alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9861)

#### John V. Carr & Son, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 23892; 1779.

(Decided November 29, 1960)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

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

DonloN, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, defendant, that the merchandise covered by the above two appeals for reappraisement consist [sic] of special cycle three speed cable assemblier [sic] imported from England.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on or about the date of exportation the export value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of England in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus 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, was 126 shillings per gross, English currency, less *S%%*cash discount, plus packing.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that such merchandise is used in the manufacture of bicycles and was imported after the effective date of the final list of articles subject to appraisement under the provisions of Section 402(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and that said merchandise is not included on the final list T.D. 54521.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above appeals for reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

It appears from the official papers that the merchandise of suit R58/26483 was entered for consumption on July 25,1958, and that the merchandise of suit R58/26484 was entered for consumption on June *58126, 1958. The effective date of the final list (T.D. 54521), under the provisions of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165), was February 27, 1958. These facts being so, and it appearing .by stipulation of the parties that the merchandise is not included in the articles enumerated in T.D. 54521 as subject to appraisement under section 402a of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the merchandise is held to be subject to valuation under the provisions of section 402, as amended.

Accepting the above stipulation as an agreed statement of facts, I find and hold that export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for determination of value of the merchandise herein, and that such value is 126 shillings per gross, English currency, less *3%*per centum cash discount, plus packing.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### W. X. Huber Co. *v.*United States

No. 6127.

Invoices dated Antwerp, Belgium, December 15, 1939, etc.

Certified December 15, 1939, etc.

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif., January 19, 1940, etc.

Entry No. 6309, etc.

(Decided April 10, 1945)

*Philip Stein*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

*388OlxvbR, Presiding Judge:

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

> It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject to the approval of the court:

> ■ (1) That the merchandise covered by the reappraisement appeals listed on the attached schedule A consists of cut diamonds exported from Belgium; that the unit values stated in the invoices, without the addition of buying commission, represent the prices at the various dates 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, and that there were no higher foreign market values at the dates of exportation thereof..

> (2) It is further stipulated that the merchandise and the issue covered by the appeals listed on the attached schedule are the same in' all material respects as the merchandise and the issue, the subject of the decisions in Reappraisement Appeal 134305-A, etc., of *J. Seiler, Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 5699, and Reappraisement Appeal 133919-A, etc., *of W. X. Huber Co. et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 6052.

> (3) It is further stipulated that the record in said cases, Reap. Dec.’s 5699 and 6052, may be incorporated in the record in this case, and that it be deemed sub-mitte'd on this stipulation.

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 unit invoice values, without the addition of buying commission,

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk June 25, 2012

s0618 

# Order

June 25, 2012

144174 & (14)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144174

COA: 302663

Oakland CC: 2005

- 203497

- FC

ROUMMEL JEROME INGRAM,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 5, 2011

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The

motion to remand is DENIED.
#### In re Martin Gardner REIFFIN, Petitioner.

No. MISC. 795.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 31, 2005.

Martin Gardner Reiffin, pro se.

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Martin Gardner Reiffin petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to (1) obey the mandate of *Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.,*214 F.3d 1342 (Fed.Cir.2000) and (2) to vacate its March 31, 2003 and July 9, 2003 orders entering summary judgment of invalidity of the 5,694,603 (’603) patent.

In *Reiffin,*we reversed the district court’s summary judgment of invalidity of the ’603 patent for failure to comply with the written description requirement on the ground that the district court erred in looking to the specification in an earlier application. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment of invalidity based on the failure to comply with the written description in the specification of the ’603 patent. Reiffin argues that our opinion foreclosed further district court review of the written description issue in connection with the specification of the ’603 patent.

A writ of mandamus will issue only in exceptional circumstances to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power by a trial court. *In re Calmar Inc.,*854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed.Cir.1988). A party who seeks a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of attaining the relief desired, *Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Iowa,*490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” *Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,*449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980).

The propriety of the district court’s ruling can be reviewed on appeal after final judgment. Thus, Reiffin fails to show that he has no other means of attaining the relief he desires.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.
_____________

No. 95-3356ND

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of North Dakota.

*

Floyd Wesley Shulze, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

Submitted: February 13, 1997

 Filed: March 6, 1997

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Floyd Wesley Shulze appeals his weapons-related convictions and

guidelines sentence. Relying on United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624

(1995), Shulze raises a Commerce Clause challenge to the constitutionality

of the interstate weapons charges. Because the provisions under which

Shulze was charged contain an interstate commerce requirement, Shulze’s

argument is foreclosed by our recent opinions. See United States v. Bates,

77 F.3d 1101, 1103-04 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 215 (1996);

United States v. Shelton, 66 F.3d 991, 992 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam),

cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1364 (1996). Shulze’s contention that the

district court improperly considered predicate felonies for which Shulze’s

civil rights had been restored is similarly foreclosed by our decision in

United States v. Dockter, 58 F.3d 1284, 1289-91 (8th Cir. 1995), cert.

