alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10168)

#### Conti Rubber Products, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 762843, etc.

(Decided February 14, 1962)

*■Ior Jan & KVmgaman*for the plaintiff.

*'William S. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement, enumerated in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain bicycle tires and tubes, imported from Germany.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact, wherein it has been agreed as follows:

> 1— That the merchandise the subject of the reappraisement appeals enumerated in Schedule A, hereto annexed and made a part hereof, consists of bicycle tires and tubes, exported from Germany during the period from December 1958 through October 1959.

> 2— That said merchandise is not included in the Final List (T.D. 54521), published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956; and that on the dates of exportation herein such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for exportation to the United States pursuant to Section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the said Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> 3— That the export values for the dates of exportation herein are represented by the Entered values.

Upon tbe agreed facts of record, the court finds and holds that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (19 *554TJ.S.C. § 1401a(b)), is tbe proper basis of value for tbe bicycle tires and tubes in issue and that said value is represented by tbe entered values.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### Kleanthi Xenopoulos, Appellant, v Board of Managers of the 150 East 56th Street Condominium et al., Defendants, and Helmsley-Spear Conversion Sales Corporation et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 790]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered June 16, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, dismissed the complaint as against defendants Helmsley-Spear Conversion Sales Corporation, Helmsley-Spear Inc., and Milton Sherman, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss at the conclusion of plaintiffs case since plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of either fraud or breach of contract *(see, Rhabb v New York City Hous. Auth.,*41 NY2d 200, 202). The use of the unit purchased by plaintiff is governed by the condominium offering plan which specifically permitted only residential or professional office use. Plaintiff could not justifiably rely on alleged oral representations to the contrary, that the premises could be used for commercial purposes. Nor did the evidence establish that defendants agreed to take any steps to legalize the commercial use of plaintiffs unit. The complaint was also properly dismissed because plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence of damages, omitting any evidence as to the difference between the consideration paid and the value of the unit as a professional unit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.
#### KENNETH R. WRIGHT, former Sergeant, U. S. Army, Petitioner v UNITED STATES, Respondent

19 USCMA 328, 41 CMR 328

Miscellaneous Docket No. 69-78

March 20, 1970

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

A general court-martial at Fort Hood, Texas, convicted the petitioner in 1954 of rape after he and an accomplice lured the victim from her home by informing her that her husband had been injured on maneuvers and offering to take her to him in the field. The court sentenced him to a dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for twenty years, and total forfeitures.

The petitioner has applied to this Court for extraordinary relief based on *329the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in O’Callahan v Parker, 395 US 258, 23 L Ed 2d 291, 89 S Ct 1683 (1969), and his assertions that the offense for which he was convicted had no military significance.

Mercer v Dillon, 19 USCMA 264, 41 CMR 264 (1970), holds that the principle of the *O’Callahan*opinion applies only to those cases still subject to direct review by this Court on the date of that opinion. The result in *Mercer*dictates the disposition of this petition, which is denied.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

In this petition, as in Mercer v Dillon, 19 USCMA 264, 41 CMR 264 (1970), the question now before us revolves about the prospective or retrospective application of the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Callahan v Parker, 395 US 258, 23 L Ed 2d 291, 89 S Ct 1683 (1969), that a court-martial is without jurisdiction to proceed unless the charged offense is “service-connected.” The majority of this Court have denied the accused’s petition for extraordinary relief, in accordance with their holding in *Mercer*that the principle of the *O’Callahan*opinion applies only to those cases still subject to review by this Court on the date of the *O’Callahan*opinion.

For the same reasons as set forth in my dissent in Mercer v Dillon, supra, I must dissent in this case.

Since I believe that the court-martial lacked jurisdiction over the charged offenses (O’Callahan v Parker, supra; United States v Borys, 18 USCMA 547, 40 CMR 259 (1969)), I would grant the petition, set aside the findings and sentence, and order the charges dismissed.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 I, John S. Cooper, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Portec Rail Products, Inc.;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 the statements 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 the financial 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 officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in 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, including its 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 conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 August 12, 2005
    
    /s/ John S. CooperDate
    
    John S. CooperPresident and Chief Executive Officer
No. 46247.

#### Protests 909103-G, etc., of M. E. Dey & Co. et al. (Milwaukee, etc.).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests. ,
No. 64271.

protests 58/4272, etc. (Detroit).

#### John V. Carr & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

*500Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
AUDITORS CONSENT


 



 Exhibit 10(i)







 



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


 



To the Board of Directors of




Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company


 



        We consent to the use in this Post Effective Amendment No. 16 to Registration Statement No. 33-7723 on Form N-4 of our
reports dated February 15, 2001 on the Flex Extra (Qualified) Segment of Massachusetts Mutual Variable Annuity Separate Account 1 and the Flex Extra (Non-Qualified) Segment of Massachusetts Mutual Variable Annuity Separate Account 2 and of our
report dated February 8, 2001 on Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to the use of statutory accounting practices which differ from accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America) appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in such Statement
of Additional Information.


