alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S
. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration



### JAN Z 82015
Mr. Matthieu Amberg Dassault Aviation 78, quai Marcel Dassault

- Cedex 300 92552 Saint-Cloud Cedex FRANCE Dear Mr. Amberg: Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue , S.W. Renton ,Washington 98057-3356

We have received your petition letter, dated January 20, 2015, requesting exemption from § 25.1447(c)(l), Amendment 25-116, ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations. This exemption, ifgranted, would allow the installation ofa passenger oxygen system which, when operating into or out ofan airfield with a pressure altitude greaterthan 14,000 ft. but less than 15,000 ft., would ensure the automatic presentation ofoxygen dispensing units to occupants before cabin altitude exceeds 16,000 ft., rather than 15,000 ft., as required by § 25.1447(c)(l). This request was submitted to the Department ofTransportation's Federal Docket Management System (at Regulations.gov) on January 22, 2015, and has been assigned DocketNo. FAA-2015-0146. We are currently reviewing your request and will contact you ifwe need additional information. Ifyou have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petitionprocess, please contact Mr. Robert Hettman at (425) 227-2683, or by e-mail at Robert.Hettman@faa.gov.

Deana M. Stedman Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service



# crPY OF

**o~ du1NA** 

**L**
No. 39104.

#### Protests 761289-G, etc., of Frank P. Dow Co. et al. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Christmas-tree decorations wholly or in chief value of tinsel, wire, lame or lahn, bullions or metal threads the same as the merchandise 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.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Man-Hours Per Unit of Output in the Basic Steel Industry, 1939-55

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Division of Occupational Outlook. 						*Man-Hours Per Unit of Output in the Basic Steel Industry, 1939-55 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1200*,												Washington: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										September 1956,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4495,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 10.1

                         WALLACE COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.
              1994 DEFERRED COMPENSATION/CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN
                                  FOR DIRECTORS
                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1


WHEREAS, Wallace Computer Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), has heretofore adopted and maintains a non-qualified deferred
compensation arrangement for the benefit of certain of its employees designated
the "Wallace Computer Services, Inc. 1994 Deferred Compensation/Capital
Accumulation Plan for Directors" (the "Plan"); and

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;

WHEREAS, Section 17 of the Plan generally permits the Company to amend the Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 17 of
the Plan, paragraph B of Section 4 of the Plan is hereby amended to read as
follows:

     "B.  INTERIM PAYMENTS.  A Participant who is not yet eligible to receive
     installment payments under Subsection A shall receive a payment equal to
     the Participant's Deferral Amount within a reasonable time after January 1,
     2001.  In addition, a payment equal to the Participant's Deferral Amount
     shall be paid to the Participant within a reasonable time after January 1,
     2002.  These payments shall be charged to the Participant's Deferral
     Account as of the first day of the month in which payment(s) is made.  This
     Subsection does not apply to Participants terminated under Section 5."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be executed by its
duly authorized officers this sixth day of January, 1997.

                                        WALLACE COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.



                                        /s/ Robert J. Cronin
                                        --------------------
                                        President and CEO

ATTEST:


/s/ Michael T. Laudizio
-----------------------
      Secretary
(Reap. Dec. 8975)

Entry Nos. 2611; 791; 12721.

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

(Decided August 29, 1957)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These three appeals for reappraisement relate to certain glass Christmas tree ornaments exported from the *634Western Zone of Germany, directly or indirectly, by Lauscher Glasindustrie or Siegfried Heinkelein.

In a written stipulation of submission, it is established that the proper basis for appraisement of the glass Christmas tree ornaments in question is export value, as defined in section 402 Id) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for these articles is in each case the appraised value, less the amounts added under duress, packing included, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Calif-Asia Co., Ltd. *v.*United States

No. 6063.

Invoice dated Shanghai, China, April 19, 1941.

Certified April 19, 1941.

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif., May 17, 1941.

Entry No. 5732.

(Decided October 25, 1944)

*Harper & Harper (Lawrence A. Harper*and *Charles J. Evans*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FilzGibbon*and *Daniel I. Auster,*special attorneys), for the defendant.

