alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9747)

#### Sears, Roebuck & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 13158, etc.

(Decided July 20, 1960)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

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

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed on schedule A, hereto annexed and made part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the above appeals for reappraisement consists of bamboo blinds and sets of hardware accessories imported from Japan; and that each bamboo blind, as invoiced is accompanied by one set of hardware accessories.

> That on or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise hereinbefore described, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, 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 costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, as follows: The merchandise on the invoices for which Daimaru Kogyo Kaisha, Ltd. is shown as the maker or manufacturer, at the appraised unit values, packed; and the merchandise on the invoices for which Oriental Blind Go., Ltd. is shown as the maker or manufacturer, at the appraised unit values, plus baling and packing charges, as invoiced; that said unit values include the cost of the sets of hardware accessories, which *431cost is 3 cents (U.S. Oy) per set of hardware accessories; and that there was no higher foreign value.

> That the above appeals for reappraisement are limited to the merchandise hereinbefore described and are abandoned as to all other merchandise; and that said appeals may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be ¿he proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such values were as follows:

For the merchandise on the invoices for which Daimaru Kogyo Kaisha, Ltd., is shown as the maker or manufacturer, the appraised unit values, packed.

For the merchandise on the invoices for which Oriental Blind Co., Ltd., is shown as the maker or manufacturer, the appraised unit values, plus baling and packing charges, as invoiced.

Said unit values include the cost of the sets of hardware accessories of 3 cents (United States currency) per set.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case: 2:13-cv-00065-EAS-TPK Doc #: 17 Filed: 12/16/13 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T09:24:33-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
January 22, 1940

No 43077.

Suit 4295.

#### United *States*v. *Ivan B. Dahl, Inc., et al.*

C. D. 201. Appeal dismissed December 4,1939; not yet reported.
Exhibit 10.1


 


FAT
Brands Inc.


9720
Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500


Beverly
Hills, CA 90212


 


Kenneth
J. Kuick


3760
Longview Valley Road


Sherman
Oaks, CA 91423


 


March
30, 2022


 


Dear
Ken:


 


FAT
Brands Inc. (the “Company”) is pleased to provide you with this retention incentive bonus agreement (this “Agreement”)
to recognize your ongoing contributions to the Company.


 


We
are offering you the bonus payment in the gross amount of $200,000 (the “Bonus”), subject to the terms and conditions
in this Agreement. The Bonus shall be paid as soon as practicable following the date of this Agreement and will offset, on a dollar-for-dollar
basis, any performance-based or discretionary bonus that you may otherwise earn or be entitled to receive with respect to 2022.


 


You
will be required, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to repay the full amount of the Bonus within thirty (30) days if, prior
to the time that the Company has duly filed both of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the 2022 fiscal year and Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the first fiscal quarter of 2023, your continuous employment with the Company and its affiliates ends for any reason, other
than termination by the Company without cause.


 


This
Agreement does not confer upon you any right to continued employment or service with the Company or any affiliate, nor shall it interfere
in any way with the right of the Company or any affiliate to terminate your employment or service at any time for any reason.


 


You
will not have the right to assign, transfer, alienate, anticipate, pledge or encumber any portion of a payment due hereunder, nor shall
such amounts be subject to seizure by legal process by any creditor of yours.


 


This
Agreement shall be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference
to conflict of law principles thereof. The parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of any court of competent jurisdiction
sitting within the State of California with respect to any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement. If you agree to the
terms and conditions set forth above, then please sign and date in the space indicated below and return a signed original of this letter
agreement to the undersigned.


 




    	 



     


    

 


Again,
we value your contributions to the Company, and look forward to continuing our successful relationship.


 


Sincerely,


 


	FAT Brands Inc.	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Andrew Wiederhorn	 	 	 
	Name:	Andrew Wiederhorn	 	 	 
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Acknowledged and agreed:	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Kenneth J. Kuick	 	Date:	 March 30, 2022
	Name: Kenneth J. Kuick	 	 	 




 




    	2
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 Union Tank Car Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark J. Garrette, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby 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 the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In witness whereof, I have executed this certification as of the
12thday of November, 2004.



