alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

October 9, 1942

No. 47630.

#### Protest 17241-K/88963 of International Forwarding Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

The gntry was liquidated dutiable as entered. Some time later the importer discovered that had a declaration of the shipper been filed in connection with the entry in accordance with certain regulations (T. D. 49643) such of the merchandise as consisted of northern white pine would have been entitled to exemption from the tax imposed by the revenue act. The importer requested the collector to reliquidate the entry free of the tax, which the collector refused to do, after submitting the matter to the Bureau of Customs for instructions. Within 60 days the protest at bar was filed. When the case was called for trial the Government counsel moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that it was untimely and also that, although the protest purports to be filed against the collector’s refusal to reliquidate for clerical error, the facts in the protest do not indicate that clerical error was made or that the original request of the importer was for the correction of a clerical error. The failure sought to be remedied by the request for reliquidation was one of ignorance of law rather than clerical error, and clerical error, according to *United States*v. *Wyman*(4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 264, T. D. 33485), implies the incorrect execution of an intention. From the protest and the official papers it clearly appeared that at the time of entry there was no intention to claim the benefit of section 704, Revenue Act of 1938, by complying with the regulations referred to, but rather the intention to enter the merchandise as dutiable. As that intention was carried out, and there was no intention to do other than was done, the court found the collector had properly refused to reliquidate. The motion to dismiss the protest was therefore granted.
No. 49419.

#### Protests 856660-G, etc., of F. Blumenthal & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of hats similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218) and that others consist of hemp knotted straw hats similar to those involved in Abstract 46497. On the established facts and following the cited authorities certain of the items, as set forth in decision herein, were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) as claimed.
No. 44200.

#### Protests 812238-G, etc., of Olivier Straw Goods Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Bbown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to that the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust, Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were sustained accordingly.
September 13, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROBERT JAMES BEAZLEY AND VEA ANN BILA, Appellants

NO. 14-12-00446-CV V.

CITY OF KEMAH, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment 

signed by the court below on February 6, 2012. Having considered the motion and found 

it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 September 30, 2002, including Amendment
Number 1 on Form 10-Q/A, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald D. LaBeau, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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/ Ronald D. LaBeau
--------------------
Ronald D. LaBeau
Chief Executive Officer
December 12, 2002
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20906 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FEDERICO PEREZ, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-95-CR-142-43

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Trude K. Scott, the attorney appointed to represent Federico Perez, Jr., on appeal, has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our review of counsel’s brief and Perez’s response and our independent review of the record show that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from furtherNo. 01-20906 -2- responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
No. 40428.

#### Protests 889437-G/10996 etc., of Wm. J. Oberle, Inc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the record presented the protests were overruled.
Exhibit 32.1

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, 2009 (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.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                                                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 15, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ John B. Zumwalt III                                              
|                   |  |  |  | John B. Zumwalt III Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer



|                   |  |  |  |                                                                             
|------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 15, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Donald J. Vrana                                                         
|                   |  |  |  | Donald J. Vrana Senior Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer
May 26, 1952

No. 56727.

protest 153767-K.

#### L. Tobert Co., Inc., and American Shipping Co. *v.*United States,

Abstract 56581. Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

                     FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL 2000

      KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Norma B. Carter, until December 31, 2000, their
true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and
revocation, for them and in their name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign Vlasic Foods International Inc.'s Form 10-K Annual Report to
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2000,
and any amendments thereto, and to file the same with all exhibits thereto, and
other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent
may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



                         VLASIC FOODS INTERNATIONAL INC.



Signature                                       Dated as of October 3, 2000



   /s/  Robert T. Blakely                          /s/  Donald J. Keller
--------------------------------                --------------------------------
Robert T. Blakely                               Donald J. Keller



   /s/  Robert F. Bernstock                        /s/  Lawrence C. Karlson
--------------------------------                --------------------------------
Robert F. Bernstock                             Lawrence C. Karlson



   /s/  Morris A. Cohen                            /s/  Shaun F. O'Malley
--------------------------------                --------------------------------
Morris A. Cohen                                 Shaun F. O'Malley



   /s/  Tristram C. Colket, Jr.
--------------------------------
Tristram C. Colket, Jr.
No. 44289.

