alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 55523.

#### North American Food Distribg. Co. and Pacific Mutual Sales, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 157641-K and 157658-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the commodity passed upon in Abstract 50242, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 54976.

#### C. Schoenfeld *v.*United States,

protest 162395-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case, the court was unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
#### In re Brenda J. BLAKE, Debtor. Brenda J. Blake, Movant, v. U.S. Department of Education Internal Revenue Service, Respondents.

Bankruptcy No. 97-2-2130-PM.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Oct. 30, 1998.

Torin K. Andrews, Law Offices of Torin K. Andrews, Gaithersburg, MD, for Debt- or.

Roger Schlossberg, Hagerstown, MD, trustee.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

PAUL MANNES, Chief Judge.

This matter comes before the court on debtor’s motion for sanctions for violation of the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Debtor’s motion was directed at both the U.S. Department of Education and the Internal Revenue Service. The United States of America, on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, moved to dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss was based upon the express language of 26 U.S.C. § 6402(e) that deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction. While § 6402(e) prohibits actions directed at the Secretary of the Trea*569sury when the income tax refund setoff is being processed, it does not prohibit law suits against the originating agency over the validity of the request to execute an offset. *Thomas v. Bennett,*856 F.2d 1165, 1167 (C.A.8 1988).

The Department of Education filed no response. It is clear that it has caused the setoff of a prepetition obligation owing it on account of a student loan against a postpetition obligation arising in favor of the debtor — her interest in her tax refund for the return filed for the year 1997. *See generally, In re Glenn,*207 B.R. 418, 420-21 (E.D.Pa.1997).

11 U.S.C. § 553(a) provides:

> 11 U.S.C. § 553. Setoff

> (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in sections 362 and 363 of this title, this title does not affect any right of a creditor to offset a mutual debt owing by such creditor to the debt- or that arose before the commencement of the case under this title against a claim of such creditor against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case....

In substance, what the Department of Education did was cause the setoff of a debt that was not a mutual debt.

However, these facts do not compel a ruling that the debtor prevails in the motion as to the Internal Revenue Service. The party that violated the automatic stay was the Department of Education. The Department of Education is the agency causing the setoff of the sum of $537.03. Section 6402(e) does not prohibit suits “brought to restrain or review a reduction authorized by subsections (c), (d), or (e)” of § 6402 against the agencies to which the reduction was paid. 11 U.S.C. § 6402(e). *See Thomas v. Bennett,*856 F.2d 1165 (C.A.8 1988).

The court finds that the Department of Education has violated the stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) by causing the setoff by the Internal Revenue Service. Debtor is entitled to a refund of $537.03, the proceeds diverted, and a reasonable attorney’s fee, that this court finds to be in the amount of $450.00. An appropriate order will be entered.
N e ithe r p a rty h a s c h a llen g e d the va lid ity o f t h is a g re e m e n t. 1 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE A ugus t 6, 200 4 S es sio n MIR A A NN (WA LLER ) M OSLEY v. C HAR LES R AY MON D M OSLEY

Chancery Court

for Rutherford Coun ty No. 01-2731-D R RoyceTaylor, Jud ge

No. M2003- 01686-COA-R 3-CV

W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., concur ring

I c on c ur wi th the c ou rt ’s op ini on . H ow e ve r, I write separat ely to e mph a size my understanding of the leg al import of t he parties’ April 25, 1995 “Marital Dissolution Agr eeme nt.” 1 Th e pr op e rty

that e a c h o f the pa

rt ie s r e c e iv ed as a res ult

of that a g re e me nt b e c a me the ir se pa rate pr op e rty . T hu s, by

th e ti me of the 20 03 div or c e pr oc e e din g , n on e of the pr op e rty

div ide d in a c c or da nc e wi th the 19 95 a g re e me nt s ho uldha ve be e n in c lud e d inthe pa rt ie s’ mari ta l e state un le ss the parties had treated it a s marital property betwee n 1995 and 2003. This r eco rd co n t ai n s no evidenc e that either

Mr. Mosley

or Ms. Mosley

treated a n y o f t he prope rty Mr. Mosley

rec eived under the 1995 ag ree ment as marita l p ro p er t y . Acc ording ly , in 2003, the property Mr. Mosley rec eived unde r the 1995 a g ree ment was his sepa rate property
.

