alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 45267.

#### Protest 36304-K of W. G. Young & Co., Inc. (New York).

Walker, Judge:

In this case plaintiff has filed protest against the liquidation of the collector of customs at the port of New York claiming a manifest clerical error was made in said liquidation.

From the record it appears that entry was originally made on March 11, 1938, at a total entered value of 16,112.03 francs, but the entry was amended in accordance with the provisions of section 487, Tariff Act of 1930, on July 11, 1938, to show a total amended entered-value of 15,122:59 francs. The rate of exchange being .0326 this would equal an entered value of $493, but liquidation resulted in a value of $523.

*523On the trial of the issue all of the papers connected with the entry were admitted in evidence by consent. Attached to the invoice is the following notation:

*Entered Value:*

100 gross Art. #300 Fes. 54. 45 per gross

15 #6 167. 75

15 • #8 234 00

10 #9 277. 70

10 #200P 62. 40

*Correct Value:*

#300 @ Fes. 54. 45 per gross_ -Fes. 5445. 00

#6' 183. 70 2755. 50

#8 255. 95 3839. 25

#9 287. 50 2875. 00

#200P 62. 40 624 00

15538. 75

Plus 3% 466. 16

15072. 59

Plus Packing 50. 00

Fes. 15122. 59

It will be observed that in spite of the fact that the item on the fourth line from the bottom of the notation reads “Plus 3%” the importer *deducted*that amount from the entered value. From an examination of the summary sheet attached to the official papers it appears that the appraiser appraised the merchandise as entered, which would mean that he appraised it at the unit prices shown above under the heading “Correct Value,” plus 3 percent, plus packing. No explanation as to what the 3 percent stands for appears anywhere in the invoice or entry papers, nor, indeed, was any explanation given on the trial, although it was referred to as a discount by Government counsel and in a memorandum sent from the collector’s office which was made part of the record.

It is, therefore, not manifest whether the 3 percent was intended to be added to or deducted from the unit values. As already pointed out,, the appraiser evidently added it on appraisement, and the liquidator correctly performed the mathematical calculation on that basis, which resulted in a total liquidated value of 16054.91 francs, or $523.39.

On the record as made we find no clerical error which this court has power to correct, and the relief asked for in the protest must therefore be denied. Judgment will issue accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                             127
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,279
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (96)
<INVENTORY>                                        299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,846
<PP&E>                                             285
<DEPRECIATION>                                     242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,004
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           852
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,039)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,891
<SALES>                                          6,216
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,216
<CGS>                                            5,272
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,272
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   916
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    12
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      1
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  1
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         1
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CYPRESS COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING CO., INC.
                            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 annual report of Cypress Communications Holding
Co., Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the annual ending December 31, 2004,
as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory P. McGraw, Chief Executive Officer, President
and Secretary of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge 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.

                                By: /s/ Gregory P. McGraw
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Gregory P. McGraw
                                Chief Executive Officer, President and Secretary

April 15, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Cypress Communications Holding
Co., Inc. and will be retained by Cypress Communications Holding Co., Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 47627.

#### Protests 19705-K, etc., of Sardik, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the banana flakes in question are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Sardik, Inc.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 400, C. D. 646). In accordance therewith the protests were -.sustained.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2011

- 0573 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2011

-NM

- 082

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. Estimated Costs: Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

U.S. Registered Products Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet 

### Inspection 1.5 $ 127.50 $0 $ 127.50 

### 745 $94,987.50 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $94,988 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
On
- Condition Costs: Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Replacement 5.0 $ 425.00 $0 $ 425.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode o f transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1710 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 222 

West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, as the James M. 

Fitzgerald United States Courthouse. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 1710 ES

1 SECTION 1. JAMES M. FITZGERALD UNITED STATES COURT2 HOUSE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse 

4 located at 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, shall 

5 be known and designated as the ‘‘James M. Fitzgerald 

6 United States Courthouse’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the United States courthouse referred to in sub10 section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

11 ‘‘James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the Senate December 17, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1710 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located 

house. the James M. Fitzgerald United States Courtat 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska, as
#### Davis *vs.*Morford and others.

