alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### E. Fougera & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6802.

Entry Nos. 727447; 725009.

Invoices dated London, England, January 1944, .etc.

Certified January 1944, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 10, 1944, etc.

(Decided January 23, 1947)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

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

Ekwall, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.35

                                                          Provant, Inc.
                                                          67 Batterymarch Street
                                                          Suite 500
                                                          Boston, MA  02110
                                                          Telephone 617 261 1600
                                                          Facsimile 617 737 1553


                                October 11, 2002

Mr. John H. Zenger
Provant, Inc.
5314 North 250 West, Suite 320
Provo, UT  84604

RE:   Severance Benefit

Dear Jack:

      This letter will memorialize the January 2002 agreement entered into by
Curt Uehlein, on behalf of Provant, Inc., and you with respect your severance
benefit. Effective February 1, 2002, Section 1 of the letter agreement dated
March 23, 2001 between Provant, Inc. and you shall be amended to extend the
period of Severance Payments from six months to twelve months. Except as
modified by this letter agreement, the March 23, 2001 letter agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.

      If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding, please sign and
return the enclosed copy of this letter, whereupon this letter and such copy
will constitute a binding agreement between you and Provant, Inc.

                                      Sincerely,

                                      /s/ Janet Hoey
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Janet Hoey
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

AGREED:

/s/ John H. Zenger
--------------------------------
John H. Zenger
No. 47565.

#### Protests 34048-K, etc., of N. S. Meyer, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the items in question consist of woven fabrics similar to those involved in *Meyer*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 191, C. D. 459) the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 385 and T. D. 48316 was sustained.
#### Abercrombie & Fitch Co. *v.*United States

No. 6781.

Entry No. 739460, etc.

Invoices dated Sheffield, England, December 29, 1941, etc.

Certified December 30, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 18, 1942, etc.

(Decided January 21, 1947)

*Lane & Wallace*and *Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been stipulated between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to pewterware, etc., are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
{In Archive} Title V application for MCU Main Flare 

Shaheerah Kelly to: Wilson Laughter 01/26/2007 09:34 AM

From: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US

To: Wilson Laughter <wilsonlaughter@navajo.org>, 

Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.

Wilson, attached is a scanned copy of the Title V application for the Main Flare at the MCU facility. I said I 

would fax you a copy but I was able to have the document scanned. Let me know if you have any 

questions. Thanks.

Shaheerah Kelly

U S EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579
### MANDATE 

## Court of Appeals **First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 13

- 00767

- CV
GARRETT OPERATORS, I NC. , Appellant

V.

CITY OF HOUSTON , Appellee
Appeal from the 215th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2012

- 20088 ).

TO THE 215TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS :

Before this Court , on the 22nd day of January 1015 , the case upon appeal to revise

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by

t he trial court on June 18, 2013. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial

co urt’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
Judgment rendered January 22, 1015

.Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Radack.
WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

April 3, 2015 Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK OF THE COURT
Exhibit 15.2


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-31130) pertaining to the Fundtech Ltd. 1996 Employee Stock Option
Plan for the Employees of Fundtech Ltd., the Fundtech Ltd., the Fundtech Ltd
1999 Employee Stock Option Plan, the Fundtech Ltd. 1997 Stock Option Plan for
Fundtech Corporation, the 1997 Israeli Share Option Plan and the Fundtech Ltd.
Directors Option Plan, of our report, dated February 11, 2002, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Fundtech Ltd. Included in its Annual
Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2003.


KOST, FORER & GABBAY
Certified Public Accountants
A member of Ernst & Young Global


Tel Aviv, Israel
June 28, 2004
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainTrust and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 29, 2016, by and among J.P.Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCertificate Administrator and Wilmington Trust, National Association, asTrustee with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2016-PLSD (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.7 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance perthe Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
No. 62116.

#### Empacadora Trevino, S. A., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 189624-K, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially 'provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 667), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 9850)

#### Irving *W.*Rice & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 786276, etc.

(Decided November 23, 1960)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Coohran 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 listed in the Schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof 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.

> *564IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisements 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.

The incorporated case held 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 charge did not inure to the benefit of the seller, is a *bona -fide*buying commission which does not enter into the dutiable value of the merchandise.