____________________________________ WI LL I AM C. K OC H, JR., P. J., M. S.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12

                 DAVOX CORPORATION EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

     The compensation arrangements between Davox Corporation (the "Company") and
each of its executive officers are based on the Company's Executive Compensation
Plan (the "Plan"), the terms of which are described herein.

     The Company's executive compensation program is administered by the two
member Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the "Compensation
Committee"). The two members of the Compensation Committee are non-employee
Directors. Pursuant to the authority delegated by the Board of Directors, the
Compensation Committee establishes each year the compensation of the Chief
Executive Officer, and together with the Chief Executive Officer, establishes
the compensation of the other executive officers of the Company pursuant to the
Plan.

     The Plan is designed to reward executive officers whose performance yields
improvement in corporate operating results, market share and shareholder value.
The ultimate goal of the Plan is to align the interests of management with those
of the stockholders. Compensation under the Plan is comprised of cash
compensation in the form of annual base salary, incentive compensation in the
form of performance-based cash bonuses, and long-term incentive compensation in
the form of stock options.

     In setting cash compensation levels for executive officers, the
Compensation Committee takes into account such factors as: (i) the Company's
past financial performance and future expectations, (ii) the general and
industry-specific business environment, and (iii) corporate and individual
performance goals. The base salaries are established at levels comparable to the
amounts paid to senior executives with comparable qualifications, experience and
responsibilities at other companies located in the northeastern United States of
similar size and engaged in a similar business to that of the Company.

     Incentive compensation in the form of performance-based bonuses for the
Company's executive officers is based upon management's success in meeting the
Company's financial and strategic goals as well as meeting individual
performance goals. Target levels of revenue and net income are set annually, and
bonuses are allocated to the executive officers contingent upon the achievement
of the target levels. In addition, based on the Company's exceeding both target
revenues and target net income, additional bonuses are awarded to executive
officers in the same proportion as bonuses are allocated under the Plan.

     Incentive compensation in the form of stock options is designed to provide
long term incentives to executive officers, to encourage the executive officers
to remain with the Company and to enable optionees to develop and maintain a
significant, long-term stock ownership position in the Company's Common Stock.
The Compensation Committee grants stock options to the Company's executive
officers in consideration of the strategic goals and direction of the Company.
No. 47654.

#### Protest 805548-G/84686 of Chee Woo Tong (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) certain of the merchandise was held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 and some was held dutiable as drugs advanced in value or condition at 10 percent under paragraph 34, in accordance with stipulation of counsel.
# C_2016410EN.01003604.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/36

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-714/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 410/65)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

1

---
12-1 12.0 Determination of the Adequacy of the Existing Plan

Depending on the findings of the five-year progress report, New York State is required to take one of the actions lis ted in 40 CFR Section 51.308(h) as presented below that apply to non-Class I st ates. The findings of the five-year progress report, which will be based on consultation with Class I states to which New York sources are contributory as well as the FLMs and the EPA, will determine which action is appropriate and necessary.

List of Possible Actions – 40 CFR Section 51.308(h)

1. If, after consultation with affe cted Class I states, FLMs and EPA, New York determines that its existing SIP requires no further substantive

revision at this time in order to achieve its share of the emission

reductions needed to reach the es tablished goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions , the Administrator will be provided a negative declaration from New York that further revision of the existing

SIP is not needed at this time.

2. If a Class I state determines that the existing SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources in New York, New York will collaborate with the other state(s) through the regional planning process for the purpose of developing additional strategies to

address New York’s SIP deficienc ies if this is required.