Cole, Judge:

In this case, the appeal for reappraisement filed pursuant to the provisions of section 501 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1501) is based upon an addition of 3.17 per centum by the appraiser to his finding of 71}( cents (Shanghai currency) per square foot, plus packing, on grass rugs exported from Shanghai, China, in April 1941 and entered at the port of Los Angeles, in May 1941.

When the case was heard at the port of entry on February 23, 1944, the customs examiner who advisorily appraised the instant merchandise testified that the addition in question “equalled the difference between the exchange used on the entry and the fixed rate of exchange that appears on the invoice at which it was purchased.” In other words, the advance by the appraiser resulted from his conversion of values from Shanghai currency into United States currency, using a different rate of exchange than that applied on entry. Such a procedure exceeds the appraiser’s statutory authority in finding value. Conversion of currency is a matter that rests entirely with the collector. *Sabine Transportation Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*1 Cust. Ct. 641, Reap. Dec. 4409, and *United States*v. *C. J. Tower & Sons,*8 Cust. Ct. 681, Reap. Dec. 5615. The addition in question is not an element forming part of dutiable market value, section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402).

Defendant’s contention that plaintiff has not made out a *prima facie*case because it failed to prove all the factors included within the *394statutory definition of value, section 402, *supra,*is untenable. The record discloses that appraisement was made on the basis of export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. §1402 (d)), and such a finding by the appraiser carries a presumption ■of correctness, section 501, *sufra,*having the effect that he found ■every fact to exist that was necessary to sustain his action. *E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.*v. *United States,*27 C. C. P. A. 146, C. A. D. 75. Hence, the limited scope of the present issue.

I find export value, section 402 (d), *supra,*to be the proper basis for appraisement of the grass mats in question, and that such value is 71 *%*cents (Shanghai currency) per square foot, plus cost of packing as appraised. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
c . - 

OFFICE OF THE ATl’ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Oollea B. Yanaa 

County Attorney 

La 

eayaoIlty 

I 

mlr sir: oplnlon Boo. 01 

RII Under the 

without violating 

0tiIlg the 0Q1ni08 

8tloa read8 a8 SolArtialea 432438, Yoraea*m Aanatatod %nal aodr .we the l ta t& portalniog a m to aopotien in thio Stat& Yo’or the 

purp8err of th& opialon wa do aat deem i$ neaerrearp to quot. 

the80 Artlol*rr 

0 
Phi8 d&t&bat hae hsntiiorb ruled on a quostlon 

-8% ldeatioalm~# the one ~b8atOd in fwr inquiry and 

an dumwous.othsr qwstlona rlnllar to your que8tlon. 

On July P, 1927, this depertmnt rendered an opialoa mitten by honorable If. Qra Ohan4lbr AwirWn$ Atborne 

Oawal adbroomdto~, l&o lay, 0oua~J. Olo* Palnt x00 k 

Tam,' hlng thet a baunty oaanet appoint hi. uif* a8. ' 

d.mW. 

Oa April 26 1932, Shlr bpartwnt roadwed m oplnion writtbn by 8oaara 6 18 3bott tXia*# Airoistant Attommy #enbXW&, addn88Od t0 8r. ?tWf%&OW -8 boWIt AttOHbbl, hEtOr, 

Tome, hol6llag tbta 8hhniff 

3 

I& ap~hhi8 800: a8 l 

db p uy a h witi th the a o n be no ahemp for hi8 8orvloea 

and 18 no manna, 4lrbotl~ or indiraatl~, out 

or or from pPbll0 fond8 or rrrr of aifior or any kind or aharaot*r \Ifiat8cmter. 

On Ramh 2, 1932, this dbpWtmMt held ln an O&Iion writtoa by &narable Brnoe %. Bryant, ?irst Assfrrtant Attbruoy Oenoral a$ Taras, addreeubd ta HoIiorable Joe P. flaok 

Oouuty Attoxyey Mmud T0xa8 that it $8 not a vlalatlon 04 

.th, tfbm$hB &Ii (kt&II uii Uid.433 PMbf %db.Ui 4O*a8) 

fw the WlTb of ha@ ahrrie an4 8ex aali*obo* to da ol&eel 

‘theQh0 

'I. y&ij&O~ .#& w# ri.p&kul~~rdVhb4 tb*t the 

wy Oi a btibc $i o o unr unta y r mll p p o D a iMaS t r im a I 

dOR Ut b Oo OO?Jf & b ik i 0 

to ty p sfill t& -y xv y o ulaqolrls r 

werb A. : Ya umvwy tr uly 

ATTOREEY GEUF&L OF TEXAS 

AWIlqp
No. 49428.