#### Protests 777718-G, etc., of Millinery Clearing House, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Bbown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
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



In connection with the annual Report of Rocky
Mountain High Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the quarter ended June 30, 2017 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Michael Welch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Jens Mielke,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations
of the Company for the periods presented.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|By:    | /s/ Michael Welch          
|------ | ---------------------------
|Name:  | Michael Welch              
|Title: | Principal Executive Officer
|Date:  | October 11, 2017           



|By:    | /s/ Jens Mielke            
|------ | ---------------------------
|Name:  | Jens Mielke                
|Title: | Principal Financial Officer
|Date:  | October 11, 2017           



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
No. 39109.

#### Protests 821891-G, etc., of Cambosco Scientific Co. et al.

Abstracts 38900 and 38902. Application by plaintiffs for rehearing granted.
#### Simon, Healey *&*Goldstein, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6835.

Entry No. 768846, etc.

Invoices dated Derby, England, May 20, 1946, etc.

Certified May 21, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 17, 1946, etc.

(Decided February 5, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

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

Tilson, Judge:

The record upon which the appeals listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision,- establishes that the issues herein are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record therein has been admitted in evidence in this case.

Upon the established facts and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the values found by the appraiser, less any amounts added by the importers on entry to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case *No.*14,023.

#### TIBBS et al. v. PARROTT.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 313.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1806.

Pleading at Law — Proof of Partnership.

In an action for goods sold by Tibbs & Company, the plaintiffs must prove themselves to be the firm of Tibbs & Company.

[Cited in Addison v. Duckett, Case No. 77; Woodward v. Sutton, Id. 18,009.]

■ Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. [For former proceedings, see Case No. 14,-022.] On the trial of the issue of non as-sumpsit, Mr. Mason, for defendant, moved the court to instruct the jury that they must be satisfied that the contract was made with the plaintiffs, William P. Tibbs and Thomas Blanc. The deposition of the only witness on the part of the plaintiffs, says the goods were sold for and on account of William P. Tibbs and Company.

Mr. Jones, for plaintiffs,

contended that it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to prove themselves to be partners, unless upon a plea in abatement.

THE COURT

stopped Mr. Mason in reply, and said the law is too plain to require further argument. The plaintiffs must satisfy the jury that the contract was made between the plaintiffs and defendant. The deposition having only stated that the goods were sold by William P. Tibbs & Company, the jury must be satisfied by evidence that the house of William P. Tibbs & Company, consists of the plaintiffs, William P. Tibbs and Thomas Blanc. The plaintiffs took a bill of exceptions.

Verdict for defendant. New trial granted, on the ground of surprise, that the court should require such evidence. See the case of Woodward v. Sutton [Case No. 18,009], at Alexandria, November term, 1806.
#### Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp. *v.*United States

No. 6503.

Entry No. 701327, etc.

Invoices dated Birmingham, England, June 1943, etc.

Certified June 1943, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 15, 1943, etc.

(Decided November 13, 1946)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

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

Keefe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

*409On 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
(Reap. Dec. 9852)

#### Lyons Transport *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 15130; 3187; 1644.

(Decided November 23, 1960)

*Michael Stramiello, Jr.,*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

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

> 1. The merchandise marked “A” and initialed JC by James D. Coleman, on the invoices herein consists of “SIGMAVAR” which was appraised on the basis of American selling prices as defined in Section 402 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and is the same in all material respects to the subject merchandise in *BLUE-FRIES NEW YORK INC.*v. *UNITED STATES,*C.D. 1909, wherein it was held that such merchandise is classifiable under the provisions of paragraph 75 of the 1930 Tariff Act for “all other varnishes * * * not specially provided for,” and is dutiable at 10 per centum ad valorem, and that the appraisement on the basis of American selling price was void, and is also the same in all material respects to the subject merchandise in *BLUEFRIES NEW YORK INC.*v. *UNITED STATES,*R.D. 9235, wherein it was held that export value, as defined in Section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, was the proper basis for the determination of the value of such merchandise and that such value was U.S. *566$5.50 per gallon, less 2 percent, less packing, freight, duty, delivery charges and customs entry charges.

> 2. The market value or price of merchandise such as or similar to that marked and initialed on the invoices herein as aforesaid at the time of the exportation thereof 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 was U.S. $5.50 per gallon, less 2 percent, and less packing, freight, duty, delivery charges and customs entry charges.

