alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. G. McGiffin, Jr. *v.*United States

No. 7353.

Invoice dated Merida, Yuc., Mexico, June 13, 1942.

Certified June 13, 1942.

Entered at Jacksonville, Fla., July 2, 1942.

Entry No. J—1.

(Decided July 25, 1947)

*Wallace & Schwartz (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard H. Welsh, Dorothy C. Bennett,*and *Samuel D. Spector,*special attorneys), for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

The question involved in this appeal for reappraisement is the duitahle value of 100 bales 30/10 sisal twine 1/300, unoiled and unclipped, exported from Mexico under a consular invoice certified on June 13, 1942. Entry was made at Jacksonville, Fla., in the name of plaintiff, J. G. McGiffin, Jr., a customhouse broker, for the account of Atlas Cordage Inc., Chicago, Ill. The merchandise was entered at 11 cents per pound in United States currency, c. i. f. New Orleans, less nondutiable charges. It was appraised at 11% cents per pound in United States currency, less the same nondutiable charges, apparently on the basis of export value (R. 5).

At the trial counsel for the plaintiff offered and there was received in evidence as exhibit 1, an affidavit of one Alonso Gonzales Gutierrez, wherein, among other things, affiant states that “the price at which my firm sold sisal twine such as or similar to the sisal twine” covered by this appeal “was the equivalent of 11/ per pound, United States currency, c. i. f. New Orleans.” Affiant also states that such or similar merchandise was not sold in the home market, which latter statement finds no contradiction in this record. The question of a foreign value is therefore eliminated from further consideration.

Taken alone, the plaintiff's evidence is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attending the value found by the appraiser, and when the plaintiff’s evidence is considered in connection with that offered by defendant in the form of a special agent's report, the plaintiff has completely failed to make a *prima facie*case. I therefore find and hold the proper dutiable export value of the instant merchandise to be the value found by the appraiser. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
APPENDIX E8

TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY 

CONCURRENCE LETTERS



 

Page 4 

600 East Main Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

CONCURRENCE WITH FRA DETERMINATION OF TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OF 

DC2RVA PROJECT ON FREDERICKSBURG AND SPOTSYLVANIA NATIONAL MILITARY PARK 

The National Park Service has reviewed the information for the Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation’s (DRPT) proposed construction associated improvements on a portion of National Park 

Service’s Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. Based on the information, the National Park 

Service concurs that the proposed temporary occupancy of park land by the project would not adversely affect 

activities, features, and attributes of the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. This 

concurrence does not constitute an endorsement of the project or conveyance of any temporary or permanent 

interests in or access to park lands. Further, this concurrence is provided with the understanding that DRPT 

will continue to coordinate with the National Park Service during project development and that further 

consultation will be undertaken by DRPT to ensure prior to granting of any temporary or permanent property 

interests that harm to the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park by the proposed project has 

been minimized and the conditions upon which this concurrence is based have not changed. 

Signature Date 

Kirsten Talken-Spaulding, Superintendent 

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park 

National Park Service 

KIRSTEN TALKEN-SPAULDING

Digitally signed by KIRSTEN TALKENSPAULDING 

Date: 2018.12.07 11:27:13 -05'00'
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 335 

Honoring members of the radiation protection profession by designating the 

week of November 6 through November 12, 2005, as ‘‘National Radiation 

Protection Professionals Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 16, 2005 

Mr. DOMENICI submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring members of the radiation protection profession by 

designating the week of November 6 through November 

12, 2005, as ‘‘National Radiation Protection Professionals Week’’. 

Whereas the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors has resolved that the week of November 6 through 

November 12, 2005, should be recognized as ‘‘National 

Radiation Protection Professionals Week’’; 

Whereas, since the discovery of x rays by Wilhelm Conrad 

Roentgen on November 8, 1895, the use of radiation has 

become a vital tool for the health care, defense, security, 

energy, and industrial programs of the United States; 
2 

•SRES 335 IS

Whereas members of the radiation protection profession devote their careers to allow government, medicine, academia, and industry to safely use radiation; and 

Whereas the leadership and technical expertise provided by 

members of the radiation protection profession has 

helped safeguard the public from the hazards of the use 

of radiation while enabling the public to reap its benefits: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week of November 6 through 

3 November 12, 2005, as ‘‘National Radiation Protec4 tion Professionals Week’’; 

5 (2) encourages all citizens to— 

6 (A) recognize the importance of radiation 

7 protection professionals; and 

8 (B) recognize the valuable resource pro9 vided by professional scientific organizations, 

10 such as— 

11 (i) the Conference of Radiation Con12 trol Program Directors; 

13 (ii) the Health Physics Society; 

