alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 99

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
---------------------

             Unitog Company Says It Has Engaged Investment Bankers
             -----------------------------------------------------
                      To Advise On Strategic Alternatives
                      -----------------------------------


Kansas City, MO, November 30, 1998 - Unitog Company (NASDAQ: UTOG) today 
announced that it has retained investment banking counsel to advise on its 
strategic alternatives for enhancing shareholder value.

"We have retained Goldsmith, Agio, Helms & Company and George K. Baum & Company,
two investment banking organizations that understand both the environment of our
industry and the history and operations of our Company," said Randolph K. Rolf,
chairman, president and chief executive officer of Unitog Company. "These two
firms will add expertise to our senior management discussions as we address our
future planning."

Mr. Rolf said alternatives being explored include the sale of the Company, a
strategic merger, or other changes in business strategy. Information regarding
the Company has been provided to a number of companies under confidentiality
agreements and detailed discussions are currently underway with a select group
of parties, Rolf said.

Unitog Company is a leading provider of high-quality uniform rental services to
a variety of industries and sells custom-designed uniforms primarily to national
companies in connection with their corporate image programs. The Company
manufactures substantially all of the uniforms it rents or sells. Unitog's
common stock is publicly traded on the NASDAQ National Market under the symbol
UTOG.

CONTACT:  J. Craig Peterson               Jack P. Helms
          Unitog Company                  Kevin G. Jach
          1300 Washington Street          Goldsmith, Agio, Helms and Company
          Kansas City, MO 64105           US Bank Place - 46th Floor
          816-474-7000                    601 Second Avenue South
                                          Minneapolis, MN 55402
                                          612-339-0500
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8791]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1511]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, Academy Sports and 
Outdoors (Apparel, Footwear, and Sporting Goods), Katy and Brookshire, 
Texas

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ''. . . the 
establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the Port of Houston Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade 
Zone 84, has made application for authority to establish special-
purpose subzone status at the apparel, footwear, and sporting goods 
warehousing and distribution facilities of Academy Sports and Outdoors 
in Katy and Brookshire, Texas (Docket 22-2006, filed 6-13-2006);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (71 FR 35612, 6-21-2006); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application 
is in the public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status for activity related to apparel, footwear, and sporting goods 
warehousing and distribution at the Academy Sports and Outdoors 
facilities located in Katy and Brookshire, Texas (Subzone 84S), as 
described in the application and Federal Register notice, and subject 
to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.
    Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of April 2007.

David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8791 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
No. 55512.

#### Beam Instruments Corp. and Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 163018-K and 168401-K (B) (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
(Reap. Dec. 9402)

#### American Roland Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. WH 63725.

(Decided April 22, 1959)

*Eugene R. PicJcrell*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of Pas Sodium, a coal-tar product, which was appraised on the basis of American selling price, as defined under the provisions of Section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and subject to duty thereunder by reason of Paragraph 28(a) of said Act.

> IT IS FURTHER .STIPULATED AND AGREED that the American selling price on the date of exportation for said Pas Sodium, as defined under the provisions of Section 402(g) of said Act, is $1.90 per pound, net weight, less *1%*packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal for reap-praisement is abandoned as to any other merchandise listed on the invoice, and that this appeal may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that American sellingprice, as that value is defined in section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis for the determination of the merchandise here involved, and that such value is $1.90 per pound, net weight, less 1 per centum packed.

Insofar as the appeal relates to other merchandise, it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
September 10, 1951

No. 8048.

#### *F. W. Woolworth Co.*v. *United States.*

REHEARING MOTION GRANTED

Entered at Baltimore, Md. Reap. Dec. 8032. Motion by plaintiff.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 311 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2008 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater 

Washington Soap Box Derby. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES 

4 ON CAPITOL GROUNDS. 

5 The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Associa6 tion (in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Association’’) 

7 shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, soap box 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HCON 311 RDS 

1 derby races, on the Capitol Grounds on June 21, 2008, 

2 or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Rep3 resentatives and the Committee on Rules and Administra4 tion of the Senate may jointly designate. 

5 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS. 

6 The event to be carried out under this resolution shall 

7 be free of admission charge to the public and arranged 

8 not to interfere with the needs of Congress, under condi9 tions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and 

10 the Capitol Police Board; except that the Association shall 

11 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities 

12 incident to all activities associated with the event. 

13 SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT. 

14 For the purposes of this resolution, the Association 

15 is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds, subject 

16 to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, such stage, 

17 sound amplification devices, and other related structures 

18 and equipment as may be required for the event to be car19 ried out under this resolution. 

20 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS. 