 



DELOITTE
& TOUCHE 
LLP


 



Hartford, Connecticut




April 25, 2001
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Piero Bugoni,

Plaintiff

 v.

Charles (Last Name Unknown), owner

of C&M Towing, Inc., et al.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:10-cv-01173

Judge Sargus

Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on defendant C&M Towing’s motion

to compel compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(b) and 10(b) (doc. 29). 

Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that in responding to a

pleading, a party must “state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted

against it” and “admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(A) & (B). Here, plaintiff has failed to admit or deny the allegations

contained in defendants’ counterclaim. Defendants’ motion (doc. 29) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an amended answer to defendants’ counterclaim that

complies with Rules 8(b) and 10(b) within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., and

Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. F, 5, either party may, within fourteen (14) days

after this Order is filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for

Case: 2:10-cv-01173-EAS-MRA Doc #: 37 Filed: 02/23/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

reconsideration by the District Judge. The motion must specifically designate the

Order, or part thereof, in question and the basis for any objection thereto. The District

Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to

be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

s/ Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:10-cv-01173-EAS-MRA Doc #: 37 Filed: 02/23/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 42991.

#### Protest 946671-G of S. H. Kress & Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Tom- and-Jerry mugs similar to those the subject of *Seller*v. *United States*(T. D. 47417). They were therefore held dutiable at only 70 percent under paragraph 212.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8850 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8850

    To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to set maximum monthly 
 allowances for milk under the special supplemental nutrition program 
                   for women, infants, and children.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2024

Ms. Stefanik (for herself, Mr. Harder of California, and Mr. Van Orden) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to set maximum monthly 
 allowances for milk under the special supplemental nutrition program 
                   for women, infants, and children.

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

SECTION 1. MAXIMUM MONTHLY ALLOWANCES OF MILK UNDER WIC.

    Section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(t) Maximum Monthly Allowances of Milk.--The maximum monthly 
allowances of milk for the following food packages described in section 
246.10(e) of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations are:
            ``(1) For Food Package IV, 16 quarts.
            ``(2) For Food Package V, 22 quarts.
            ``(3) For Food Package VI, 22 quarts.
            ``(4) For Food Package VII, 24 quarts.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

TERRANCE LYNN BOTTS, 

Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:11-CV-006

JUDGE SMITH

v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

ROBIN KNAB, WARDEN, 

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

On February 23, 2011, the Magistrate Judge, acting pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Habeas Corpus Cases in the United States District Courts, construed Petitioner’s request

for discharge from unlawful custody as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

2254; the Magistrate Judge also recommended that the petition be dismissed because the claims were

unexhausted and offered no basis upon which to conclude that Petitioner’s state court conviction was

unconstitutional. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 6. Petitioner was advised of the right to

object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Id. Petitioner sought and was

granted an extension of time in which to file objections. Motion, Doc. No. 9; Order, Doc. No. 10. 

 Rather than file an objection, however, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Notice to Agent

Is Notice to Principle [sic] Notice to Principle [sic] Is Notice to Agent.” Doc. No. 11. The document

makes no specific objection to any finding or recommendation by the Magistrate Judge. It is

therefore not a proper objection under Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which

provides in pertinent part: 

Case: 2:11-cv-00006-GCS-NMK Doc #: 12 Filed: 04/21/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended

disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to

the proposed findings and recommendations.

This Court has conducted a de novo review of the findings and recommendations of the

Magistrate Judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and agrees with those findings and recommendations. 

The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 6, is therefore ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

This action is hereby DISMISSED. 

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter final judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

 GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00006-GCS-NMK Doc #: 12 Filed: 04/21/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
EXHIBIT 31.1

EXHIBIT 31

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Axel G. Roehlig, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Northwest Passage Ventures, Ltd.;

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 the statements 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
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in 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, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition Rules contained in
SEC Release No. 33-8238;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee
of the registrants 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 which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants 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 registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: May 5, 2005



By:  /s/ Axel G. Roehlig
Axel G. Roehlig
President, Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer
and a member of the Board of Directors
Exhibit 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS


I, Samuel J. Wohlstadter, certify that:


I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of BioVeris.


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 the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;


Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
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, including its 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 conclusions about 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 the registrant's
         most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
         the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
         reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting; and

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee 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 of internal control over financial reporting which are
         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's
         internal control over financial reporting.


Date: February 13, 2004



/s/Samuel J. Wohsltdater
------------------------
Samuel J. Wohlstdater
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 23.2














CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-171220 and 333-171221) and on Form S-1 (No. 333-169550) of Fortegra Financial Corporation of our report dated March 29, 2013 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Fortegra Financial Corporation, included in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2012.








/s/ Johnson Lambert LLP





Jacksonville, Florida


August 23, 2013
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)
    
    the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 March 29, 2011
Date
    
    /s/ Jeffrey L. Weaver

Jeffrey L. WeaverPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 29, 2011
    
    /s/ Suzanne C. SallsDate
    
    Suzanne C. SallsSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer