alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Brooks Brothers *v.*United States

No. *6455.*

Entry No. 721882, etc.

Invoices dated Northampton, England, September 19, 1941, etc.

Certified September 22, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 29, 1941, etc.

(Decided October 24, 1946)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

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

Modus on, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed inrschedulev,A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, 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.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 86 (Friday, May 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 25333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8526]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary


Bureau of International Labor Affairs; Labor Advisory Committee 
for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy

ACTION: Meeting notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given of a meeting 
of the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiation and Trade Policy. 
Date, time, place: June 22, 2007; 10 a.m.-12 Noon; USTR Annex Building, 
Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F St., NW., Washington, DC.
    Purpose: The meeting will include a review and discussion of 
current issues which influence U.S. trade policy. Potential U.S. 
negotiating objectives and bargaining positions in current and 
anticipated trade negotiations will be discussed. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 
2155(f) it has been determined that the meeting will be concerned with 
matters the disclosure of which would seriously compromise the 
Government's negotiating objectives or bargaining positions. 
Accordingly, the meeting will be closed to the public. See section 
10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app., and section 
(c)(9)(B) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9) 
(B).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Schoepfle, Director, Office of 
Trade and Labor Affairs; Phone: (202) 693-4887.

    Signed at Washington, DC, the 1st day of May 2007.
James Carter,
Deputy Undersecretary, International Labor Affairs.
[FR Doc. E7-8526 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-28-P
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Corey Goodman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report on Form
10-Q of Renovis, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Renovis, Inc.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------- |  | -----------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Dated: May 16, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Corey Goodman
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  | Corey Goodman          
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  | Chief Executive Officer



I, John Doyle, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Renovis, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Renovis, Inc.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------- |  | -----------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Dated: May 16, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ John Doyle
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                |  | John Doyle             
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                |  | Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          21,026
<SECURITIES>                                    14,285
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,068
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,394)
<INVENTORY>                                        376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,914
<PP&E>                                          11,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,122)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,535
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                        66,201
<OTHER-SE>                                    (39,918)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,260
<SALES>                                         85,686
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,686
<CGS>                                           13,050
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,677
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    910
<INCOME-TAX>                                       747
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (753)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (753)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
No. 54938.

#### Dangkai Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 160838-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-7117

RONALD BISHOP,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NOVA L. ANDREWS; MASON WATERS; DAVIS ARDINGER;

GALVIN BALLARD; MARVIN PRINTZ; R. ROSENBERRY;

B. L. SOUDERS; ELLIS R. WILLIAMS; EARL J.

WHISNER; D. K. HORNING,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA93-1186-S)

Submitted: January 22, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Bishop, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Bishop v. Andrews, No. CA-93-1186-S (D. Md. Aug. 29, 1994).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
99-0206 (La. 4/23/99)

#### STATE ex rel. Gary PRATER a/k/a Garry Prater v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 99-KH-0206.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Prater, Gary 'a/k/a; Prater, Garry; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of Beauregard 36th Judicial District Court Div. “B” Number CR32096010; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CR98-00422

Denied.

LEMMON, J. not on panel.
Before the First Division,

June 6, 1961

No. 65758.

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/27041 and 60/27265 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dice the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 64186, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 96-1455

___________ Renee Paula Sharp, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Darlene J. Smith, doing business * as D.J. Smith Realty Co., doing * Appeal from the United States business as Smith Realty Co.; * District Court for the Jayson Smith; Roger D. Moe; * District of Minnesota. Intercity Investments, also * known as Intercity Investment * [UNPUBLISHED] Properties, Inc.; Patrick D. * McGowan; James Alsdurf, PhD; * Ann L. Alton; Brian Kopperud, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 3, 1996 Filed: December 11, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Renee Paula Sharp appeals from the denial by the District Court 1 of her motion for a temporary restraining order and dismissal of her complaint as frivolous. Having carefully reviewed-2- the entire record and the parties' submissions, we conclude the judgment of the District Court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Sharp’s motions to supplement the record.
A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 31.1  PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, John W. Peters, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (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 small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.    Date: November 8, 2006 /s/ John W. Peters John W. Peters Principal Executive Officer
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 6148.

Invoice dated Sonneberg, Germany, October 14, 1938.

Certified October 17, 1938.

Entered at Baltimore, Md., November 9, 1938.

Entry No. 1740 (7).

(Decided May 10, 1945)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Edward P. Sharreits*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Cole, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, filed May 4,1945, which is limited to the merchandise represented by invoice items marked “xx” in green ink and initialed “CHE,.”

The parties have agreed that the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission included in the appraised value of said items are the same as those found in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co. et al.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, and that the record in that case be incorporated herein.

In the cited case, it was found that the sales to which the said item applied “were fugitive and not in the ordinary course of trade in the principal market of Germany.” Accordingly, it was held not to be a consideration in determining dutiable value.

The same conclusion is applicable here, and in the light of stipulated facts, as they are embodied in the record before me, that merchandise, such as or similar to that hereinabove referred to, was freely offered for sale at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus *3){*per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced, and that there was no higher foreign value, I hold export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement of the invoice items marked “xx” in green ink, initialed “CHR,” and that such value is the *per se*unit invoice values, plus *“3%%*Insurance, Vacation *&*Holiday costs,” and packing, as invoiced.

The appeal, having been abandoned as to all other merchandise, is hereby dismissed so far as it relates thereto.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 96-7939.

#### Houston *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 20

- 1087

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v. JOSE VÁZQUEZ

- ROSARIO,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court, issued on August 17 , 2022 , is amended as follows: On page 11, line 10, replace "have" with "ha[ ve ]"

On page 11, line 11, insert "case" following " in a § 912"

On page 16, line 7, replace "V á zquez'" with "V á zquez's"
----

Exhibit 99.7

Summary of Loan Agreement Entered into by and betweenShenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd. ("the Company") and Shenzhen Eastern Branch,Agricultural Bank of China ("the Creditor") dated November 20, 2009 

Main contents 

-  Contract number:  81101200900002212; Loan principal: RMB 60  million; Loan term: from November  20, 2009 to May 19, 2010; Floating interest rate: annually 4.86%, rate  adjustment in a 3-month cycle; -  Interest accrued and    settled per month, interest settlement day is the 20th day of each month;    Penalty interest rate    for delayed repayment: 4.86% plus 30% *4.86%; Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan    proceeds: 4.86% plus 50% *4.86%; -  Purpose of the loan is to  provide working capital for purchasing raw material of the Company; Advanced repayment of  loan needs to be approved by the Creditor; Breach of  contract penalties: correct the breach of contract in time limit; suspension  of loan unprovided; release loan agreement, demand prepayment of loan  principal and interest before maturity; imposition of punitive interest  incurred due to delayed loan; imposition of punitive interest for embezzlement  of loan; imposition of plural interest for unpaid interest; withdraw from any  accounts of the Company the loan principal, interest and other fees;  compensation for the Creditor’s expenses incurred due to demanding the loan  principal and interest in case of litigation, etc. Supplemental: in the event that the Company repaid  the loan in advance, it has to pay extra handling fee: advanced repaid amount  * share months * 1. **Headlines of the articles omitted:**-  Loan arrangement Interest clearing of the  loan Payment of the loan Rights and obligation of  the Creditor Rights and obligations of  the Company Interest penalty of loan  Guarantee of the loan  agreement Disputation settlement  Validity Text Notification
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1634 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1634

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the approval and 
   disapproval of programs of education for purposes of educational 
benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 26, 2011

  Mr. Tester introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the approval and 
   disapproval of programs of education for purposes of educational 
benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO APPROVAL OF PROGRAMS 
              OF EDUCATION FOR PURPOSES OF EDUCATION BENEFITS 
              ADMINISTERED BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) Repeal of Constructive Approval of Certain Courses.--Section 
3672(b)(2)(A) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking clauses (i) and (iv); and
            (2) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i) 
        and (ii), respectively.
    (b) Approval of Accredited Courses.--Section 3675 of such title is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``The Secretary or a 
        State approving agency may approve accredited programs 
        (including non-degree accredited programs) offered by 
        proprietary for-profit educational institutions'' and inserting 
        ``A State approving agency may approve the courses offered by 
        an educational institution''; and
            (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``the Secretary or'' 
        both places it appears.
    (c) Disapproval of Courses.--Section 3679(a) of such title is 
amended by striking ``the Secretary or'' both places it appears.
                                 <all>
```
#### Leslie Francis et al., Appellants, v Elfort Realty Corp. et al., Respondents.

[699 NYS2d 690]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about October 1, 1998, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action is not saved by CPLR 205 (a), plaintiffs’ prior action having been dismissed for “neglect to prosecute” within the meaning of that section after plaintiffs’ attorney, had failed to appear at five court-scheduled preliminary conferences. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.