alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1

Union Carbide Corporation and Subsidiaries

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
John R. Dearborn, President (Chief Executive Officer) of Union Carbide Corporation (the "Corporation"), certify that:

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

|/s/JOHN R. DEARBORNJohn R. Dearborn
President (Chief Executive Officer)
May 2, 2003 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

104

---

QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-41113

Summary Calendar

 

DALE MONROE HART,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director,

Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, Institutional Division,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-98-CV-313

- - - - - - - - - -

May 5, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The district court granted a certificate of appealability

(COA) for Dale Monroe Hart, Texas prisoner no. 522520, to appeal

its ruling that Hart’s motion for reconsideration filed in the

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals after it denied his state habeas

application did not toll the limitations period. Although Hart

has recited the grounds for which COA was granted as an issue, he

has not argued that the district court erred in finding that his 
No. 98-41113

-2-

motion for reconsideration was not “properly filed.” Thus, he

abandons the issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25

(5th Cir. 1993)(although pro se pleadings must be liberally

construed, arguments not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned). 

The arguments Hart presents are not ones upon which COA was

granted, and we do not address them. See Lackey v. Johnson, 116

F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the

decision of the district court. Hart’s motion that this court

contact an attorney he previously consulted regarding his habeas

case is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.
No. 50263.

#### Protests 57121-K, etc., of Maddock & Miller, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided-February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exhange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
#### Bloomingdale Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6397.

Entry No. 709253, etc.

Invoices dated Hathern, England, July 10, 1941, etc.

Certified July 11, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 15, 1941, etc.

(Decided September 30, 1946)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

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

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, 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 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

An agreed set of facts, submitting these cases, establishes that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (1'9 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)),-is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar cases.
#### Bryant *versus*Couillard.

No action upon a promissory note can be maintained by an indorsee wlio took it, knowing it to have been obtained by fraud.

Exceptions to an instruction given to the jury, on the ground that there was no evidence calling for such instruction, are not to be sustained, unless they show that there was no such evidence.

Exceptions.

Assumpsit by the indorsee against the indorser of a promissory note. The exceptions recite *some*of the circumstances, under which the note was obtained, but do not purport to present all the evidence in the case.

Wells, J. instructed the jury that, if the note was obtained by fraud, and negotiated to the plaintiff with the knowledge, on his part, of the fraud, the action is not maintainable. Verdict for defendant. *«*

*Ruggles,*for the plaintiff.

The objection is, that there was no particle of evidence, which could call for such an instruction.

*Tallman*and Smith, for the defendant.

Howard, J.,

orally.—The instruction is admitted to be correct, if the evidence had been such as to furnish any occasion for it. But the exceptions do not purport to present all the evidence in the case. For any thing exhibited here, there might be testimony to which the instruction was strictly *521adapted. The law raises no *presumption,*that instructions given to a jury were inapplicable or inappropriate.

*Exceptions overruled.*
#### United States *v.*Charles P. Wagner & Bros., Inc.

No. 7597.

Entry No. 39-H.

Invoice dated Guadalajara, Jal., Mexico, October 15, 1946.

Certified October 18, 1946.

Entered at Houston, Tex., November 25, 1946.

(Decided June 9, 1948)

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

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Johnson, Judge:

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

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, 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, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of 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, — is as follows:

> US $67.42 per bbl.

> Plus 1.65% Mexican sales tax,

> Pkd, net.

> *458It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the'Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was United States dollars 67.42 per barrel, plus 1.65 per centum Mexican sales tax, packed, net.

Judgment will be rendered' accordingly.
# C_2016191EN.01000302.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland) lodged on 15 October 2015 — Euro Bank SA v Marek Łopaciński

(Case C-537/15)

(2016/C 191/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Euro Bank SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Marek Łopaciński

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

By order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 it was decided that there was no need to proceed to judgment in the case.

---
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 172 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas firefighters work devotedly and selflessly on behalf 

of the people of the United States, without regard for the 

peril or danger to themselves; 

Whereas firefighters carry out the vital role of protecting and 

ensuring the safety of the public and their property; 
2 

•HCON 172 EH 

Whereas on June 18, 2007, 9 brave men of the Charleston 

Fire Department selflessly paid the ultimate sacrifice in 

service to their community; 

Whereas the firemen who perished had over 120 years of 

combined service in the fire department; 

Whereas the events of June 18, 2007, constitute the single 

worst loss of firefighters since September 11, 2001; 

Whereas Captain William ‘‘Billy’’ Hutchinson, Captain Mike 

Benke, Captain Louis Mulkey, Engineer Mark Kelsey, 

Engineer Bradford ‘‘Brad’’ Baity, Assistant Engineer 

Michael French, Firefighter James ‘‘Earl’’ Drayton, 

Firefighter Brandon Thompson, and Firefighter Melvin 

Champaign were heroes in the truest sense of the word; 

and 

Whereas Charlestonians, South Carolinians, and Americans 

will forever be grateful for the service of these firefighters 

and mourn their loss: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress honors the lives of the 9 fallen 