On the agreed facts, as set forth in the stipulation of submission, 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 is the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

July 25, 1938

No. 39084.

#### Protest 642585-G of Wells Fargo Co. of Arizona (Nogales).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

There was nothing in the record in support of the claims made. The protest was therefore overruled.
June 18, 1958

No. 62123.

Suit 4916.

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

C. D. 1846 affirmed March 14, 1958. C. A. D. 678.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Hastings Entertainment, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: April 20, 2006
    /s/ John H. MarmadukeJohn H. MarmadukePresident and Chief Executive
Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, John C. Lawrence, President, and Chief Executive Officer of United States
Antimony Corporation (the "Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: May 20, 2005

/s/ John C. Lawrence
-------------------------------------
John C. Lawrence
President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6984

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VICTORIA BOATENG,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:05-cr-00422-CCB-2; 1:09-cv-01858-CCB)

Submitted: October 11, 2012 Decided: October 15, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victoria Boateng, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, 

Assistant United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Victoria Boateng seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Boateng has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 35.6



|     |  |                                                                                                          
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084, 8th Fl 401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2016, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC, as Depositor, KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer, WELLS FARGO
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-GC36 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used
herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Dan
Marthinsen, Managing Director of Special Servicing do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Special Servicer during the period from February 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such
period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of
February 2017.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|LOGO                                
|Daniel Marthinsen, Managing Director
|Wells Fargo Bank                    



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
## Appendix C - California SIP-approved PSD Permit Programs

**District Has SIP** 

**approved PSD Rule?**  **Rule # NOx is**  **Ozone Precursor?**  **Defines**

**PM2.5? PM2.5** **Condens ables?**  **PM2.5**

**Baseline Date**  **PM2.5 Increment**  **Values PM2.5** 

**Precursors Listed?**  **Regulates**

**GHG's? FR Citation**  **Notes** 1Eastern Kern APCD Yes 210.4 Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR 77 FR 73317 2Imperial County APCD Yes 904 Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR 77 FR 73317Partial PM2.5 NA area

3Mendocino County AQMD Yes 130 220 Y; (p7) Y; (p1) Y; (p1) No Y; (p7) Y; (p7) Y; (a)1 76 FR 26192 50 FR 30942

4Monterey Bay Unified APCD Yes 207 (SIP) 207 Y; 2.48

Y; 2.51 No;

Y; 2.47 No

Y; 2.47 No

Y; 2.5.1 No

Y; 2.5.2 N; 2.48

Y; 2.51 Y; 1.2

Y; 2.1.2 65 FR 5433

Proposed Publication of proposed rule

pending

5North Coast Unified AQMD Yes 130 220 FIP No

No Y; FIP No No No No No Y; (a)(1) 64 FR 6223 50 FR 30941 76 FR 48006

6Northern Sonoma County APCD Yes 130 220 Y; (p6) Y; (p1) Y; (p1) No Y; (p7) Y; (p6) Y; (a)(1) 76 FR 26192 47 FR 15785 7Placer County APCD Yes 518 Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR 77 FR 73317Partial PM2.5 NA area 8Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Yes 203 Y; IBR NA NA NA NA NA Y; IBR 76 FR 43183 PM2.5 NA area 9San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Yes 2410 Y; IBR NA NA NA NA NA Y; IBR 77 FR 65305 PM2.5 NA area 10Yolo-Solano AQMD Yes 3.24 Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR Y; IBR 77 FR 73317Partial PM2.5 NA area

11South Coast AQMD No - Yes (GHG) EPA

1714 FIP NA NA NA NA NA Yes 77 FR 73320PSD FIP in place for NAAQS PSD SIP approved for GHGs Partial PM2.5 NA area

"IBR" = rule incorporates 40 CFR 52.21 by reference NA = nonattainment area, therefore area is subject to nonattainment NSR requirements, rather than PSD requirements Partial PM2.5 NA Area = nonattainment NSR requirements apply to nonattainment portion of district; PSD requirements apply to unclassifiable/attainment portion of district Copies of SIP-approved rules are available at the following website via the "California" link: www.epa.gov/region09/air/sips/index.html