#### Protests 29959-K, etc., of Henry & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

*318Opinion by

Cole, J.

The ve-tsin in question was classified and claimed dutiable at the same rates and under the same paragraphs as similar merchandise covered by the decision in *Quong Yuen Shing*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of said cited case the ve-tsin was found to contain salt and was therefore excluded from paragraph 5 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1001, par. 5) and held dutiable under paragraph 1558 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1001, par. 1558), as claimed. In accordance with stipulation of counsel wai shan kwok and wai shan pein, following *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372), were found to be substances possessing medicinal properties and used for their curative values. The wai shan kwok was field to be in a crude state and therefore entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1201, par. 1669) and wai shan pein was found tobe advanced in value or condition and therefore dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1001, par. 34). Protests sustained to this extent.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Han Yongbin, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of China BAK Battery, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2005; 

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, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on myknowledge, 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 as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

a. Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b. Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe small business issuer’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 suchevaluation; and 

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

Date: August 22, 2006
Exhibit 34.16  LOGO Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm To the Board of Managers of C-III Capital Partners LLC, the Sole Member of C-III Asset Management LLC: We have examined management of C-III Asset Management LLCs (the Company) assertion that the
Company complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for all transactions for which the Company acted as servicer involving first lien commercial mortgage loans (the
Platform), excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(i)  1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities
performed by the Company with respect to the Platform, included in the accompanying Managements Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB Servicing Criteria dated January 31, 2019 as
of and for the year ended December 31, 2018. The Companys management is responsible for its assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the Companys compliance with the specified
requirements based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the examination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether managements assertion
about compliance with the specified requirements is fairly stated, in all material respects. An examination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence about whether managements assertion is fairly stated, in all material respects. The
nature, timing, and extent of the procedures selected depend on our judgment, including an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of managements assertion, whether due to fraud or error. We believe that the evidence we obtained is
sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Companys compliance with the specified requirements. In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria included in the accompanying Managements Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB Servicing Criteria dated January 31, 2019 as of and for
the year ended December 31, 2018 is fairly stated, in all material respects.  /s/ Dixon Hughes Goodman LLPAsheville, North CarolinaJanuary 31, 2019
DENY and Opinion Filed September 15, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00746-CV KENNETH GORDON AND HARDCORE TRUCKING SOLUTIONS LLC, Appellants V. TRUCKING RESOURCES INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366-02385-2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTION

Before Justices Myers, Pedersen, III, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia Appellants have filed a motion asking us to reverse a trial-court order increasing the amount required for a ppellants to supersede the judgment. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 24.4. After considering the motion and appellee’s response, we conclude that appellants have failed to show that they are entitled to the relief requested.–2– Accordingly, we DENY the motion and affirm th e trial court’s order.

210746NF.P05 /Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA PRESIDING JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         205,587
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,996
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               282,329
<PP&E>                                      10,967,800
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,677,921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,700,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,118,260
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       791,782
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,032,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,700,418
<SALES>                                         62,509
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               392,323
<CGS>                                           33,062
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  391,702
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    621
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                621
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       621
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Patrick Mulvey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Maxus Technology Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Maxus Technology Corporation .


Date: April 5, 2005                     By: /s/  PATRICK MULVEY
                                            -------------------------
                                            Name:  Patrick Mulvey
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer


I, James S. Ross, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Maxus Technology Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Maxus Technology Corporation.

Date: April 5, 2005                     By: /s/  JAMES  S. ROSS
                                            --------------------------
                                            Name:  James  S. Ross
                                            Title: Chief  Financial  Officer
* 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

July 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41678

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERARDO DE LA ROSA-MENDOZA, also known as

Mario Estrada-Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-410-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gerardo De La

Rosa-Mendoza raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.