alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### United States *v.*Thomas French *& Sons, Ltd.*

No. 6266.

Entry No. 707156.

Invoice dated Manchester, England, August 1944.

Certified August 1944.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 25, 1944.

(Decided March 26, 1946)

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Bpector,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*339*Sharretts & Hillis (Hadley S.- King*of counsel) for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

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

It is hereby stipulated and agreed subject to the approval of the court that at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar ■merchandise was freely offered to all purchasers in the principal markets of England in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at the *per*se entered values of the respective items plus five shillings per gross yards, less 2)4 per centum, plus packing.

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

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

On tlie agreed facts I find tbe 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 values are the per *se*entered values, plus 5 shillings per •gross yards, less *2%*per centum, plus packing.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit
      13.1




**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 Annual Report of Fundtech Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F
      for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Reuven Ben Menachem, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted pursuant to §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.




Date:
      April 11, 2008




/s/
                Reuven
                Ben MenachemReuven
                Ben MenachemChief
                Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Fundtech Ltd. and will be retained by Fundtech Ltd. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 this Quarterly Report of Security Intelligence
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March
31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Chris Decker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.

May 20, 2004

                                       By:  /s/ Chris R. Decker
                                       -------------------------
                                       Chris R. Decker
                                       Chief Financial Officer


                                       23
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,959,904
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     60,965
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         242,482
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       264,820
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,528,171
<COMMON>                                       638,854
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          (513,244)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 125,610
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,224,160
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               3,567
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    1,200
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    894,106
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                10,289
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 269,239
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,528,171
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      555,639
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            12,934
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     445,861
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     458,795
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         96,844
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              93,715
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 190,559
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        77,353
<NET-INCOME>                                   113,206
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  113,206
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          99,369
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.52
        

</TABLE>
No. 50708.

#### Protest 69661-K of American Import Co. (Seattle).

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 invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the •entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
---

Exhibit 99.3

Summary of Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount ( the Contract)

Entered into by and between Xiangqian Li, BAK International Limited, 
BAK International (Tianjin) Limited (the Guarantor) and Shenzhen Eastern Branch,

Agricultural Bank of China (the Creditor) 
Dated November 15, 2010

Main contents:

- Guaranty Contract number: 81100520100000217;
- Xiangqian Li, BAK International Limited and BAK International (Tianjin)
Limited undertake to assume joint and several liabilities for Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd (the Obligor)s indebtedness towards Agricultural Bank of China under the Comprehensive Credit Facility Agreement of Maximum Amount
(reference no.: 81001201013170001) from November 15, 2010 to November 10, 2011, and the maximum amount secured is RMB 500 million.
- Guaranty Responsibility: The guaranty under this Contract shall be guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The Guarantor is obligated to pay off the debt in the event the Obligor is unable to pay off the debt (including the
Creditor declares the debt becomes mature in advance to its original expiry date due to default of the Obligor or the Guarantor).
- Scope of Guaranty:The guaranty shall cover all of the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of contract compensation, damages, undertaking fee and all the expenses such as litigation cost, lawyers fee,
notification cost and public notice cost etc. which is incurred to the Creditor in realizing its creditors right.
- Guaranty period: The guaranty period is from the effective date of this
Contract to two years after the expiry of the term of the Credit Facility
Agreement and relevant agreement entered into under the Credit Facility
Agreement.

Headlines of the articles omitted:

- Payment on demand
- Declaration and guaranty
- Independent guaranty
- Fulfillment of the responsibility and giving up of the right
- Disputation settlement
- Validity
- Supplement articles

---
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-31166

JULIA MARITZA PAZ, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Children;

LIONEL PAZ, Individually and on Behalf of His Minor Children,

Plaintiffs-AppelleesCross-Appellants,

versus

OUR LADY OF LOURDES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.;

LAWRENCE I. RUSSELL,

Defendants-AppellantsCross-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

No. 6:01-CV-2693

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 21, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-31166

R. 47.5.4.

2

Julia Paz sued for medical malpractice and obtained a substantial award

from the jury. Both sides appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and pertinent portions of

the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. There is no reversible error

in regard to duty of care or liability. There is sufficient evidence to support the

awarded damages.

The only reversible error is in the reduction of damages by the district

court that resulted from the erroneous inclusion of Dr. Meza on the jury form.