> 3. There was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

On the agreed facts, I find 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 marked “A” and initialed JC by James D. Coleman on the invoices herein, and that such value was United States $5.50 per gallon, less 2 per centum, and less packing, freight, duty, delivery charges, and customs entry charges.

As to all other merchandise, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 73-6868.

#### Fernandez et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 44280.

#### Protests 500442-G, etc., of Millinery Clearing House (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Consuela Gaines THOMAS. STATE of Louisiana v. Gordon Ray THOMAS, Jr.

No. 98-K-1144.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 9, 1998.

On Writ of Certiorari Third Circuit Court of Appeal.

liPER CURIAM *.

Granted in part. The decision of the court of appeal is reversed only to the extent that it amends the consecutive sentences imposed by the district court on counts one and three to concurrent terms, and the penalties as originally imposed by the trial court are reinstated. Although Louisiana law favors concurrent sentences for crimes committed as part of a single transaction, La.C.Cr.P. art. 883; *State v. Underwood,*353 So.2d 1013, 1019 (La.1977), a trial judge retains discretion to impose consecutive penalties on the basis of other factors, including the offender’s past criminality, violence in the charged crimes, or the risk he or she poses to the general safety of the community. *State v. Williams,*445 So.2d 1171, 1182 (La.1984); *State v. Jacobs,*371 So.2d 727, 732-33 (La.1979) (on reh’g). In this case, the assault planned and executed by the defendant outside the St. Landry Parish Courthouse endangered deputies, court personnel, and the public alike. The defendant compounded the risk to the general public by *50fleeing with her husband and eluding capture for eight days. These circumstances provided the trial court with the particular justification for imposing consecutive sentences. On appellate review of sentence, the Irrelevant question is “ “whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might .have been more appropriate.’” *State v. Cook,*95-2784, p. 3 (La.5/31/96), 674 So.2d 957, 959 (quoting *State v. Humphrey,*445 So.2d 1155, 1165 (La.1984)), *cert.*denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 615, 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996). In this context, a trial court “abuses its sentencing discretion *only*when it contravenes the prohibition of excessive punishment in La. Const, art. I, § 20, i.e., when it imposes ‘punishment disproportionate to the offense.” ’ *State v. Soraparu,*97-1027 (La.10/13/97), 703 So.2d 608 (quoting *State v. Sepulvado,*367 So.2d 762, 767 (La.1979)) (emphasis added). Even granting the consecutive nature of the penalties imposed on all three counts, the defendant’s total sentence remains within the 35 to 50 year range this Court has found acceptable for first offenders convicted of armed robbery. *See, e.g., State v. Nealy,*450 So.2d 634, 640 (La. 1984); *State v. Walker,*449 So.2d 474 (La.1984); *State v. Dunns,*441 So.2d 745, 746 (La.1983); *State v. Huntsberry,*439 So.2d 432, 433 (La.1983).

LEMMON and JOHNSON, JJ., dissent from the per curiam and would deny the writ.

*

 TRAYLOR, L, not on panel. See Rule IV, Part 2, § 3.
33779.

#### McNAIR v. McNAIR.

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

The mother appeals á change of her son’s custody to his father. When the parents were divorced in 1971, they had agreed that she would have custody of the child. The father filed his modification petition in 1976, and was awarded temporary custody by agreement of the parties. At the final hearing in March, 1978, the juvenile court, to which the case had been transferred by the superior court, granted the father’s modification petition giving him permanent custody. Although we agree that the past mental problems of the mother are insufficient grounds on which to base a present change of custody, see *Campbell v.*
      *106
      *Chapman,*238 Ga. 427 (233 SE2d 155) (1977), there is reasonable evidence in this case to support the finding that conditions have changed that have had a *present effect on the child,*which warrant the custody change. *Shiver v. Shiver,*241 Ga. 130 (244 SE2d 241) (1978); *Hawkins v. Hawkins,*240 Ga. 30 (239 SE2d 358) (1977); *Robinson v. Ashmore,*232 Ga. 498 (207 SE2d 484) (1974).

Submitted June 30, 1978

Decided September, 7, 1978.

*Almand, Grice, Knight & Mills, O. Hale Almand, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Kice H. Stone, John W. Collier,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the. Justices concur.*