed motion to extend 

time to file its brief. Appellant seeks a sixty-day extension to allow for settlement 

negotiations. 

We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant to file either its brief, 

motion to dismiss, or status report no later than July 9, 2021.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH

JUSTICE
No. 50566.

#### Protest 91841-K of Stone & Downer Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of dog food similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 175, C. A. D. 304), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as claimed.