See La. R.S. 40:1299.41, -.47. The jury found damages of $200,000. For the remaining two defendants, 90% of that amount (which is $180,000) is awarded

against the hospital, and 10% (which is $20,000) is awarded against Dr. Russell.

Because of the state damage cap, the hospital must pay only $100,000 and Russell the full $20,000, leaving $80,000 to be sought from the state patient’s compensation fund. See La. R.S. 40:1299.42B(2).

The judgment is MODIFIED as indicated above. In all other respects,

there being no reversible error, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
TIfSEA ORNEY GENE OF TEXAS

Honorable Patrick A. Myers County Attorney Jack County Jacksboro, Texas

Dear Mr. Myers: Opinion No. w-1098 Re: Whether a Commissioners' Court may issue time,warrants to securemoney with which to satisfy judgments in condemnation suits brought by it to obtain right of way for the construction of a farm-tomarket road. Yoursletter of June 27, 1961, states that certain condemnation suits brought by Jack County have resulted in judgmentsagainst the County, totaling about $15,000. Under an agreementwith the State Highway Department, these suits were brought to procure right of way for a farm-to-marketroad. Since the Countyhas exhausted the funds available for this purpose, the issuance of time warrants is being considered. Our opinion as to the authority for issuing time warrants in this instancehas been requested.

The circumstancesare related with more particularity as follows:

"1. The County'sRoad and Bridge fun and Lateral road fund (Art. 744 a) are exhausted. 2. The County now has two condemnation judgmentsagainst it for approximately $15,000.00. 3. Time warrantswill be issued to a bank and the money used forpayment of the judgments. 4. The bank refuses to loan the money until we obtain an Attorney^ -

Honorable Patrick A. Myers, page 2 (w-1098)

General's opinion approving the legality of issuing time warrants. 5. A sinking fund will be created from current taxes or an additional tax leviedunder Article 7048a. 6. The population of Jack County is approximately 7,000persons and the assessed tax eva&uation just over $23,000,000.00. Commissioners' Courts may condemn land for right of way needed for the constructionof state highways. Article 6674n,Vernon's Civil Statutes. A farm-to-marketroad is a statehighway. Gill v. Falls County, 243 S.W.2d 277 (Civ.App.19517

The landmark case of Lasater v. Lopez, 110 Tex. 179, 217 S.W. 373 (1919)established that time warrantsmight be issued by Commissioners'Courts for the constructionof roads within their counties. See Article 2351, Subsection 10,Vernon's Civil Statutes.

Attorney General's OpinionNo. O-6834 (1945) held that time warrants could be issued to pay for the purchase of right of way for farm-to-marketroads. In this respect we seeno material distinctionbetween acquisitionby purchase and acquisitionby condemnation. Indeed, Article 6674n speaks of securing right of way 'bypurchase or by condemnation."

It is accordingly our opinion that the paying of judgments in condemnation suitsbrought to secure right of way for a farm-to-marketroad constitutes a lawful and proper purpose for the issuance of time warrantsby Commissioners'Courts.

SUMMARY A Commissioners'Court may issue time warrants to securemoney with which to satisfy judgments in condemnation suitsbrought by it to obtain right of way for the constructionof a farm-to-marketroad.k- -

Honorable Patrick A. Myers, page 3 (W-1098)

Yours very truly, WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas

GH:lgh

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE: W. V. Geppert, Chairman W. Ray Scruggs Elmer McVey John C. Steinberger Sam Ray Wilson REVIEWED FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Morgan Nesbitt B
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8906]



[[Page 26338]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(C-580-818)


Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic 
of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest or Robert Copyak, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3338 
or (202) 482-2209, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 29, 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published a notice of initiation of the administrative 
review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant carbon 
steel flat products from the Republic of Korea covering the period of 
review January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 57465 
(September 29, 2006). The preliminary results are currently due no 
later than May 3, 2007.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination 
within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order 
or finding for which a review is requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act further states that if it is not practicable to complete the review 
within the time period specified, the administering authority may 
extend the 245-day period to issue its preliminary results by up to 120 
days.
    Due to the complexity of the issues in this administrative review, 
we have determined that it is not practicable to complete the 
preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are 
extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the 
review by 120 days. The preliminary results are now due no later than 
August 31, 2007. The final results continue to be due 120 days after 
publication of the preliminary results.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Dated: May 2, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-8906 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
Before the First Division,

September 16, 1943

No. 48775.