14 (iii) the Organization of Agreement 

15 States; 

16 (iv) the American Academy of Health 

17 Physics; and 

18 (v) the National Registry of Radiation 

19 Protection Technologists; and 
3 

•SRES 335 IS

1 (C) the American Association of Physicists 

2 in Medicine; and 

3 (3) recognizes the tremendous contributions 

4 that radiation protection professionals and their or5 ganizations have made for the betterment of the 

6 United States and the world. 

Æ
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Annual Report of Franklin Hill Acquisition Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Khoo Lay Wah, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.
Based on my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Registrant.



|Date:
    April 26, 2017 | 
|------------------------ | 
|                         | 
|/s/
    Khoo Lay Wah     | 
|Khoo
    Lay Wah         | 
|President                |
ELECTRONIC RECORD

W57-/*

COA # 01-12-01003-CR OFFENSE: 10.01 (Habeas Corpus)

STYLE: Ex parteStanley Anozie Obi v. COUNTY: Harris

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: Co Crim Ct at Law No 1

DATE: 09/25/2014 Publish: YES TC CASE #: 1805540A

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Ex parte Stanley AnozieObi v.

AFPELLAHT^S Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: j2~//7/jyrf

JUDGE: ZfA4*C«—

CCA

CCA#:

Disposition:

mviH

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

HARRY WILLIAM LOTT,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

MARIETTA MUNICIPAL CASE NO. C2-12-1089

COURT, et al., JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORAH MCCANN KING

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or trial.

Pursuant to the ORDER filed December 19, 2012, JUDGMENT is hereby entered

DISMISSING this action.

Date: December 19, 2012 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:12-cv-01089-EAS-NMK Doc #: 6 Filed: 12/19/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
(logo)Rialto

CAPITAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of ServicerCompliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") datedas of February 1, 2016 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities,Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association as Certificate Administrator, and Wilmington Trust,National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells Fargo Commercial MortgageTrust 2016-NXS5, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2016-NXS5 **(WFCM 2016-NXS5)**

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicing activitiesand performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.       A review of theservicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period ofJanuary 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance withthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.      Tothe best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ Adam Singer

AdamSinger, Managing Director 

 

Date:March 1, 2019
# CA2005025EN.01000101.xml

| 1.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 25/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 25/1

---

NOTICE TO READER

Image

---
No. 64270.

protests 321737-K and 329364-K (Pembina).

#### F. C. Mackay *v.*United States,

Opinion 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 415 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 415

 Expressing the continuing support of the Senate to the Junior Reserve 
 Officers' Training Corps (JROTC), and commending the efforts of that 
vital program as it carries out its mission of instilling the values of 
  citizenship and service in the hearts and minds of the youth of the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 30, 2006

 Mr. Ensign submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the continuing support of the Senate to the Junior Reserve 
 Officers' Training Corps (JROTC), and commending the efforts of that 
vital program as it carries out its mission of instilling the values of 
  citizenship and service in the hearts and minds of the youth of the 
                             United States.

Whereas, since its inception in 1913, the Junior Reserve Officers' Training 
        Corps has successfully functioned for over 90 years;
Whereas the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps has provided citizenship 
        training, discipline, stability, and patriotic values to the youth of 
        the United States throughout the Nation;
Whereas millions of students have benefitted from the Junior Reserve Officers' 
        Training Corps;
Whereas, in 2005, there were over 500,000 students enrolled in Junior Reserve 
        Officers' Training Corps programs in approximately 3,400 secondary 
        schools; and
Whereas the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps is taught by a dedicated 
        cadre of retired officers and staff non-commissioned officers of the 
        Armed Forces who love the United States and who are working to secure 
        its future: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) expresses appreciation to the Junior Reserve Officers' 
        Training Corps for--
                    (A) the leadership training that the program 
                provides to the youth of the United States; and
                    (B) the outstanding results that the program has 
                achieved;
            (2) commends the professionalism and dedication displayed 
        daily by the retired members of the United States Armed Forces 
        who serve as instructors in the Junior Reserve Officers' 
        Training Corps; and
            (3) proudly honors the modern-day members of the Junior 
        Reserve Officers' Training Corps, who represent a promising 
        group of young men and women who continue to strive to achieve 
        their full potential.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 30, 2012

t0123 

# Order

January 30, 2012

143763

IN RE PETITION OF WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER FOR FORECLOSURE

_____________ _______________ _____________ WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143763 COA: 303928 Wayne CC: 10-006738-CH CRYSTAL HOWERY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 23, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# L_2008294EN.01S00301.xml

| 1.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 294/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 294/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
Exhibit 31.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE


ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Eran Hertz, certify that:




1.           I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 of Integrity Applications, 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.           [Intentionally omitted];




4.           [Intentionally omitted]; and




5.           [Intentionally omitted].