*Error to Muscatine.*

It does not appear to be imperative on the court, to refer the assessment of damages * to the clerk.

At all events as it is a matter of mere calculation, unles some error of computation is shown, the judgment will not on that account be reversed.

Where the action is debt, and the form of the judgment is as though it had been assumpsit, it is no fatal error.

This was an action of debt brought by defendants in error on a spe-ciality, judgment by default, and assessment of damages by the *court.*The judgment is in form of assumpsit.

WhicheR, for plaintiff in error.

Hastings & Day, for defendants in. error.

By the Couet,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The two first errors assigned in this case, are in substance, that the action being in *debt,*the *100form of the judgment is as though the action had been assumpsit.— We do not think this such an error as should affect the judgment. It is erroneous only in form, and could work no prejudice to the defendant.

The third error alleged, is that the court appears to have assessed the damages, when the law provides that the court *may*direct the clerk to do so. The language is not imperative, and seems to leave the matter optional with the court. It authorizes the matter to be referred to the clerk, because it is one of mere calculation. At all events, if there were no error shown is this calculation, the plaintiff in error has sustained no injury. As nothing of this kind is alleged, the judgment below will be affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO 

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

I, Walter Thomas Price III, 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 March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information containedin such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. 

Date: July 20, 2011 

By: /s/ Walter Thomas Price III

Walter Thomas Price III

Managing Member (Principal Executive Officer) 

Beeland Management Company, L.L.C. 

General Partner of Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# 509th LRS hosts Airmen exchange program

By Staff Sgt. Joel Pfiester509th Bomb Wing Public Affairs

                WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE, Mo.  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Whiteman Air Force Base website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Whiteman Air Force Base509th Logistics Readiness Squadron435th Supply Chain Operations Squadron437th Supply Chain Operations SquadronScott Air Force Basemateriel managerswarehousesupply
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 v. NO. 34,029 4 JORDAN LEE LERKE, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY 7 Mark Terrence Sanchez, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 The Sawyers Law Group 12 James W. Klipstine, Jr. 13 Hobbs, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 WECHSLER, Judge. 172 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 1 proposed summary disposition. No memo randum opposing summary affirmance has 2 been filed and the time for doing so has expired. 3 {2} Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in our calendar notice. 4 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

__________________________________ 6 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

_________________________________ 9 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 10

_________________________________ 11 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 12
exv10w1



 




Exhibit 10.1



FIRST AMENDMENT TO

TRONOX INCORPORATED

2005 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN



Pursuant to the authority granted to the Board of Directors of Tronox Incorporated under Article

XIII of the Tronox Incorporated 2005 Long Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby

amended by adding to the Plan a new Article XV that provides as follows:



“ARTICLE XV

FORFEITURE OF AWARDS



     Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, the Committee may, in the event of
serious misconduct by a participant including, without limitation, any misconduct prejudicial to or
in conflict with the Company or its affiliates, or any termination of employment for Cause, or any
activity of a participant in competition with the business of the Company or any affiliate, (a)
cancel any outstanding Award granted to such participant, in whole or in part, whether or not
vested or deferred, and/or (b) if such conduct or activity occurs within one year following the
exercise or payment of an Award, require such participant to repay to the Company any gain realized
or payment received upon the exercise or payment of such Award (with such gain or payment valued as
of the date of exercise or payment). In the event the Company’s financial statements are restated
as a result of errors, omissions or fraud, the Committee may, to the extent an Award exceeds what
would otherwise have been awarded based on the restated financial results, (a) cancel any
outstanding Award granted, in whole or in part, whether or not vested or deferred, to officers of
the Company who are identified as being subject to Section 16 of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 (Section 16 Officers), and/or (b) if such restatement occurs after the exercise or payment of
such Award, require such Section 16 Officer to repay to the Company any gain realized or payment
received upon the exercise or payment of such Award (with such gain or payment valued as of the
date of exercise or payment). Cancellations and repayment obligations will be effective as of the
date specified by the Committee. Any repayment obligation may be satisfied in Stock or cash or a
combination thereof (based upon the Fair Market Value of Stock on the day of payment), and the
Committee may provide for an offset to any future payments owed by the Company or any affiliate to
the participant if necessary to satisfy the repayment obligation. The determination regarding
cancellation of an Award or a repayment obligation shall be within the sole discretion of the
Committee and shall be binding upon the participant and the Company. This Article XV will have no
application following a Change in Control.”



