alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.01

                  CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &
                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Michael Pacult, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
White Oak Financial Services, Inc. as general partner of Providence Select
Fund, L.P., certify that (i) the Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2008 of Providence Select Fund, L.P. fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Providence Select Fund, L.P.


PROVIDENCE SELECT FUND, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By:	White Oak Financial Services, Inc., General Partner



By: /s/ Michael Pacult
Michael Pacult
Chief Executive Officer &
Chief Financial Officer

Date:	November 19, 2008

<page>
No. 46218.

#### Protests 13988-K, etc., of Eastern Grocery Co. et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) bok hop, hoi shin lien, hoi pak lien, sui sat, wai san (stick form), sar sum (uncut) lo hon qua, yuen yuk, and mok qua (not sliced) were held entitled to free entry as crude drugs under paragraph 1669 and certain of the vegetables, prepared, dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34 as drugs advanced.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

SHAWN UNDERWOOD, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:11-CV-171 

 : 

 v. : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 : 

FRANK WASKO, et al., : 

 : Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel 

 Defendants. : 

ORDER 

 

 Based on the representation to the Court by Counsel that the parties to this lawsuit have 

resolved their dispute, the parties agree that the terms of their settlement agreement need not be 

placed upon the record at this time, but a Dismissal Order dismissing this case with prejudice 

shall be filed not later than fourteen (14) days from the date Plaintiff receives the Settlement 

Check. 

 This matter is now terminated by settlement and shall be considered, pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41, dismissed without prejudice as to all claims, until the parties file the above-referenced 

Dismissal Order dismissing this matter with prejudice, unless the case is reopened for good cause 

shown upon proper motion of one or more parties to this action. The Court will retain continuing 

jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. 

 The Court hereby directs the U.S. District Court Clerk to serve upon all parties notice of 

this judgment and its date of Order upon the journal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

 JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DATED: April 10, 2013

Case: 2:11-cv-00171-ALM-NMK Doc #: 31 Filed: 04/10/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 55379.

#### Ecuadorian Panama Hat Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 159724-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Alas Lifespan Wellness, PT, P.C., as Assignee of Tarrant Jiles, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Korsunskiy Legal Group, P.C. (Michael Hoenig, Esq.), for appellant.The Law Office of Nancy S. Linden (Nancy S. Linden, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered January 30, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs), and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered January 30, 2015, the Civil Court denied defendant's motion and plaintiff's cross motion, but held that the only issues for trial were whether defendant's IME scheduling letters had been properly mailed and whether plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the IMEs. Plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Acupuncture Choice, P.C., as Assignee of Equan Thomason v American Tr. Ins. Co.</i> (__ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2015-1154 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 19, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 32.2



Registrant (Commission File Number 333-110029):



Broder Bros., Co.

Six Neshaminy Interplex, 6thFloor

Trevose, Pennsylvania 19053



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
Quarterly Report of Broder Bros., Co. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 24, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Hollister, Chief Financial
Officer of Broder Bros., Co., 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 Broder Bros., Co.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



November 8, 2005



BRODER BROS., CO.By:

/s/    DAVID J.
HOLLISTERDavid J. HollisterChief Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 9223)

#### United States *v.*I. R. Webb for account of Farmers Union Elevator Company

Entry No. 2-J.

(Decided September 16, 1958)

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*trial attorney) , for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Ford, Judge:

The appeal listed above involves the proper dutiable value of certain merchandise entered as “Northern Redman Wheat Seed, for Seeding purposes only. ‘Unfit for human consumption/” at a total value of $3,006, which was the appraised value. Plaintiff herein claims that the wheat is in fact Selkirk wheat seed with a value of $5 Canadian currency per bushel.

When this appeal was called for hearing, there was no appearance by the defendant either in person or by attorney.

In order to establish the proper dutiable value, plaintiff called Mr. John Hansen the appraiser of merchandise for district 34, which includes the port of Pembina, N. Dak., and the subport of Sherwood, N. Dak., where the involved merchandise was entered on or about March 29, 1955. The witness testified that he is familiar with the wheat involved herein and wheat in general, having appraised approximately 7 million bushels; that, based upon his experience, 400 bushels is the usual wholesale quantity; that, in his opinion, based upon his experience and investigation, the involved merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers for home consumption in the principal market of Winnepeg, Canada, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade at $5 Canadian currency per bushel. The witness further testified that the price of said wheat for exportation to the United States was not higher.

Based upon the evidence, I find as a matter of fact:

1. That certain Selkirk seed wheat was exported from Canada on or about March 29, 1955.

2. That said merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal market of Winnepeg, Canada, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade on or about March 29, 1955, the date of exportation herein at $5 Canadian currency per bushel.

3. That the export value as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 was not higher.

*543I conclude as a matter of law:

1. That the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein.

2. That such value is $5 Canadian currency per bushel.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2007235EN.01000101.xml

| 6.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/1

---

(2007/C 235/01)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 223, 22.9.2007

OJ C 223, 22.9.2007

Past publications

OJ C 211, 8.9.2007

OJ C 183, 4.8.2007

OJ C 170, 21.7.2007

OJ C 155, 7.7.2007

OJ C 140, 9.6.2007

OJ C 129, 9.6.2007

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
---

EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Yang Lin, the President of Corridor Ventures I
Acquisition Corp. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2011 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement
this 29th day of June, 2011.

/s/Yang
LinYang Lin Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal AccountingOfficer)

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

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
(Reap. Dec. 9734)

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. WH 71095, etc.