Class I states are additionally required to revise their SIPs:

1. If a Class I state determi nes that its existing SI P is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources within the Class I state, such deficiencies mu st be addressed within one year, or

2. If a Class I state determines that its current SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to em issions from sources in another country, it must notify the Administrator and provide with all pertinent,

available information.
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE 

I, Allen D. Goodman, a Managing Member of Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., the General Partner of Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (the“Partnership”), certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Partnership on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and (ii) the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. 

Date: August 16, 2010 

By: /s/ AllenD. Goodman

Allen D. Goodman 

Managing Member (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) 

Beeland Management Company, L.L.C. 

GeneralPartner of Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1


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

In connection with the Annual Report of Pacific Rim Mining Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 20-F for the period ended April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas C. Shrake,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

August 27, 2003                     /s/ Thomas C. Shrake
                                    -----------------------
                                    Thomas C. Shrake
                                    Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

I,  Joseph M. Naughton, certify, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the annual
report  of  Go Online Networks Corporation and Subsidiaries  on  form 10-KSB for
the year ended December 31, 2003 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  annual  report  on  Form  10-KSB  fairly  presents  in  all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Go Online
Networks Corporation and Subsidiaries.



Date:  April  14,  2004                            By:  /s/  Joseph M. Naughton
                                                    -----------------------
                                                     Joseph M. Naughton
                                                Principal  Executive  Officer

A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  typed  from  within  the  electronic  version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Go Online Networks Corporation and
Subsidiaries  and  will  be  retained  by  Go  Online  Networks  Corporation and
Subsidiaries  and  furnished  to  the  Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff  upon  request.
Appendix 4.2 

US Department of the Interior Comments on the Kansas 

Regional Haze SIP
No. 49462.

#### Protest 14022-K of Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of Abstracts 42146 and 42309 an allowance of 2)4 percent was made by the court for the Holland Edam and baby Gouda cheese in question.
#### Frank P. Dow & Co., Inc., a/c American Import Co. *v.*United States

No. 7639.

Invoice dated London, England, March 17, 1941.

Entered at Seattle, Wash., May 10, 1941.

Entry No. 3496.

*357(Decided December 22, 1948)

*Philip Stein*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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.
No. 43164.

#### Protests 990057-G, etc., of Henri Bendel, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallingee, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of atomizers the same as those passed upon in *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373). The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
No. 49467.

#### Protest 967199-G (B) of Gallagher *&*Burton (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find anything sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action. The protest was therefore overruled.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ricky SEABERRY.

No. 98-KH-1149.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Seaberry, Ricky;—Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “K”, No. 9707698.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the application to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit for its consideration.

CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel.
No. 48106.

#### Protests 67376-K, etc., of Henry Pollak, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218) the protests were sustained as to this item.
Exhibit 31.2 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(d), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Dennis B. Story, certify that: 

| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of the registrant; |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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 annual 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; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Dated this 15th day of March, 2019

 

|        |                                                                                   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Dennis B. Story                                                          |
|   | Dennis B. Story, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer |
Exhibit 32.1

  Certification by the Principal 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 2003


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, each of the undersigned officers of Iroquois Gas
Transmission System, L.P., a limited partnership organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware (the "Partnership"), does hereby certify that, to the best of
such officer's knowledge:


     1.   The accompanying Quarterly Report of the Partnership on Form 10-Q/A
          for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
          with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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
          Partnership.



                                          /s/ E.J. Holm
                                          ---------------------------
                                          E. J. Holm
                                          President
                                          November 17, 2005



                                          /s/ Paul Bailey
                                          ---------------------------
                                          Paul Bailey
                                          Vice President and Chief
                                          Financial Officer
                                          November 17, 2005
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-60563 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WILLIAM SAPPINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:95-CR-003
- - - - - - - - - - October 24, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * William Sappington appeals the revocation of his probation. Having reviewed the record and Sappington’s arguments on appeal, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation. See United States v. King , 990 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 223 (1993). AFFIRMED.
# C_2013225EN.01005304.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/53

---

Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Emil Micsunescu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-314/12: Micsunescu v Commission

(Case C-569/12 P)

2013/C 225/97

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Emil Micsunescu (represented by: R. Neagu, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 27 June 2013 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---