alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COMMONWEALTNofVIRGINIADouglasW.DomenechSecretaryofNaturalResourcesDEFARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTALQUALITYStreetaddress:629EastMainStreet,Richmond,Virginia23219Mailingaddress:P.O.Box1105,Richmond,Virginia23218TDD(804)698-4021www.deq.virginia.govDavidK.PaylorDirector(804)698-40001-800-592-5482SEP27?O1flMs.DianaEsher,DirectorAirProtectionDivision(3APOO)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,RegionIII1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania19103-2029Reference:RCVEDSEP292010bivisionDirectOr(.3APOO)AmbientAirQualityStandards,8-hourOzone,RevisionD08DearMs.Esher:Pursuanttotherequirementsof§110oftheCleanAirAct,weareofficiallyrequestingapprovalofarevisiontotheCommonwealthofVirginiaStateImplementationPlanapprovedandsubmittedundertheauthorityof§10.1-1185oftheCodeofVirginiaandinaccordancewiththerequirementsof40CFRPart51(RequirementsforPreparation,Adoption,andSubmittalofImplementationPlans).Thisrevisionconsistsofaregulation(9VAC5Chapter30)thatcontainstheambientairqualitystandardssetoutin40CFRPart50.Thisactionaddedan8-hourozonestandardof0.075partspermillionandrelatedreferenceconditions,aswellasmadeatechnicalcorrectiontothePM2.5standardinsupportofapreviousrevision,F06(submittedseparatelyasarevisiontotheSIPasRevisionF06c).Inaddition,thelistofappendicesto40CFRPart51wasupdatedunderdocumentsincorporatedbyreference,9VAC5-20-21.TheregulationamendmentswereadoptedbytheStateAirPollutionControlBoardonDecember15,2008undertheauthorityof§10.1-1308oftheCodeofVirginia.Enclosedarethefollowing:1.Atruecopyoftheofficialregulation(RevisionD08)whichwaspublishedintheVirginiaRegisterofRegulationsonFebruary16,2009afterbeingdulyadoptedbyCC.,CCtheStateAirPollutionControlBoardonDecember15,2008,certifiedbytheOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneralaswithintheboard’sstatutoryauthorityonDecember15,2008,andthusfullyenforceableunderVirginialaw,andsubmittedtotheVirginiaRegistraronbehalfoftheboardbytheDepartmentofEnvironmentalQualityasatrueandaccuratecopyofthedulyadoptedregulationonJanuary21,2009,providingtheevidencerequiredbySection2.1(b)and(e)ofAppendixVof40CFRPart51.2.Certificationofpublicparticipationactivitiesandcompliancewithstateadministrativeprocedures.3.Publicparticipationrecord.Forpurposesofthissubmittal,certainprovisionsarebeingincludedforinformationpurposesonlyandarenottobeconstruedaspartofthisparticularSIPsubmittal;theseprovisionsarespecificallyidentifiedinEnclosure2ofthissubmittal.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorneedadditionalinformation,pleaseletusknow.Sine?ely,DavidK.PaylorDKP\kgsTEMPLATES\SIP-REG\REGOOSIP\NONATTNAREAS\201O\D08-SIP.DOCEnclosures
No. 51109.

#### Protest 99415-K of Thornhill Patterson Co., Ltd. (Los Angeles).

Ekwall, Judge:

Plaintiff in this case protests the action of the collector of customs in refusing to act upon a so-called duress certificate filed under section 503(b), Tariff Act of 1930. Said certificate was signed in typewriting as follows:

> Frank P. Dow Co., Inc.,

> (Importer)

> V. P.

The collector claimed this certificate void in that it was not properly signed.

