alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9855)

#### Indussa Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 772086, etc.

(Decided November 29, 1960)

*Barnes, Bichardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

LawRENce, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purposes of certain household utensils is before the court for determination.

A stipulation has been entered into by the parties hereto wherein it has been agreed-—

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, *575subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise and the issnes in the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues involved in *Indussa Corp.*v. *United States,*C.A.D. 736, and that the record in said case may be incorporated in the record of the appeals listed in said Schedule “A”.

> XT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption 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 were the appraised unit values less 40% plus 9% sales tax plus packing as invoiced.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis for determining the value of the household utensils in issue, and that said value is the appraised unit values, less 40 per centum, plus 9 per centum sales tax, plus packing, as invoiced.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, H. Douglas Chaffin, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted
pursuant to Section 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.


/s/ H. Douglas Chaffin
------------------------------------
H. Douglas Chaffin
Chief Executive Officer
May 8, 2006
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 29, 2021

NO. 03-19-00529-CV

Peter Leavitt, Appellant

v.

McLane Company, Inc., Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 169TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on May 10, 2019. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellant shall pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
Case No. 8,663.

#### In re McBRIDE.

[1 Wkly. Notes Cas. 16.]

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 1, 1874.

Bankruptcy Practice — Register’s Fees — No Assets in Hands of Assignee.

The register reported to the court that he had received no payment for his services, except the deposit fee of $50, no assets having come into the hands of the assignee, and petitioned the court to make an order upon the intervening and petitioning creditors for the payment of his fees, as provided in the 47th section of the bankrupt act [of 1807 (14 Stat. 540)].

THE COURT

thereupon ordered the petition to be set dowrn for a hearing, and notice to be given to the intervening and petitioning creditors, as well as to the bankrupt.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9091]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral, and Economic 
Sciences (<greek-i>1171).
    Date/Time: June 7, 2007; 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 920, 
Virtual meeting, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Mr. Tyrone Jordan, Office of the Assistant 
Director, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 905, 
Arlington, VA 22230, 703-292-8741.
    Summary Minutes: May be obtained from contact person listed 
above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations to the 
National Science Foundation on major goals and policies pertaining 
to Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate programs and 
activities.
    Agenda: Topics:
    <bullet> Science of Science and Innovation Policy.
    <bullet> Human and Social Dynamics Priority Area.
    <bullet> International Polar Year.
    <bullet> Division of Social & Economic Sciences: Committee of 
Visitors (COV) Report.
    <bullet> Initiatives for the FY 2009 OMB Budget.
    <bullet> NSTC Subcommittee on the SBE Sciences--Prospectus of 
Grand Challenges.
    <bullet> Briefing on IPAMM (Working Group on Impact of Proposal 
Award and Management Mechanisms).
    <bullet> Agenda Items for fall 2007 Meeting.

    Dated: May 8, 2007.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-9091 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### Stephen Bielicki et al., Appellants, v T.J. Bentey, Inc., et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[700 NYS2d 717]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., *267the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), entered August 13, 1998, as, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Trial Judge did not improvidently exercise his discretion in permitting the defendants’ expert witness to testify. The plaintiffs presented no evidence suggesting that the defendants intentionally or willfully withheld notice that the expert would testify, and did not demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the expert witness’s testimony *(see, Gallo v Linkow,*255 AD2d 113; *Stafford v Molinoff,*228 AD2d 662; *Hansel v Lamb,*257 AD2d 795).

In addition, the Trial Judge did not unduly interfere with the presentation of the plaintiffs’ case or indicate any partiality or bias which would warrant reversal. A Trial Judge may assume an active role in the examination of witnesses where proper or necessary to facilitate or expedite the orderly progress of the trial (see, *Givens v Sinert,*243 AD2d 443; *Accardi v City of New York,*121 AD2d 489, 491).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions do not require reversal. Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.
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.
 Department of the Treasury United States Mint
 SUMMARY: The United States Mint is increasing prices for the 2007 American Eagle Platinum Proof and Uncirculated Coins. The United States Mint is increasing the prices for 2007 American Eagle Platinum Proof and Uncirculated Coins effective with these products' release date, scheduled for May 17, 2007. The price increase from last year is due to higher platinum metal costs. The new prices are effective May 17, 2007, when the United States Mint will commence selling the 2007 American Eagle Platinum Coins at the prices indicated below: Product
New 2007 price2007 One Ounce Platinum Proof Coin
$1,599.952007 One-Half Ounce Platinum Proof Coin
809.952007 One-Quarter Ounce Platinum Proof Coin
439.952007 One-Tenth Ounce Platinum Proof Coin
229.952007 Four-Coin Platinum Proof Set
2,949.952007 One Ounce Platinum Uncirculated Coin
1,489.952007 One-Half Ounce Platinum Uncirculated Coin
759.952007 One-Quarter Ounce Platinum Uncirculated Coin
399.952007 One-Tenth Ounce Platinum Uncirculated Coin
189.952007 Four-Coin Platinum Uncirculated Set
2,769.95
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria Eskridge, Associate Director for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 Ninth Street, NW.; Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500. Authority:
                        31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701. Dated: May 8, 2007. Edmund C. Moy, Director, United States Mint.