(Decided June 29, 1960)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Johnson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated on the attached schedule have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> *421IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value on or about the dates of exportation to the United States of the merchandise covered by Minami Sangyo Co. Ltd. invoices and/or Nanri Trading Co. Ltd. invoices embraced by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was, as defined in Section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the f.o.b. invoice prices exclusive of buying commission as stated on the invoices herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Re-appraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof are limited to Minami Sangyo Go. Ltd. invoices and/or Nanri Trading Oo. Ltd. invoices and abandoned in all other respects.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Reap-praisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by the Minami Sangyo Co., Ltd., and/or the Nanri Trading Co., Ltd., invoices embraced by these appeals and that such value is the f.o.b. invoice prices, exclusive of buying commission, as stated on the invoices.

As to all other merchandise and in all other respects, the appeals, having been abandoned, will be dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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 Quarterly Report of Highland Hospitality Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas W. Vicari, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.



Date: August 9, 2005



/S/    DOUGLAS W.
VICARIExecutive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOSEPH TAGLIONE, JR., Private E-1, U. S. Army, Appellant

9 USCMA 214, 25 CMR 476

No. 11,149

Decided April 25, 1958

*Major Edward Fenig*and *First Lieutenant Edwin E. Allen*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee*and *First Lieutenant Chester F. Relyea*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Robert E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

The accused was charged with unauthorized absence from 9:20 a.m. to 11:48 p.m., October 20, 1957, from the post guardhouse, his place of duty, and with breach of the conditions of his parole on October 20th by going outside the “limits of the Fort Monmouth military reservation.” He pleaded guilty to both charges. Relying upon United States v Modesett, 9 USCMA 152, 25 CMR 414, he now contends that the charges are multiplicious, and consequently correction of the sentence is required.

From the allegations of the specification and the evidence considered in the Article 32 investigation, it is clear that proof of the circumstances of the breach of parole also proves the unauthorized absence. As a result, the charges are the same for the purposes of punishment.

The decision of the board of review is reversed as to the sentence. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for resubmission to the board of review for reassessment of the sentence.

Judge Ferguson concurs.

Judge Latimer concurs in the result.
Before the First Division,

July 22, 1940

No. 44123.

#### Protest 810369-G of N. Y. Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the rubber balls in question are identical in all respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Woolworth*(24 C. C. P. A. 338, T. D. 48770) the claim at 30 percent under paragraph 1502 was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

October 11, 1945

No. 50580.

#### Protest 117865-K of Thermal Syndicate, Ltd. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the silica the subject of *Thermal Syndicate, Ltd.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 205, C. D. 855). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held properly free of duty under paragraph 1775 as claimed.
(Reap. Dec. 8486)

#### Herman Geo. Kaiser *v.*United States

Entry No. 1691-H.

(Decided October 14, 1955)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel that the market value or the price at the time of exportation to the United States of the seamless steel tubing covered by the named appeal for reappraisement, 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 *423States, plus 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 $297.00 per metric ton net packed and that there was no'higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal for reap-praisement be submitted upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was $297 per metric ton net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

October 30, 1950

No. 54788.

#### A. Diagonale & Sons, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 159658-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph Y528 was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10510)

#### Bruce Duncan Co., Inc., a/c French Rugs *&*Carpets Imports *v.*United States

Entry No. 52373.

(Decided April 14, 1963)

*Stein & Shostalc*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, consists of wool carpets, exported from Prance; and that, at the time of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price 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 quantity 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, were the invoice unit values, net packed, as entered.

> That all the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement was entered subsequent to February 27,1958.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise the subject of this stipulation is not included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in See. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that said merchandise is subject to appraisement under Sec. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal for re-appraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for a decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold 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, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in *470question and that such value is the invoice unit value, net, packed, as entered.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 58392

- 5

- II

Respondent,

v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION

RICHARD J. VICTORINO,

Appellant.

C HE , J.

— In 1987, Victorino pleaded guilty to second degree burglary

, but he failed to

appear for sentencing

. In 202 2

, Victorino moved to withdraw his guilty plea

. The trial court

denied Victorino’s motion and sentenced him.

Victorino argues that his conviction must be reversed because the record is insufficient to

permit effective appellate review

, and that his guilty plea was involuntary because there was a n

in sufficient factual basis to support the plea.

Prior to oral argument, t he State filed a motion to strike oral argument, request ing

summary reversal and remand for the trial court to dismiss the charge against Victorino with

prejudice. Victorino join ed in the State’s motion. We grant the State’s motion for summary

revers al and reman d to the trial court for the State to move to dismiss the charge with prejudice

. 1

1 This court granted the State’s motion to strike oral argument, retaining this matter for non

- oral argument on the September 6, 2024 docket. Ord. Striking Oral Arg., State v. Victorino , No. 58392

- 5, at 1 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept.4, 2024). Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

September 10, 2024No. 58392

- 5

- II

2 ANALYSIS

In its motion to summarily reverse Victorino’s conviction and dismiss this appeal , the

State submits that a reversal

, and a remand for the charge to be dismissed with prejudice

, would

best serve the ends of justice. The State also submits th at upon further consideration of the

matter, it has decided that the purposes of criminal prosecution have been met because Victorino

has rehabilitated himself since the commission of the burglary in 1987

.

Given the position of the State, w e grant the State’s motion fo r summary reversal of

Victorino’s conviction for second degree burglary and remand the matter to the trial court for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CONCLUSION

We reverse Victorino’s conviction for second degree burglary and remand the matter to

the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06. 040,

it is so ordered.

Che, J. We concur:

Glasgow, P.J.

Price, J.