/s/ Mark J. GarretteMark J. GarrettePrincipal Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0235 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SHELDON PATRICK TRACY,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until August 20, 2021, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court July 22 2021

07/22/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0235
APPENDICES 
 
David Toms is a Senior Investment Analyst of Public Markets. On May 16, 2011, Mr. 

Toms joined the Trust as an Investment Analyst. While at NRRIT, he has been 

responsible for International Equity, Currency Overlay, and Global Fixed Income. Prior 

to joining the Trust, he worked at Freddie Mac as a Senior Financial Analyst within 

Multifamily Capital Markets. Previously, he worked for the City of Lynchburg in their 

Economic Development office. He received an undergraduate business degree from 

James Madison University, and is currently pursuing an MBA degree at the McDonough 

School of Business at Georgetown University. Mr. Toms holds the CFA charter. 

Dennis Wei joined the Trust on July 15, 2013 as Investment Analyst for Global Real 

Assets. Prior to joining the Trust, Mr. Wei worked as an Analyst for the Tufts University 

Investment Office where he was responsible for endowment investments in Absolute 

Return, Private Equity, and Real Assets. Mr. Wei received a BA in economics from Tufts 

University in 2010. 

Emily C. Weiss joined the Trust on June 16, 2015 as a Financial Analyst. Prior to 

joining the Trust, Ms. Weiss worked as a Senior Associate at CohnReznick LLP, 

completing tax and financial statement engagements in the firm’s Private Company 

Services group. Ms. Weiss earned BSBA and MS degrees in accounting from American 

University in 2011 and 2012, respectively, and was licensed as a CPA in 2013. 

11 
NRRIT 

National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust 

2001 K Street, N.W. 


Suite 1100 


Washington, DC 20006
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                             TRANS-INDUSTRIES, INC.

                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Trans-Industries, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Richard A. Solon, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b)
      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/ Richard A. Solon
------------------------------
Name: Richard A. Solon
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: May 16, 2005

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Paragraph 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT NO. 21



                                List of Subsidiaries of
                            THE UNITED ILLUMINATING COMPANY


                            STATE OR JURISDICTION
                            OF INCORPORATION OR           NAME UNDER WHICH
  NAME OF SUBSIDIARY           ORGANIZATION            SUBSIDIARY DOES BUSINESS
  ------------------        ---------------------      ------------------------

United Funding Capital            Delaware        United Funding Capital
Partnership L.P.                                     Partnership L.P.

United Resources, Inc.            Connecticut     United Resources, Inc.

Thermal Energies, Inc.*           Connecticut     Thermal Energies, Inc.

Precision Power, Inc.*            Connecticut     Precision Power, Inc.

American Payment Systems, Inc.*   Connecticut     American Payment Systems, Inc.

United Bridgeport Energy, Inc.    Connecticut     United Bridgeport Energy, Inc.

Precision Constructors, Inc.**    Connecticut     Precision Constructors, Inc.

Allen Electric Co., Inc.**        New Jersey      Allen Electric Co., Inc.


----------------------

*   Subsidiary of United Resources, Inc.
**  Subsidiary of Precision Power, Inc.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 2 , 201 2

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 1 2

- 00 006

- CR

____________
GERALD JEROD DURDEN , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 905464



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal of a notice from the trial court that no actio n has been taken on appellant's motion for post

- conviction DNA testing. 1

Generally, an appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal
defendant only whe n there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State
,

1 This court affirmed the trial court's denial of appellant's previous motion for post

- conviction DNA testing. See Durden v. State , No. 14

- 09

- 00120

- CR, 2010 WL 454935 (Tex. App. [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication).2

170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State , 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.

C Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). 2 The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure expressly provides for appeal from the denial of a request for post

- conviction DNA testing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.05 (West 2006). The record before this court contai ns no order denying appellant's motion.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Christopher

. Do Not Publish

C Tex. R. App. P. 4 7.2(b).