denied sub nom., Shulze v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 932 (1996). We also

reject Shulze’s contention that the enhancement to his sentence for crimes

committed while he was on
-2-

bail violates double jeopardy. See United States v. Lincoln, 956 F.2d

1465, 1473 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Thomas, 930 F.2d 12, 13-14

(8th Cir. 1991). Finally, Shulze challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence to support his conviction for bartering stolen weapons. Contrary

to Shulze’s view, there is overpowering evidence that Shulze bartered

stolen weapons for cocaine. See United States v. Koskela, 86 F.3d 122, 126

(8th Cir. 1996) (evidence against Shulze characterized as “overwhelming”).

The court declines to consider the supplemental citations raised in

Shulze’s correspondence with his counsel. This matter is best presented

in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We thus affirm Shulze’s convictions

and sentence.

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result and in the judgment

in this case.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 96-5840.

#### Evans *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<SEQUENCE>2
<FILENAME>midkiffcert 093001.txt
                                                                 Exhibit 99.1



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



               In connection with the Quarterly Report of Uptowner Inns, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2001
as filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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/ Carl E. Midkiff
Chief Executive Officer
______________________, 2002
Exhibit 32

Certificate Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of the PBSJ Corporation (the Company) hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|       |  |              |  |                                                  
|------ |  | ------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------
|       |  |             
|Dated: |  | May 15, 2008 |  | /s/ John B. Zumwalt III                          
|       |  |              |  | John B. Zumwalt III                              
|       |  |              |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|       |  |             
|Dated: |  | May 15, 2008 |  | /s/ Donald J. Vrana                              
|       |  |              |  | Donald J. Vrana                                  
|       |  |              |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the quarterly report of The Quantum Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Noel J. Guillama, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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, as amended; and,



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



Date: March 17, 2008



| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | /s/ NOELJ. GUILLAMA                  
| | Noel J. Guillama                     
| | President and Chief Executive Officer



A certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed filed for purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it by reference.
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant  to  18  U.S.C  §   1350,   as  created  by  Section  906  of  theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned  officer of Open Joint Stock CompanyLong-Distance    and    International    Telecommunications    Rostelecom   (the“Company”)   hereby  certifies,  to  such  officer’s   knowledge,that:

 

(i) the  accompanying  annual  report on Form 20-F of the  Company  for the yearended  December  31,  2004  (the  “Report”)  fully  complies  with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii) the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date:  June 29, 2005

/signed/ Alexander A. Lutsky

_______________________ 

**Alexander A. Lutsky**

Chief Accountant (CFO) 

OJSC Long-Distance and International 

Telecommunications Rostelecom
Certification



I, Stephen Woodhead, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this transitional report on Form 20-FT of

Desert Sun Mining Corp.;



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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The companys other certifying officer(s) 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 company 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 company, 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 company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 companys internal control

over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the

annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to

materially affect, the companys internal control over financial

reporting; and



5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on

our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to

the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal control

over financial reporting.





Date: November 10, 2004



Stephen Woodhead_______

Chief Financial Officer
No. 46436.

#### Protest 962192-G (C) of Gitelman & Strumeyer, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the dogskins in question are undressed, the same in all material respects as those the subject of- *Brachman*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 153, C. D. 389), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
No. 43149.

#### Protest 777303-G (C) of L. Oppleman, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallingbr, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of barometers and altimeters of the same kind as those the subject of *Oppleman*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 167, C. D. 225). The claim at 27)4 percent under paragraph 372 was therefore sustained.
No. 96-5898.

#### Nugent *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 48809.

#### Protest 596106-G of Favorite Panama Hat Co. (New York).

*272Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consist of hats known as harvest hats, similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained as to this item.
No. 53289.

#### Lilienthal & Grossman, Inc., and H. H. Schmidt Glove Co., Inc. v. United States,

protests 501277-G and 496004-G (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States,*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiffs was therefore sustained.
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MathStar, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon November 14, 2006 (the “Quarterly Report”), I, Douglas M. Pihl, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

1.               TheQuarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
| Date: November 14, 2006 | By     | /s/ Douglas M.  Pihl                    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Douglas M. Pihl                         |
|                    |   | President and Chief  Executive  Officer |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DEMETRIUS DEMBY

,

Defendant Below

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee. §

§

§ No. 124, 2017

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID. No. 0604011029 (N)

§

§

§

Submitted: May 17 , 2017

Decided: June 14 , 2017

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 14 th day of June 2017 , after careful consideration of the appellant’s

opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below , we find it

m anifest that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior

Court’s well

- reasoned order dated February 28, 2017

. 1

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

1 Demby v. State

, 2017 WL 880892 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 28, 2017 )

.
GPC Report

Sanitized