3 City of Charleston firefighters who lost their lives in 

4 Charleston, South Carolina, on June 18, 2007. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 27, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 172 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life of each of the 9 fallen City of 

Charleston, South Carolina, on June 18, 2007. Charleston firefighters who lost their lives in
(logo) Rialto

CAPITAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of May 1,2016 by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC asSpecial Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee, WellsFargo Bank, National Association as Certificate Administrator and Park BridgeLender Services LLC as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewerrelating to Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2016-C29,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C29 **(MSBAM2016-C29)**

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the"Special Servicer")hereincertifies to the following:

 

1.       All servicing activities and performanceof such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.       A review of the servicing activities andperformance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2018to December 31, 2018 (the "Reporting Period")in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement hasbeen conducted under my supervision.

 

3.       To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligationsunder the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,in all material respects for the Reporting Periodand if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specificallyidentified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, ManagingDirector 

 

Date: March 1, 2019
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 18, 2022. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 18, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22A0329. WORTHINGTON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. POOLE HUFFMAN, LLC.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion be hereby GRANTED, and jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 2, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 127420 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 127420 COA: 246417 Wayne CC: 01-009240 WILLIAM MOTTEN, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the Ju ly 20, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1026 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.

November 2, 2005

Clerk
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 203 

Condemning the persecution of labor rights advocates in Iran. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 

Mr. KIRK (for himself and Mr. ANDREWS) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Condemning the persecution of labor rights advocates in 

Iran. 

Whereas, on April 9, 2007, Iranian agents arrested and imprisoned Mahmoud Salehi, founder of the Saghez Bakery 

Workers Association; 

Whereas Salehi’s life is in grave danger as he sits in the 

Sanandaj prisons without access to kidney dialysis treatment; 

Whereas, on July 10, 2007, plainclothes Iranian agents severely beat and arrested Mansour Osanloo, president of 

the Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs 

(Vahed); 

Whereas Osanloo now sits in Iran’s notorious Evin prison 

with a chronic heart condition and a serious eye condition 

that requires immediate surgery; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 203 IH 

Whereas Osanloo has no access to medical or legal assistance 

and no contact with his family; 

Whereas, on August 9, 2007, Teamsters General President 

James P. Hoffa called on Iran to immediately release 

Osanloo and Salehi; 

Whereas, on August 9, 2007, the International Trade Union 

Confederation, together with the International Transport 

Workers’ Federation, staged an international day of action to free Osanloo and Salehi; 

Whereas Iran is a member of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and is legally bound to respect ILO core 

principles, including freedom of association; 

Whereas Freedom House reported in 2006 that ‘‘Iranian law 

does not allow independent labor unions to exist’’; and 

Whereas the United States remains the leading voice in the 

world for international workers’ rights and labor standards: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) condemns the Government of Iran for the 

4 arrest and imprisonment of Iranian union leaders 

5 Mahmoud Salehi and Mansour Osanloo and de6 mands their immediate release; and 

7 (2) expresses its solidarity with the workers of 

8 Iran and stands with them in their effort to bring 

9 political freedom and individual liberty to Iran. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Argan, 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.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
Registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in
the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: September 8, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Arthur F. TrudelArthur F. Trudel
EXHIBIT 32
 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Relating to a Periodic Report Containing Financial Statements
  (1)
    
    The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the
Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    
    
    
    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/s/ John L. Walsh
    
    
    
    /s/ John C. BarneyJohn L. Walsh
    
    
    
    John C. BarneyDate: February 5, 2010
    
    
    
    Date: February 5, 2010
No. 40373.

#### Protest 768063-G of Miller Gebhardt Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise classified as Christmas-tree decorations is the same as that passed upon in *Kresge*v. *United States*(25 C. C. P. A. 1, T. D. 48975). The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was therefore sustained.
#### Edward Boote *v.*United States

No. 7560.

Entry Nos. 735211; 710859.

Invoices dated Stoke on Trent, England, December 21, 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 25, 1946, etc.

(Decided March 4, 1948)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

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

Johnson, Judge:

This proceeding has been submitted upon a stipulation wherein the parties hereto have agreed that the issues involved in these reappraisements are the same in all material respects as in the case of *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334. The record in that case was admitted as part of the record herein.

In view of the aforesaid stipulation and accepting same as a statement ot fact, and in view of the decision cited, I find and hold that the export values of the merchandise are the values found by the appraiser, less any additions on entrv by the importer by reason of advances by the appraiser in similar cases to equal the so-called British purchase tax.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2016260EN.01001201.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser v Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes

(Case C-300/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 21 and 45 TFEU - Freedom of movement and of residence of persons and workers - Income tax - Retirement pension - Pensioners’ tax credit - Conditions for granting - Possession of a tax deduction form issued by national authorities))

(2016/C 260/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser

Applicants:

Defendant: Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 21 and 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national tax law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts the eligibility for the pensioners’ tax credit to taxpayers in possession of a tax deduction form.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---