Date: April 29, 2016
By:
/s/ Eran HertzEran HertzChief Financial Officer
#### JOSEPH M. ZAMORA, Petitioner v WILLIAM B. WOODSON, Major, 165th Transportation Company, APO 96227, U. S. Army and LAWRENCE H. WILLIAMS, Colonel, Staff Judge Advocate, USMACV, U. S. Army, Respondents

19 USCMA 403, 42 CMR 5

*404Miscellaneous Docket No. 70-22

May 4, 1970

*Captain John W. Kelly,*counsel for Petitioner.

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger,*and *Captain William R. Steinmetz,*counsel for Respondents.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court

On February 15, 1970, a single charge alleging, in fifty-six specifications, a violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 934, was preferred against the petitioner. Each specification describes petitioner as “a United States civilian, a person serving with or accompanying the Armed Forces in the field in the time of war.” The charged offenses involve violations of a general regulation by permitting named individuals to purchase money orders for him, and are said to have occurred in Vietnam.

Before the charge was referred to a court-martial for trial, petitioner filed with the Military Judge of the 17th Judicial Circuit a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and for Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus.” The relief sought was predicated on representations that his contract of employment, relied on as the basis of military jurisdiction over him, had terminated prior to the initiation of any action with a view to his trial. Thus, he was no longer subject to court-martial and should be released for departure from Vietnam. The Military Judge denied the petition, holding, *inter alia,*that, as a person accompanying the armed forces in the field in a time of war, he was subject to trial by court-martial under Article 2(10), Unifornt Code, supra, 10 USC § 802(10). Thereupon, petitioner filed in this Court his “Appeal from Denial of Extraordinary Relief.” In response to an Order to Show Cause, appellate Government counsel, Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army, have submitted their reply to the “Appeal.”

In the circumstances of this case, we need not decide whether a Military Judge may act prior to the referral of a case to trial. (See Article 39(a), Uniform Code, supra, 10 USC § 839 (a).) Nor are we required to determine whether the Military Judge is granted any powers under the All Writs Act, 28 USC § 1651(a), nor whether termination of his employment terminated amenability to trial —the narrow question he presented below.

In United States v Averette, 19 USCMA 363, 41 CMR 363 (decided April 3, 1970; Petition for Reconsideration denied April 27, 1970), this Court held that “the words ‘in time of war’ mean, for the purposes of Article 2 (10), Code, supra, a war formally declared by Congress.” We there concluded that a civilian employee of an Army contractor in Vietnam was not subject to trial by court-martial. That decision is controlling here.

Accordingly, the charge and each of its specifications now pending against petitioner are ordered dismissed and petitioner is ordered released from any restraint which may have been imposed as a result of said charge.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection withthis quarterly report of Torotel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending July 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H. James Serrone,Chief Financial Officer 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, thatto my knowledge:

 

(1)                      The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                      The information contained in this Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  H. James Serrone |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
|                       |
|                       |
| H. James Serrone           |
| Chief Financial Officer    |
| September 15, 2008    |

 

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9175 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

24837 Goddard Road in Taylor, Michigan, as the ‘‘Technical Sergeant 

E. Huston James Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2024 

Mr. THANEDAR (for himself, Mrs. DINGELL, Ms. STEVENS, Mr. HUIZENGA, 

and Mr. BERGMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 24837 Goddard Road in Taylor, Michigan, 

as the ‘‘Technical Sergeant E. Huston James Memorial 

Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL SERGEANT E. HUSTON JAMES ME4 MORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 24837 Goddard Road in Taylor, 

7 Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘TechVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:55 Aug 23, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H9175.IH H9175

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9175 IH

1 nical Sergeant E. Huston James Memorial Post Office 

2 Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Technical Sergeant 

7 E. Huston James Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**Philadelphia Area 2002**  **2009 2002**  **2009 2002**  **2009 2002**  **2009 2002**  **2009 2002**  **2009**

Bucks 3517.6 2843.3 4695.13361.5 292.0 254.6 254.1 75.2 2.8 3.1 307.1 268.7 Chester 3375.8 2727.4 3746.52712.8 303.5 258.8 283.5 79.6 2.7 3.1 317.8 272.1 Delaware 2559.6 2266.9 2689.71946.6 176.5 160.0 162.3 73.2 1.5 1.7 186.7 169.9 Montgomery 4926.0 3832.5 6116.84299.5 402.3 354.6 355.8 103.4 4.0 4.4 422.6 374.0 Philadelphia 7240.0 7204.1 4341.03903.7 360.8 328.1 584.9 468.5 3.0 3.4 377.2 343.4 **Total Philadelphia Area 21619.1**  **18874.2 21589.1** **16224.1 1535.0** **1355.9 1640.5**  **800.0 14.0**  **15.7 1611.4** **1428.2**

Notes: NH3 from NMIM All other pollutants are from NONROAD model spreadsheets for individual counties 

### Nonroad Emissions Inventory Summary

**PM10 NH3**  **NOX VOC**  **PM2.5 SO2**