[FR Doc. E7-9135 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
|   | 1.     | The      Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the      “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | 2.     | Information      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of the    Company.                                                           |

| /s/ Xiangqian Li                   |
|------------------------------------|
| Xiangqian      Li                  |
| Chief      Executive Officer       |
| (Principal      Executive Officer) |
|                               |
| /s/ Tony Shen                      |
| Tony      Shen                     |
| Chief      Financial Officer       |
| (Principal      Financial Officer) |

----
Case Ho. 10,004.

#### NAILOR v. KEARNEY.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 112.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1802.

Bonds — Payable in Instalments — Action After Failure to Pat First Instalment.

Upon a bond conditioned to pay certain instal-ments, an action may be brought upon failure to pay the first instalment.

Debt on a bond, conditioned to pay at three instalments, viz., 5th January, 5th April, and 5th July, 1802. Action brought on 17th March, 1802.

Mr. Peacock, for defendant,

demurred to the declifration, because there was no cause of action at the time the suit was brought. Taylor v. Foster, Cro. Eliz. 807; Beckwith v. Nott, Cro. Jae. 504; Milles v. Milles, Cro. Car. 241; Rudder v. Price, 1 H. Bl. 547; Esp. N. P. 205. . -

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

Judgment for the plaintiff on the demurrer.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Doreatha Walker v. Safari Kids Learning Center

Appellate case number: 01-16-00613-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-57309

Trial court: 269th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, Doreatha Walker, proceeding pro se, has filed a “Motion Requesting a 

Refund of Filing Fees” in this Court because she claims that the contest to her affidavit of 

indigence was overruled in the above-referenced trial court case. Appellant attached an 

uncertified copy of the trial court’s order overruling the district clerk’s contest to her 

affidavit of indigence. On September 8, 2016, the Clerk of this Court requested the 

indigent clerk’s record from the district clerk for the indigent clerk’s record.

Accordingly, the Court grants the appellant’s “Motion Requesting a Refund of 

Filing Fees” because the district clerk filed an indigent clerk’s record in this Court on 

September 9, 2016, containing a certified copy of the trial court’s order overruling the 

district clerk’s contest to her affidavit of indigence, which was signed on August 24, 

2016. Appellant should respond within 30 days of the date of this order with the mailing 

address and tax ID number for the refund.

The Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to refund the $205.00 filing fee to the 

appellant within 45 days of the date of this order and to mark the appellant indigent for 

purposes of the appellate filing fee and the clerk’s and reporter’s record fees. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

  

Date: September 13, 2016
** **

**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

**MathStar, Inc.**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MathStar, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the “Periodic Report”), I, James W.Cruckshank, Vice President of Administration and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1.               ThePeriodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:   November  22, 2005 | /s/  James W. Cruchshank                    |   |
|---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  | James W. Cruckshank                         |
|                                  | Vice  President of Administration and Chief |
|                                  | Financial  Officer                          |
|                                  | MathStar,  Inc.                             |

 

----
Honeywell HFO-1233zd High-Volume P

Large Scale Plant in Baton Rouge On-Line May 20

• Today: World class, large scale plant in US up and running

• Underway: Planning / Engineering on second large scale plant 
Honeywell HFO-1234ze High-Volume P

Large Scale Plant in Baton Rouge Operational in Q3 

• Today: World class, large scale plant in US completed construct

• Underway: Commissioning and start-up on schedule for Q3
Solstice® Propellant Applications

Application Current Propellant HFO-1234ze Feasibility HFO-1234ze Commercialized Com

Dusters HFC-134a, HFC-152a   MS-222L 1; TS-15

“Dust-Off”; Chem

Tire Inflators HFC-134a  1 customer with 

2 customers in e

Cleaners/Defluxers HFC-134a,152a / HC3   MS-H0805A 1; MSPersonal Care HFC-152a / HC   Hair Spray, Deod

currently in cust

Pet Care – Trainers HFC-134a   Products availabNovelty HFC-134a   Products availabBug Freezer HFC-134a   Products availabSpray Adhesives HC  Currently in custPharma/Medical OTC HFC-134a   1 customer laun

currently in cust

Law Enforcement/Safety HFC-134a  Currently in custSmoke Detector Testing HFC-134a / HC   HSI PurCheckTM 

1 Miller Stephenson 2 Techspray 3 Hydrocarbons – Propane/Butane

Widespread Applicability Across Multiple End-Use Se
Supermarket Refrigeration

Product Capacity Efficiency GWP

R404A 100% 100% 3943R407A 90% 100-105% 1923

Honeywell Offerings

R407F 100% 105-110% 1674

N-40 

(*R448A) 100% 105-110% 1273

*Provisional ASHRAE #

R407F and N40 significantly reduce lifetime CO2 e
Assumptions:

• Direct Expansion (DX) design (majority usage in existing stores) / 3,000 p

refrigerant charge / 15% leak rate

• $100k energy consumption per year for baseline refrigerant

Example Store Savings

Per store Vs. R404A Vs. R407A

GWP Energy GWP Energy

R407F 2269 10% 249 5%

N-40 2670 10% 650 5%

Per 1,000 stores Annual Savings vs. 

