alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 54183.

#### The Chapel Donner Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 129932-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rabbit hair similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 53024, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10233)

#### Pico Novelty Co., Inc., by Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L.A. *v.*United States

Entry No. 23753.

(Decided April 23, 1962)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for tlie plaintiff.

*Williams, Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for tlie defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between tbe attorneys for tbe parties hereto:

> 1. That the above entitled appeal for reappraisement covers all merchandise appearing on the above entry.

> 2. That the said merchandise was appraised under Section 402(b) of the Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927,84th Congress, 2nd Session.

> 3. That at the time of exportation to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, were the unit invoice values.

> 4. That the above entitled appeal for reappraisement is submitted on this stipulation.

Accepting this stipulation as an agreed statement of facts, I find and bold that export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis for determination of the values of the merchandise, described in the invoice covered by the entry in this appeal for reappraisement, and that such values of the respective items of merchandise are the unit invoice values, all as shown on the invoice which is included in the official papers filed with the court in this suit.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Permanent U.S. resident status

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Permanent U.S. resident status 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Immigration and Naturalization Service 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  United States. Immigration and Naturalization Service 
                    -           Subjects        
                    -  United States. Immigration and Naturalization Service 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  146 × 32 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  026182131.jpg; 026182131.jpg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
Exhibt
      4.6

     

    REVOLVING
      LOAN AGREEMENTAMENDMENT
      TWO

     

    Amendment
      Date: June
      1,
      2007

     

    Credit
      Limit: $15,000.00                

     

    RFG
      Acquisition II Inc., a Delaware corporation, promises to pay JOHN W. BRANCH
      (“Lender”), an individual, the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND and 00/100 DOLLARS
      ($15,000.00) (the “Amended Credit Limit”) or such other principal amount that
      may be outstanding, in no case to exceed the Amended Credit Limit, as evidenced
      by the books and records of Lender. 

     

    This
      Amendment Two hereby amends the interest rate charged on outstanding loan
      borrowings from 4.75% per annum to the Prime Rate of Interest, as listed in
      the
      Wall Street Journal, plus 1% per annum.

    


    This
      Amendment Two hereby amends the default rate of interest from 10.0% per annum
      to
      the Prime Rate of Interest, as listed in the Wall Street Journal, plus 6% per
      annum.

    


    All
      other
      terms and conditions of the original Revolving Loan Agreement, dated November
      20, 2006, as amended, remain unchanged and in full force and
      effect.

    


    This
      Amendment Two is effective as of the date listed above. 

    

      
        	
                RFG
                  Acquisition II Inc.  

                 

                 

              	
                 

              	
                 

              	
                 

              
	
                By:
                  

              	
                /s/ David
                  W. Matre

              	
                 

              	
                 

              	
              
	
                 

              	
                David
                  W. Matre

                Chief
                  Financial Officer

              	
                 

              	
                 

              	 
	
                 

              	 	
                 

              	
                 

              	 


      

       

      
        	
                “Lender”   

                 

                 

              	
                 

              	
                 

              	
                 

              
	
                 

              	
                /s/ 
                  John W. Branch

              	
                 

              	
                 

              	
              
	
                 

              	
                JOHN
                  W. BRANCH, an individual

              	
                 

              	
                 

              	 
	
                 

              	 	
                 

              	
                 

              	 


      

    

     

    DO
      NOT DESTROY THIS ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
No. 41925.

#### Protests 944615-G, etc., of American Mdse. Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of novelty brushes or so-called fiber whisk brooms, and clothes and hat *348brushes, and other brushes similar to those the subject of Abstract 34593 and *United States*v. *Heinrich*(26 C. C. P. A. 292, C. A. D. 30). They were therefore held dutiable at only 50 percent under paragraph 1506 as claimed.
A90A0348.

#### BROCKINGTON v. THE STATE.

(393 SE2d 765)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was convicted of armed robbery and now appeals following the denial of his motion for a new trial. *Held:*

1. Defendant assigns error upon the denial of his motion for a new trial. In this regard, he argues he was given an opportunity to enter a negotiated plea to robbery but instead insisted upon a jury trial without fully appreciating the significance of an armed robbery conviction. Completing the argument, defendant asserts “the court should have some means of allowing him to undo that choice. Guilty pleas may be withdrawn or set aside in appropriate situations. Why not not guilty pleas.” Brief of Appellant, p. 5. We are not persuaded.

Defendant had a choice of pleading guilty to robbery or pleading not guilty to armed robbery. He chose the latter course and must endure the consequences. The rationale expressed in *Allen v. State,*193 Ga. App. 670, 672 (388 SE2d 889) (1989), applies equally here: “A criminal defendant should not be allowed to reject a sentence concession that is offered in return for a guilty plea and then bind the State to that rejected original lenient sentence even though he is later convicted after a trial. To hold otherwise would allow a criminal defendant to go to trial and seek an acquittal knowing that, even if unsuccessful, he would receive a sentence which is no less lenient than that he was originally offered.”

2. The trial court’s charge on robbery by intimidation was neither misleading nor confusing. Assuming, arguendo, the charge on robbery by intimidation was not as clear and precise as desired, we find that, viewed in its entirety, the trial court’s charge fully and fairly instructed the jury on the law of the case. See *Riceman v. State,*166 Ga. App. 825, 827 (2) (305 SE2d 595), wherein we held: “The court’s instruction to the jury should be looked to as a whole, and if the applicable law is stated accurately and fairly, in such manner as to work no prejudice to the defendant, then this court will not consider a challenge to the wording of isolated segments.” The second enumeration of error is without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carley, C. J., and Sognier, J., concur.*

*522Decided May 4, 1990.