The only testimony adduced was that of the customhouse broker connected with the firm of Frank P. Dow, as office manager and vice president of the Los Angeles office, who testified that she gave instructions that all duress certificates be signed as above and that she intended the above-typed signature to constitute the signature of Frank P. Dow Co. On cross-examination she stated that the “V. P.” appearing thereon, means vice president; that she was the vice president of this company at that time; and that on all such duress certificates she physically signed in pen and ink her name as vice president, but that in this ease she did not so sign the certificate. In answer to a question from the judge hearing the case, she stated that she apparently overlooked signing her name in this case.

Counsel agreed that the customs regulations require that the signature of the agent signing for the principal appear. Counsel did not cite the regulation. It is not clear to the court what article of the regulations counsel had in mind.

This court held in the case of *Clinton Smullyan Associates*v. *United States,*15 Cust. Ct. 80, C. D. 948, that a duress certificate which bore the signature “Clinton Smullyan Associates,” without the name of any individual as an officer of said associates, was insufficient. Under authority of that decision we hold that the signature of the certificate here involved is insufficient in that it fails to show; the name of any individual as an officer of the corporation.

In the absence of a legal duress certificate we hold that the collector committed no error in liquidating upon the entered value.

Judgment will be rendered for the defendant.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Steven C. Bierman, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2010-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.             I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.             All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.

 
| March   29, 2012 |   |   |                                                             |
|------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|             |   |   |                                                             |
|             |   |   |                                                             |
|             |   | By:    | /s/   Steven C. Bierman                                          |
|             |   | Name:  | Steven   C. Bierman                                              |
|             |   | Title: | President   (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |

 

----
#### K. Yajima *v.*United States

No. 7519.

Entry Nos. 868840; 77223; 82591.

Invoices dated Yokohama, Japan, April 8, 1937, etc.

Certified April 8, 1937, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 10,1937, etc.

(Decided January 23, 1948)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Tilson, Judge:

The three appeals listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the appraised values less any additions made by the importer on entry to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal, are equal to the *360price at the date of exportation of sucb 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; that the foreign values of such or similar merchandise were not higher; and the record in *United States*v. *Nippon Dry Goods Co.,*Reap. Dec. 5006, was admitted in evidence herein.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the values found by the appraiser, less any amounts added by the importer on entry to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Rollin Tracy, Resp’t, *v.*Matthew Byrnes, App’lt.

IK *0. Campbell,*for resp’t; *Smn’l J. Oroolcs,*for app’lt.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

All concur.

See 27 N. Y. State Rep., 9S5.
(Reap. Dec. 10519)

#### J. C. Penney Purchasing Corporation et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5860, etc.

(Decided May 16, 1963)

*Sharretts, Paley & darter*for the plaintiffs.

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

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties herein:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the above named appeals for reappraisement consists of wool wearing apparel exported from Italy during 1961.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing appraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, 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 expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the appraised unit invoice value less the addition for packing which was already included in said invoice unit values; that these articles are not on the final list of merchandise (T.D. 54521) from which the operation of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 was withheld.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals to re-appraisement be submitted on this 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 involved and that such value for the merchandise covered by these appeals was the appraised unit invoice value, less the addition for packing which was already included in said unit invoice values.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case: 2:11-cr-00263-EAS Doc #: 25 Filed: 01/23/12 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T15:20:36-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 Dated: February 17, 2011
    /s/ Saed MohseniSaed MohseniPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: February 17, 2011
    /s/ James J. OConnorJames J. OConnorChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Stay Lifted; Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum 

Opinion filed July 24, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00466-CV

IN RE THE WU FAMILY TRUST, SSS VILLAGE AT SOUTHWEST , LLC, 

WU PROPERTIES, INC., STEVE WU, SSS FONDREN MARKETPLACE, 

LLC, CLOTO, LLC, SJY-FORTUNEP, LLC, FONDREN VILLAGE 

PLAZA, LLC, AND HLPW FONDREN, LLC, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022-60346

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 26, 2024, relators The Wu Family Trust, SSS Village at Southwest , 

LLC, Wu Properties, Inc., Steve Wu, SSS Fondren Marketplace, LLC, Cloto, LLC, 

SJY-Fortunep, LLC, Fondren Village Plaza, LLC, and HLPW Fondren, LLC filed 

a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; 
2

see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this Court to compel the 

Honorable Jaclanel McFarland, presiding judge of the 133rd District Court of 

Harris County, to rule on relators’ Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss filed on March 25, 

2024. We granted a temporary stay of discovery in the underlying proceeding on 

June 27, 2024.