2 Exceptions include: (1) certain appeals while on deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State , 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Cr im. App. 1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, Tex. R. App. P. 31.1; McKown , 915 S.W.2d at 161; and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.

- Dallas 1998, no pet .); McKown , 915 S.W.2d at 161.
Memo to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0280

2013 Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption

On May 2, 2012, David Donaldson, Jeremy Arling, Elisa Rim, and Bill Chism of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency met with David McAllister, Paul Niday, Tracy Heinzman, and 

David Markert of the Methyl Bromide Industry Panel. 

MBIP inquired into the status of the 2012 final rule and its relation to the amounts authorized in 

the no action assurance letter from EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance. 

MBIP asked about EPA’s calculation of the Supply Chain Factor and provided updated data. 

MBIP reiterated their public comment that the Supply Chain Factor amount should equal at least 

one year’s production.

EPA inquired into the use and availability of pre-phaseout inventory. MBIP noted the shift in 

critical uses to California and discussed how under current industry practice inventory is sold and 

applied by regional distributors. MBIP expressed doubt that material would be transported across 

the country. MBIP also stated that to their knowledge there was not any forward contracting for 

the sale of methyl bromide inventory.
```

                                                                    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 NYFIX,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  period  ending  March 31,  2004 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, Peter K.  Hansen,
Chairman,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 the
     Company.

/s/ Peter K. Hansen
----------------------------------------------
Peter K. Hansen
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
May 28, 2004

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

This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```
Before the Third Division,

July 20, 1938

No. 39038.

#### Protest 836114-G of John V. Carr & Son (Detroit).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was held that the automobile here in question not having been imported by or for the account of the exporter thereof is not entitled to free entry as American goods returned, nor admissible free of duty as a non-importation. *Alberts Motor Co.*v. *United States*(T. D. 43072), Abstracts 10677 and 18311, and *Eastman Kodak Co.*v. *United States*(G. A. 8831, T. D. 40309) cited. *Snow*v. *United States*(T. D. 46772) distinguished.
No. 56623.

protest 173744-K (New York).

#### Cobra Wood Treatment Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protest was dismissed.
#### August F. Stauff & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6411.

Entry No. 727547, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, February 1945, etc.

Certified February 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 10, 1945.

(Decided October 3, 1946)

*Daniel P. McDonald*for the plaintiff.

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

*353Cole, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase cax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (e)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

The agreed set of facts, embodied in the stipulation of submission, establish that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)) is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values of the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 18231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6802]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-151-001]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Tariff 
Filing

April 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 30, 2007, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 
(Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 368, with an 
effective date of March 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest 
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6802 Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
(Reap. Dec. 10231)

#### Universal Enterprises, by: Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L.A. *v.*United States

Entry No. DE-31980, etc.

(Decided April 23, 1962)

*Lawrence & Tutfle*for the plaintiff.

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

Donlon, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, attached to . and made a part of this decision, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

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

> 1. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof are limited to the merchandise shipped by Hasegawa Shoten Co. of Japan.

> 2. That the said merchandise was appraised under Section 402, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938.

> 3. That no foreign value, as defined by Section 402(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, existed for such or similar merchandise.

> 4. 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 appraised unit values less the proportionate share of the inland freight, storage, hauling and lighterage, insurance premium and petty shown on the invoices to be included in the unit invoice values.

> 5. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A”, as heretofore limited, are submitted on this stipulation1.

*631Accepting this stipulation as an agreed statement of facts, I find and hold that export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for determination of the values of the merchandise shipped by Hasegawa Shoten Co. of Japan, described in the invoices covered by the entries in these appeals for reappraisement, and that such values of the respective items of merchandise are.the appraised unit values, less the proportionate share of the inland freight, storage, hauling and lighterage, insurance premium, and petties, all as shown on the invoices which are included in the official papers filed with the court in the several suits.

As to all other merchandise, these appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.