#### Petitions 6309-R, etc., of Minnesota and Ontario Paper Co. (Duluth and Pembina).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It appeared from the record that the petitioner for a great many years had imported this merchandise from the same Canadian exporter and that the merchandise had always been entered at the prices paid by the importer, which were the amounts received on sales in this country less freight allowance and 5 percent discount. It also appeared that such values were riever disputed by the customs officials until the time of the entries in question. It was revealed by the testimony that the. 8 percent Canadian sales tax was not included as part of the dutiable value in a few of the 29 entries under consideration, which the witness explained was due to an oversight by a billing clerk in the office of the Canadian shipper. The court was satisfied from examination of the record and consideration of the facts that the petitioner had met the burden imposed under said section 489 and therefore granted the petitions. *United States*v. *Fish*(268 U. S. 607) cited.
Exhibit 10.30
                                                                         Summary
                                                                     Translation
                                                                     -----------


Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount Guarantee Signed by and between the Company
and Shenzhen Commercial Bank (the "Commercial Bank") dated as of March 17, 2005
>>   Contract No: Shen Shang Yin (Gaoxin) Shouxin Baozi (2005) No.004-2;
>>   As  guarantor,   the  Company   undertakes  to  assume  joint  and  several
     responsibilities  to secure the  indebtedness  of Shenzhen  Tongli  towards
     Commercial Bank under the Comprehensive Agreement.
>>   Guaranty Period:  from the signing date of  Comprehensive  Agreement to the
     expiry date of two years  commencing from maturity of the last matured loan
     borrowed under Comprehensive Agreement;
>>   Items  secured  include  loan  principal  and  related  interest,   penalty
     interest,  breach of contract compensation and expenses under Comprehensive
     Agreement;
>>   Maximum amount secured for loan principal under Comprehensive  Agreement is
     RMB 4.2 Million Yuan
>>   Other Terms:
     |X|  The  guarantor  shall  take  joint and  several  responsibilities  for
          Shenzhen  Tongli's  indebtedness  towards  the  Commercial  Bank under
          Comprehensive Agreement;
     |X|  Amendment  or changes  made to  Comprehensive  Agreement  (except  for
          increase  of  credit  amount)  does  not  need to be  approved  by the
          guarantor and the Guaranty  Contract  shall remain to be effective and
          binding upon the guarantor;
     |X|  Guaranty Contract is irrevocable and independently effective.

Terms that have been  omitted:  indebtedness  to be secured and maximum  amount;
commitment  of the  guarantor;  liability;  dispute  settlement;  miscellaneous;
effectiveness; validity; and attention.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 9, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40573

Summary Calendar

 

JAMES E. JENKINS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

Lee, Dr.; ET AL., 

 

Defendants,

Lee, Dr., 

 Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-02-CV-191

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James E. Jenkins, Texas inmate # 599106, appeals the summary-judgment dismissal, on

grounds of qualified immunity, of his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jenkins

claimed that the defendant, Dr. Lee, was deliberately indifferent to hisserious medical needs because

Dr. Lee prescribed Verapamil rather than Clonidine for Jenkins’ high blood pressure. Jenkins

presented evidence showing that Dr. Lee continued to prescribe Verapamil, and to refuse Jenkins’

requests for Clonidine, after Jenkins complained of discomfort, lightheadedness, dizzy spells, and

nausea, and suffered a blackout due to high blood pressure. 
This court reviews de novo the grant of a motion for summary judgment. See United States

v. Lawrence, 276 F.3d 193, 195 (5thCir. 2001). In order to preclude summary judgment, there must

be sufficient summary-judgment evidence to raise a fact issue as to the defendant’s deliberate

indifference. See Nerren v. Livingston Police Dep’t., 86 F.3d 469, 473 n.27 (5th Cir. 1996). A

prison official acts with deliberate indifference “only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk

to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal and conclude that the district court did

not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Lee. The undisputed summary-judgment

evidence is that Verapamil is the therapeutic equivalent of Clonidine. Jenkins has not shown that

there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that Dr. Lee was deliberately indifferent for

treating him with Verapamil rather than with Clonidine. See Nerren, 86 F.3d at 473 n.27. The

summary-judgment evidence and Jenkins’ argument reflect nothing more than mere disagreement with

the care rendered by Dr. Lee, or, at best, malpractice, which are insufficient to establish a

constitutional violation. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.