alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 10860 and # 10861]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Vermont dated 05/01/2007. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         04/15/2007 through 04/16/2007. *Effective Date:*
                         05/01/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         07/02/2007. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         02/01/2008
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. *The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:* Primary Counties: Rutland. Contiguous Counties: Vermont, Addison, Bennington, Windsor. New York, Washington. *The Interest Rates are:* PercentHomeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.750Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.875Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.250Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10860 B and for economic injury is 10861 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Vermont and New York. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: May 1, 2007. Steven C. Preston, Administrator.


[FR Doc. E7-8830 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Howard B. CARVER, III, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50263.

D.C. No. CR-02-00443-JSL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2005.

Matthew E. Sloan, USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark McBride, Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Howard B. Carver, III appeals his 87-month sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We remand the sentence for further proceedings consistent with *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
----

Exhibit 99.6

Summary of Loan Agreement Entered into by and betweenShenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd. ("the Company") and Shenzhen Eastern Branch,Agricultural Bank of China ("the Creditor") dated November 18, 2009 

Main contents 

-  Contract number:  81101200900002205; Loan principal: RMB 90  million; Loan term: from November  18, 2009 to May 17, 2010; Floating interest rate: annually 4.86%, rate  adjustment in a 3-month cycle; -  Interest accrued and    settled per month, interest settlement day is the 20th day of each month;    Penalty interest rate    for delayed repayment: 4.86% plus 30% *4.86%; Penalty interest rate    for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 4.86% plus 50% *4.86%; -  Purpose of the loan is to  provide working capital for purchasing raw material of the Company; Advanced repayment of  loan needs to be approved by the Creditor; Breach of  contract penalties: correct the breach of contract in time limit; suspension  of loan unprovided; release loan agreement, demand prepayment of loan  principal and interest before maturity; imposition of punitive interest  incurred due to delayed loan; imposition of punitive interest for embezzlement  of loan; imposition of plural interest for unpaid interest; withdraw from any  accounts of the Company the loan principal, interest and other fees;  compensation for the Creditor’s expenses incurred due to demanding the loan  principal and interest in case of litigation, etc. Supplemental: in the event that the Company repaid  the loan in advance, it has to pay extra handling fee: advanced repaid amount  * share months * 1. **Headlines of the articles omitted:**-  Loan arrangement Interest clearing of the  loan Payment of the loan Rights and obligation of  the Creditor Rights and obligations of  the Company Interest penalty of loan  Guarantee of the loan  agreement Disputation settlement  Validity Text Notification
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 286 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 286

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas Earl Lloyd was born in Alexandria, Virginia on April 3, 1928;
Whereas Earl Lloyd first developed his passion for basketball at the city of 
        Alexandria's segregated Parker-Gray High School;
Whereas Earl Lloyd was drafted by the NBA in 1950 as a ninth round pick by the 
        Washington Capitols;
Whereas on October 31, 1950, Earl Lloyd became the first African-American to 
        play in the NBA;
Whereas Earl Lloyd dissolved the color barrier in the NBA 3 years after Jackie 
        Robinson had done the same in baseball;
Whereas Earl Lloyd proudly put his professional career on hold and served in the 
        Army for 2 years before returning to the NBA;
Whereas Earl Lloyd played 560 NBA games and won a championship before retiring 
        in 1960;
Whereas in 2003, Earl Lloyd was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball 
        Hall of Fame; and
Whereas the newly constructed basketball court at T.C. Williams in his home town 
        of Alexandria was named in his honor: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that Earl Lloyd should be recognized 
and honored for breaking the color barrier and becoming the first 
African-American to play in the National Basketball Association League 
58 years ago.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 286