21 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police 

22 Board are authorized to make any such additional ar23 rangements that may be required to carry out the event 

24 under this resolution. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

HCON 311 RDS 

1 SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

2 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce3 ment of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of 

4 title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertise5 ments, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, 

6 as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol 

7 Grounds, with respect to the event to be carried out under 

8 this resolution. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 4, 2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



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

(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of United Refining Company, a Pennsylvania corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
February 29, 2004 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |     |  |                          |  |                                                 
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Dated: April 14, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ John A. Catsimatidis
|                      |  |     |  |                          |  | John A. Catsimatidis Principal Executive Officer
|                      |  |    
|Dated: April 14, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ James E. Murphy     
|                      |  |     |  |                          |  | James E. Murphy Principal Financial Officer     



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of Form 10-Q or as a separate
disclosure document.



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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 324 

Expressing the sense of Congress relating to the trade promotion agreement 

between the United States and Colombia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2008 

Ms. KAPTUR (for herself and Mr. KILDEE) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress relating to the trade promotion agreement between the United States and Colombia. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that Con3 gress should not approve the trade promotion agreement 

4 between the United States and Colombia signed on No5 vember 22, 2006. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 9845)

#### E. W. Goldstein Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 776, etc.

*559(Decided November 22, 1960)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise and the issues in the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated above are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues decided in the case of *Paramount Import Co., Inc. et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697, and that the record in said case be incorporated and made a part of the record herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated herein, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade 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, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

In the incorporated case, I lield that a charge of 15 per centum, paid by the American importer to a foreign commissionaire for services rendered in connection with the purchase of merchandise in the foreign market and which amount did not inure to the benefit of the seller, was a *bona fide*buying commission that did not enter into the dutiable value of the merchandise.

On the agreed facts and following my cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 55510.

#### Siber Hegner & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 145424-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2016 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2016-2, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





|   |                                                                                                              
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.




|   |                                                                                      
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning onMarch 1, 2018and ending onFebruary 28, 2019and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.







Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 23rd day of May, 2019 .





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Enrique Mayor-Mora


Enrique Mayor-Mora


Vice President and Treasurer
(Reap. Dec. 9403)

#### The American International Products Corporation *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 890183; 752415.

(Decided April 22, 1959)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

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

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise the subject of the above entitled appeals to reappraisement is properly dutiable on the basis of American Selling Price as defined in Section 402(g) Tariff Act of 1930 as amended and that the said American Selling Price was as follows for the export periods indicated.

> Item Export period Price

> Pas Acid 1958 $3.40 per lb. less *1%*net packed.

> Pas Sodium 1958 $1.90 per lb. less *1%*net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals be deemed submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for determination of the value of the merchandise here in question, and that such value for each of the involved articles was as hereinabove set forth in the stipulation of submission.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 11, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 07-2187

v. District of New Mexico

JESUS HURTADO-FIERRO,

Defendant-Appellant.

(D.C. No. 06-CR-1295-BB)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, KELLY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-Appellant Jesus Hurtado-Fierro pleaded guilty to a one-count

indictment charging violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1), reentry of a deported

alien previously convicted of a felony, and was sentenced to 41 months in prison.

He timely appealed his sentence. His counsel, Arturo B. Nieto, has filed an

Anders brief and moved to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Mr. Hurtado-Fierro did not file a response. The government

declined to submit a brief. Because we find that neither Mr. Hurtado-Fierro nor
-2-

his counsel raises any non-frivolous issues on appeal, we grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

In the plea agreement, the parties initially agreed that the appropriate

offense level under the United States Sentences Guidelines was 9, but in

paragraph 8(a) the government reserved the right to withdraw from the agreement

in the event that the defendant was discovered to have committed a crime of

violence. Subsequently, the probation office found that Mr. Hurtado-Fierro was

convicted in 1995 of violating New Mexico Stat. Ann. § 30-6-1(E), Child AbuseNegligently Cause (No Death or Great Bodily Harm), a third degree felony

punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. Examining the indictment, the

district court found that Mr. Hurtado-Fierro had been charged with the act of

biting or sucking the skin of the child until she bruised, and/or having tortured or

cruelly punished the child. The court concluded that this constituted a crime of

violence, requiring a 16-level increase in the Guideline calculation. See U.S.S.G.

§2L1.2(b)(1)(A). The court sentenced Mr. Hurtado-Fierro to 41 months, the

bottom of the recommended range.

Having examined the record, including the sentencing transcript and the

underlying state indictment, we conclude that the district court correctly allowed

the government to withdraw from the original plea agreement calling for an

offense level of 9, and that it correctly concluded that Mr. Hurtado-Fierro’s prior
-3-

conviction was for a crime of violence within the meaning of U.S.S.G.

§2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Appellant raises no non-frivolous argument to the contrary.

We therefore GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the

appeal. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New

Mexico is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Michael W. McConnell

Circuit Judge