R404A

Annual Sa

R40

mt CO2 Energy mt CO2 

R407F 463,145 $10M 50,825 

N-40 544,977 $10M 132,677 

Honeywell

Honeywell
Global Trials – Performax LT

Performax LT installed in hundreds of supermarke

Honeywell Confidential
Global Trials - HFO Blend N40

Supermarket trials underway in the US and 
SolsticeTM 1234yf – Commercial Pro

Proven Safety

 • March 2014, EU JRC conclu

1234yf to be safe

Performance

 • Via rigorous testing at the S

Automotive Engineers (SAEproven to deliver same perfoincumbent 134a

Customer Adoption

 • 1M+ cars have adopted glob

• 2M+ cars will have adopted b
SolsticeTM 1234yf vs. 134a & CO

0

500

1,0001,500

R-134a HFO-1234yf

(Honeywell

Technology

AC related CO

2e emissions

(vehicle lifetime)

Similar Performance to 134a...and

~30% 

Lower 

Emissions 

vs. CO2

Superior Environmenta

GWP

1234yf < 1134 1,43

HFO1234yf The Optimal Replacement For 1
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1371 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 14, 2011 

Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rhode Island Fisher5 men’s Fairness Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The findings are as follows: 

8 (1) Rhode Island fishermen participate in fish9 eries managed by the New England Fishery ManVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:12 Jul 14, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1371.IS S1371

jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1371 IS

1 agement Council (NEFMC) and the Mid-Atlantic 

2 Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 

3 (2) Rhode Island currently has voting member4 ship on the NEFMC under the Magnuson-Stevens 

5 Fishery Conservation and Management Act but does 

6 not have voting membership on the MAFMC. 

7 (3) Rhode Island lands more MAFMC-managed 

8 stocks than any other MAFMC member except the 

9 State of New Jersey. 

10 (4) A higher percentage of Rhode Island’s com11 mercial landings (by weight or value) traditionally 

12 have come from species that are managed by the 

13 MAFMC as compared to species managed by 

14 NEFMC. 

15 (5) MAFMC has found that Rhode Island’s cir16 cumstance parallels that of Florida and North Caro17 lina, which each have voting membership on two dif18 ferent fishery management councils. 

19 SEC. 3. ADDITION OF RHODE ISLAND TO THE MID-ATLAN20 TIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL. 

21 Section 302(a)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fish22 ery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

23 1852(a)(1)(B)) is amended— 

24 (1) by inserting ‘‘Rhode Island,’’ after ‘‘States 

25 of’’; 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1371 IS

1 (2) by inserting ‘‘Rhode Island,’’ after ‘‘except 

2 North Carolina,’’; 

3 (3) by striking ‘‘21’’ and inserting ‘‘23’’; and 

4 (4) by striking ‘‘13’’ and inserting ‘‘14’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1477 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1477

To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
  prevent the dissemination to the public of certain information with 
    respect to noncommercial flights of private aircraft owners and 
                               operators.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 2011

Mr. Roberts (for himself and Mr. Moran) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
  prevent the dissemination to the public of certain information with 
    respect to noncommercial flights of private aircraft owners and 
                               operators.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``BARR Preservation Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISSEMINATION OF CERTAIN PRIVATE AIRCRAFT 
              REGISTRATION NUMBERS TO THE PUBLIC.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) The Federal Government's dissemination to the public of 
        information relating to a noncommercial flight carried out by a 
        private owner or operator of an aircraft, whether during or 
        following the flight, does not serve a public policy objective.
            (2) Upon the request of a private owner or operator of an 
        aircraft, the Federal Government should not disseminate to the 
        public information relating to noncommercial flights carried 
        out by that owner or operator, as the information should be 
        private and confidential.
    (b) Prohibition.--
            (1) In general.--Upon the request of a private owner or 
        operator of an aircraft, the Administrator of the Federal 
        Aviation Administration shall require that, with respect to the 
        noncommercial flights of that owner or operator, the display of 
        that owner or operator's aircraft registration number is 
        blocked in aircraft situational display data available to the 
        public.
            (2) Availability of information to government agencies.--
        Paragraph (1) does not affect the authority of the 
        Administrator to make aircraft registration numbers available 
        to Federal, State, or local government agencies.
                                 <all>
```