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Expressing the sense of Congress that Earl Lloyd should be recognized 
   and honored for breaking the color barrier and becoming the first 
African-American to play in the National Basketball Association League 
                             58 years ago.
```
Exhibit 12   United Air Lines, Inc. andSubsidiary Companies
Computation of Ratio of Earningsto Fixed Charges   Nine Months Ended September 30    20012000 (In Millions)Earnings:    Earnings before income taxes, extraordinary item     and cumulative effect of accounting change$   (2,830)$   563   Fixed charges, from below673 788   Undistributed (earnings) losses of affiliates(3)4   Interest capitalized    (63)    (57)         Earnings$ (2,223)$ 1,298  ===== =====    Fixed charges:       Interest expense$   394 $   304   Portion of rental expense representative        of the interest factor   279   484         Fixed charges$   673 $   788  ===== =====    Ratio ofearnings to fixed charges      (a)           1.65  ===== =====       
(a)  Earnings were inadequateto cover fixed charges by $2.9 billion in 2001.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4968

_____________________________
K ERRICK V AN T EAMER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Thomas V. Dannheisser , Judge

. April 24, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , W INOKUR , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, Ste ven E. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
October 15, 1957

Reap. Dec. 9014.

#### S. *Stern, Henry & Co., et al.*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. [Not published.] Motion by plaintiffs.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement:

[To be Published]. 

# Status:

Closed meeting. 

# Place:

 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC. 

# Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting:

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 2 p.m. 

# Change in the Meeting:

Time change. 

The closed meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 2 p.m. has been changed to Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 12:30 p.m. 

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

Dated: May 2, 2007. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7-8649 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
No. 65728.

#### Daco Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 61/604 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 39098.

#### Protest 934990-G of Ybry, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Hudnut*(17 C. C. P. A. 207, T. D. 43649) the bottles in question were held dutiable under paragraph 217 as claimed.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 90 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8983]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-439-000]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Annual Report Filing

May 4, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 1, 2007 ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) tendered 
for filing its Operational Purchases and Sales of Gas Report for the 
twelve month period beginning January 1, 2006 and ending December 31, 
2006. ANR states that it is filing this report in compliance with 
Section 38 of the General Terms and Conditions of ANR's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated 
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or 
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve 
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions 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 or intervention 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f0b6b5a2b3bf9e9c999e95a38580809f8284b096958293de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d3959681909cbdbfbabdb680a6a3a3bca1a793b5b6a1b0fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time May 11, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8983 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000536

14-MAY-2019

07:51 AM
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Byron V. SUTTON, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 03-4123, 04-2358.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Aug. 4, 2005.

David E. Bindi, James M. Kuhn, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Andrew J. McGowan, Kent V. Anderson, Richard H. Parsons, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before POSNER, ROVNER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Byron Sutton pleaded guilty to crack conspiracy and distribution charges, and in a prior opinion we rejected his arguments that the district court miscalculated the drug quantity and imposed an illegal restitution award. *United States v. Sutton,*406 F.3d 472 (7th Cir.2005). We nonetheless issued a limited remand because as we now know from *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the district court sentenced Sutton in violation of the Sixth Amend*699ment and, despite being limited to plain-error review given that Sutton failed to timely object to the sentencing procedures, we were unable to say “whether Sutton’s substantial rights were affected without consulting the sentencing judge to determine whether she would have given the same sentence had she known the guidelines were not mandatory,” *Sutton,*406 F.3d at 475. We retained jurisdiction during the limited remand.

In response to our limited remand, the district judge informed us that she cannot represent that she “would have imposed the same sentence” had she known the sentencing guidelines were not binding. Both parties have filed memoranda commenting on the district court’s position, and although the government argues otherwise, we agree with Sutton that, taken in context, the court’s statement is an expression of intent to impose a lower sentence given the additional discretion afforded by *Booker.*Accordingly, we conclude that the concurrent 135-month terms imposed by the district court constitute plain error. *Johnson v. United States,*520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997).

Sutton’s sentences are VACATED, and his cases are REMANDED to the district court for resentencing.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Veeco Instruments Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,David D. Glass, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ DAVID D. GLASS                                    |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | David D. Glass                                        |   |
|   | Executive Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | Veeco  Instruments Inc.                          |   |
|   | October 27, 2010                                 |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to VeecoInstruments Inc. and will be retained by Veeco Instruments Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6071.

Invoice dated Kobe, Japan, May 14, 1941.

Certified May 14, 1941.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 24, 1941.

Entry No. 769812.

(Order dated November 20, 1944)

*James W. Bevans*for the plaintiff.

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

ORDER

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement on certain Christmas decorations exported from Japan and entered at the port of New York. The merchandise was entered at the invoice unit prices, plus a fee for labels. The appraiser advanced the value by adding certain percentages supposedly for commission and control fees but made no report as to whether Ms appraisement was based on foreign or export value. Plaintiff contends that the importer purchased tMs merchandise from Japanese manufacturers through a commissionaire and that the item of commission forms no part of the dutiable value.

The importer, having appealed, has assumed the burden of establishing (1) the foreign value and (2) the export value, so that the higher "may be taken as the basis for the assessment of duty, or to show (1) a foreign value and the nonexistence of an export value, or (2) an export value and the nonexistence of a foreign value. Being the appealing party, it was incumbent upon it “to meet every material issue involved in the case.” (Meadows, *Wye & Co. (Inc.) et al.*v. *United States, 17*C. C. P. A. 36/42, T. D. 43324.)

In the case here before me plaintiff has attempted to prove that the importer purchased this merchandise at various prices arrived at after *409negotiations with the various manufacturers and that Strong & Co., as commissionaires, performed services for them during the transactions for which they were paid a commission. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case the Government moved to dismiss the appeal for reappraisement on the ground that plaintiff had failed to establish a *'prima facie*case in that it had failed to show at the time of exportation of this merchandise the export value was other than the appraised value, or that a foreign value did not exist, or that the foreign value, if any, was lower than the export value.

Subsequent to the submission of this case, plaintiff’s counsel stated that because of certain comments by the court he did not call the examiner to testify. From the record it is evident that counsel was prepared to call the examiner to establish that the exact advance made by the appraiser was that of the commission.

I am of opinion that the interests of justice will be best served by restoring this case to the calendar for all purposes.

It is so ordered.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3689

___________ Cyrill A. Kolocotronis * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Missouri * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 29, 1998 Filed: February 2, 1999

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Cyril l A. Kolocotronis appeals from a district court dismissing his action fo r So cial Security benefits as frivolous because 42 U.S.C. § 402(4)1)(A)(ii) prohibit s benef its for persons confined to an institution at public expense. After carefull y rev iewing the record, we conclude the district court did not err. Accordingly, w e affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47(A)(a).-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Before the Second Division,

December 12, 1949

No. 53803.

protests 78474-K, etc. (Seattle).

#### Minami & Hori Importing Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the record the court found nothing therein tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector. The protests were therefore overruled.