     This First Amendment is executed effective January 10, 2008.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	TRONOX INCORPORATED
 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Thomas W. Adams 	 
	 	 	Thomas W. Adams 	 
	 	 	Chairman
(Reap. Dec. 9466)

#### Sears, Roebuck and Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 179, etc.

(Decided June 17, 1959)

*Lane, Young <£. Fox*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, relate to certain bamboo blinds and hardware accessories exported from Japan and entered at the port of New Orleans, La.

*680Stipulated facts, upon which, the cases are before me, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of this merchandise is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is the invoice unit values, which values include the cost of the hardware as invoiced, and I so- hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 23.2

LOGO

May 13, 2009

Mr. Richard M. Grubel

Senior Vice President

P B S & J

2001 Northwest 107thAvenue

Miami, Florida 33172-2507

Re: Consent
of Independent Appraisal Firm

Dear Mr. Grubel:

We hereby consent to the reference to Sheldrick, McGehee & Kohler, LLC, and to the incorporation of information contained in our Valuation Report dated January 12, 2009, in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The PBSJ
Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, to which this consent is an exhibit.



|                        
|------------------------
|Very sincerely,         
|                        
|/s/ Steven M. Rosenbloom
|Steven M. Rosenbloom    

One Independent Drive Suite 3140  Jacksonville, Florida 32202  Telephone
904.355.4715  Facsimile 904.355.4717  www.smki.net
NUMBER 13-21-00448-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

MIGUEL DIAZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 28th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellant filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal convictions of aggravated 

robbery and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. We dismiss the appeal for want 

of jurisdiction.

Sentence in this matter was imposed with a judgment of conviction entered on 

October 21, 2021. Upon review of the documents filed, the trial court has certified that
2

this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” without permission 

of the Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). On December 16, 2021, the Court ordered 

appellant’s counsel to review the record and determine whether appellant had a right to 

appeal. In response, appellant’s counsel filed a memorandum advising the Court of no 

right to appeal.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed 

if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

3rd day of February, 2022.
OAKWOOD ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
                           ANNUAL OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

                  DEUTSCHE FINANCIAL CAPITAL SECURITIZATION LLC
                  SENIOR/SUBORDINATED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
                                  SERIES 1998-I

Pursuant to Section 3.13(a) of the Standard Terms to Pooling and Servicing
Agreement (November 1995 Edition) which is incorporated in the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement dated February 1, 1998 among Oakwood Mortgage Investors,
Inc., Oakwood Acceptance Corporation (the "Servicer") and PNC Bank, N.A., the
undersigned officer of the Servicer hereby certifies that a review of the
activities of the Servicer during the period October 1, 1997 through September
30, 1998 and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has
been made under his supervision and to the best of his knowledge, based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement through such period.



By:  /s/ Douglas R. Muir

Name:  Douglas R. Muir

Title:  Vice President

Date:  September 30, 1998
#### W. T. Grant Co. *v.*United States

No. 7735.

Entry No. 709030.

(Decided on rehearing [not published] August 31, 1949)

*Sharretls & Ilillis (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judges

This appeal for reappraisement having been formally abandoned without prejudice is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.