*John D. McCord III,*for appellant.

*Robert E. Wilson, District Attorney, Desiree L. Sutton, Robert W. Houman, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.
No. 55390.

#### G. Klein & Son *v.*United States,

protests 131673-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 10.1


               SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED CREDITORS'
                      SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT

      This Second Amended and Restated Creditors Subordination Agreement (the
"Agreement") is made and entered into by ZUNICOM, INC., a Texas corporation (the
"Creditor"), for the benefit of COMPASS BANK and its successors and assigns
("Bank").

      WHEREAS, Universal Power Group, Inc., a Texas corporation ("Borrower") has
applied to Bank for an increased revolving line of credit in the principal
amount of $30,000,000.00 (the "Loan"); and

      WHEREAS, Creditor has heretofore loanded Borrower sums of money, has
agreed to forebear correction of sums owed by Borrower to Creditor, and/or may
hereafter grant further loans or forebearances to Borrower; and

      WHEREAS, Creditor has previously executed that certain Amended and
Restated Creditors' Subordination Agreement dated as of June 19, 2007 in favor
of Bank; and

      WHEREAS, as a condition to making the Loan, Bank has required that
Creditor continue to subordinate any and all loans and indebtedness heretofore,
now or hereafter owed or owing by Borrower to Creditor to any loan or
indebtedness heretofore, now or hereafter owed or owing from Borrower to Bank,
including, without limitation, any amounts now or hereafter owed or owing
under or in connection with the Loan, as well as execute, deliver and perform
this Agreement.

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the undersigned Borrower and Creditor do hereby covenant and
agree with Bank as follows:

      1.    Certain Definitions.  Unless otherwise defined herein, the
following terms have the following meanings:

      "Bank Indebtedness" means the principal of all loans from time to time
owing from Borrow to Bank, all interest, whether now or hereafter accrued
(including, without limitation, interest accrued subsequent to the filing of
petition under any bankruptcy, insolveny or similar law), on such principal
amounts of such loans and all other indebtedness, obligations and
liaibilities (including without limitation, principal, interest and fees),
whether now existing or hereafter incurred, of Borrower to Bank, including



                                Exhibit 10.1 - 1

<PAGE>

(The full text of this Second Amended and Restated Creditors Subordination
Agreement is contained in the accompanying pdf document.)
Exhibit 13.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of BioLineRx Ltd. (the “Company”) hereby certifies to such officer’s knowledge that:





(i)    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Dated: March 10, 2016





/s/ Philip Serlin


Philip Serlin


Chief Financial and Operating Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
(Reap. Dec. 8930)

Entry No. 727880, etc.

#### J. J. Murphy & Co. *v.*United States

(Decided July 23, 1957)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

*594JohnsoN, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto:

> That the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part thereof, consists of certain Chinaware from Great Britain.

> That on or about the dates of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of Great Britain either for home consumption or for export to the United States.

> That on or about the dates of exportation such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the United States for domestic consumption.

> That on or about the dates of exportation the entered values of the merchandise were equal to the cost of production for such merchandise as such value is defined in Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

> That the appeals for reappraisement are limited to the Chinaware covered by the entries in question and are abandoned in all other respects.

> That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule A are submitted in this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the chinaware here involved, and that such values were the entered values.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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 of Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas C. OConnor, President of Duke Energy Gas Transmission Services, LLC, General Partner of Texas Eastern, 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 Texas Eastern.



|                     |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2004 |  | /s/ Thomas C. OConnor                           
|                     |  | Thomas C. OConnor                               
|                     |  | President                                        
|                     |  | Duke Energy Gas Transmission Services, LLC       
|                     |  | General Partner of Texas Eastern Transmission, LP
No. 54196.

#### Hoyt, Shepston *&*Sciaroni *v.*United States,

protest 145266-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,828,089
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,026,853
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,415,826
<PP&E>                                       4,778,623
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,637,671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          249,852
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,637,671
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,144,819
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,242,714
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,902,105
<INCOME-TAX>                                   880,897
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,021,208
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,021,208
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.76


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32



                           Section 1350 Certifications

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
     the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of
     TransNet Corporation (the "Company") hereby certify to such officer's
     knowledge that:

1.   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal period
     ended March 31, 2004, 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the
     Company.





     /s/ Steven J. Wilk
     -----------------------------------
     Steven J. Wilk
     Chief Executive Officer

     Date:  May 11, 2005



     /s/ John J. Wilk
     -----------------------------------
     John J. Wilk
     Chief Financial Officer

     Date: May 11, 2005




                                                                              17
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION OF 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Texas Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended August 31, 2003 (the Report), I, Robert D. Rogers, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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, as amended; and



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



|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|Dated: October 14, 2003 |  | 
|                        |  | 



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Texas Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Texas Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1 In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 22

- 00248

- CV

__________________ KRG PORTOFINO, LLC , Appellant

V.

SADDLES BLAZIN, LLC , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 457th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 18

- 03

- 03200

- CV

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

KRG Portofino, LLC
, a ppellant, filed an unopposed motion to

dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellant filed the

motion before the C ourt decided the appeal. We grant the motion and

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f ).

APPEAL DISM I SSED. PER CURIAM Submitted on November 30, 2022 Opinion Delivered December 1, 2022 Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.