On July 23, 2024, counsel for relators advised this Court by letter that 

respondent ruled on relators’ Rule 91a motion to dismiss thereby mooting this 

original proceeding.

A petition for a writ of mandamus for failure to rule is dismissed as moot 

when the trial court rules after the petition for writ of mandamus is filed. See In re 

4KBC Trucking, LLC, No. 14-23-00675-CV, 2023 WL 7141209, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 31, 2023, orig. proceeding). We dismiss relators’

petition for writ of mandamus as moot. Our earlier stay order is lifted. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.
**EXHIBIT 15.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-171287 on Form S-8 of our report dated May 3, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of HiSoft Technology International Limited, its subsidiaries and its variable interest entity (collectively, the “Company”) as of December 31, 2009 and 2010 and for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010, and the financial statement schedule of HiSoft Technology International Limited, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of HiSoft Technology International Limited dated May 4, 2011.

 

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd.

 

Beijing, the People’s Republic of China

 

May 4, 2011

 

----
# C_2007223EN.01001001.xml

| 22.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/10

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2007 — wheyco v Commission

(Case T-6/06) (1)

1

(State aid - Incentive element - Action for annulment - Act producing legal effects - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 223/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: wheyco GmbH, formerly Mopro-Nord GmbH (Altentreptow, Germany) (represented by: L. Harings and C. Schmidt, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross, T. Scharf and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of the Commission's decision of 6 September 2005 relating to State aid No N 363/2005 for the construction of a whey refining plant in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (Germany) (OJ 2005 C 262, p. 5)

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders wheyco GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders wheyco GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7706

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY LEE GORE, a/k/a Manager,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District 

Judge. (4:01-cr-00627-CWH-9; 4:11-cv-70069-CWH)

Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Lee Gore, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina; 

Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Lee Gore seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Gore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Incara Pharmaceuticals Corporation (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or
about the date hereof (the Report), I, Clayton I. Duncan, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ CLAYTON I. DUNCANClayton I. DuncanPresident and Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 10, 2004
Exhibit 31.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS AMENDED

 

I, David Morris, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of RBB Bancorp, certify that:

 

|   | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of RBB Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2017; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

 

| Date: May 25, 2018 | By:    | /s/ DAVID MORRIS                                                   |
|--------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               |   | David Morris

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8942 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8942

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to ensure that certain 
employees, providers, and volunteers associated with the Indian Health 
Service receive educational training in the history and culture of the 
         Tribes served by such persons, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 8, 2024

 Ms. Hageman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, 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 amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to ensure that certain 
employees, providers, and volunteers associated with the Indian Health 
Service receive educational training in the history and culture of the 
         Tribes served by such persons, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Improving Tribal Cultural Training 
for Providers Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. TRIBAL CULTURE AND HISTORY.

    Section 113 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 
1616f) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``a program'' and inserting ``an 
                annual mandatory training program''; and
                    (B) by striking ``appropriate employees of the 
                Service'' and inserting ``employees of the Service, 
                locum tenens medical providers, health care volunteers, 
                and other contracted employees who work at Service 
                hospitals or other Service units and whose employment 
                requires regular direct patient access''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Requirement To Complete Training Program.--Notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, beginning on the date of enactment of the 
Improving Tribal Cultural Training for Providers Act of 2024, each 
employee or provider described in subsection (a) who enters into a 
contract with the Service shall, as a condition of employment, annually 
participate in and complete the program established under subsection 
(a).''.
                                 <all>
```