alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9257]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1692-DR]


New York; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of New York (FEMA-1692-DR), dated April 24, 2007, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 3, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of New York is hereby amended to include the Public 
Assistance program for the following areas among those areas determined 
to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major 
disaster by the President in his declaration of April 24, 2007:

Orange, Rockland, and Westchester Counties for Public Assistance 
(already designated for Individual Assistance.)
Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Essex, Greene, Putnam, Schoharie, 
Suffolk, and Ulster Counties for Public Assistance.
Albany, Dutchess, and Richmond Counties for Individual Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E7-9257 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NetSuite Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Zachary Nelson, as Chief Executive Officer of NetSuite Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NetSuite Inc.



|                  |  |     |  |                                      
|----------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 5, 2011 |  | By: |  | /s/ Zachary Nelson                   
|                  |  |     |  | Zachary Nelson                       
|                  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NetSuite Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Ronald Gill, as Chief Financial
Officer of NetSuite Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NetSuite Inc.



|                  |  |     |  |                        
|----------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 5, 2011 |  | By: |  | /s/ Ronald Gill        
|                  |  |     |  | Ronald Gill            
|                  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1735 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 558
112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1735

                          [Report No. 112-243]

   To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties in Iuka, 
                              Mississippi.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2011

Mr. Cochran (for himself and Mr. Wicker) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

                           November 30, 2012

               Reported by Mrs. Boxer, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties in Iuka, 
                              Mississippi.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF YELLOW CREEK PORT PROPERTIES.

    In accordance with section 4(k) of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831c(k)), Congress approves the conveyance by 
the Tennessee Valley Authority, on behalf of the United States, to the 
State of Mississippi of the Yellow Creek Port properties owned by the 
United States and in the custody of the Authority at Iuka, Mississippi, 
as of the date of enactment of this Act.
                                                       Calendar No. 558

112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1735

                          [Report No. 112-243]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties in Iuka, 
                              Mississippi.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 30, 2012

                       Reported without amendment
```
**Summary      of Loan Agreement entered into by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd.      and      Shenzhen East Branch, Agricultural Bank of China dated May 20,      2008**

**Summary      of the main articles**

| Ø | Contract                number: NO.81101200800000816. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Loan                Principal: RMB 175 million; |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Loan                term: four months starting from the date loan is actually provided                to the                Company. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Interest                rate: fixed rate of 6.57%; |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Purpose                of the loan is to provide working capital for the Company to buy                raw                material; |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Advanced                repayment of loan needs to be approved by the                Lender; |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Breach                of contract penalties: suspension of loan unprovided, demand prepayment                of                loan principal and interest before maturity; imposition of punitive                interest; compensation for the Lender’s expenses incurred due to the                Company’s breach of contract such as lawyer’s fee, travel cost in case of                litigation, etc. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**Summary      of the articles omitted **

| Ø  Condition                precedent to drawing of the loan |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Ø  Rights                and obligations of the lender       |
| Ø  Rights                and obligations of the borrower     |
| Ø  Punishment                of default                      |
| Ø  Guarantee                of the loan                      |
| Ø  Dispute                settlement                         |
| Ø  Miscellaneous                                             |
| Ø  Effectiveness                                             |
| Ø  Notes                                                     |

----
(Reap. Dec. 9620)

#### Kussi & Feigl, Inc. Globe Shipping Co., Inc. v. United States

Entry Nos. 963673; 976261; 963573.

(Decided March 4, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the appeals for reappraisement listed in *592Schedule “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are limited to the following items and are abandoned in all other respects:

> Necklet 7177

> Bracelet 7177 B

> Necklet BE

> Bracelet BE

> Necklet 7192

> Bracelet 7192 B

> Bracelet 3441

> Bracelet 3413

> Necklet 3981E

> Bracelet 3981 EB

> Necklet 7223 E

> Bracelet 7223 EB

> IT IS EURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that as so limited the issues are the same in all material respects as the issues involved in *Bert Friedberg & Company*v. *United States,*Reappt. Dec. 8590 and that the record in said ease may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the prices at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption 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, 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 were the appraised unit values less 15.35% plus 1.01%.

In the cited case, the court held foreign value, as defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise there under consideration, and that such statutory value did not include the so-called “French sole or unique tax.”

On the agreed facts and following the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is statutory foreign value, and hold that such value for the items in question is the appraised unit values, less 15.35 per centum, plus 1.01 per centum.

The appeals for reappraisement are dismissed as to all other merchandise.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

September 18, 1943

No. 48788.

#### Protests 10971-K, etc., of Consolidated Hat Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It now appearing that the harvest hats in question were imported subsequent to the effective date of the Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075) it was held that all harvest hats there in question are dutiable at *12}i*percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and the said trade agreement, rather than at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5).
No. 56752.

protests 179977-K, etc. (New York).

#### International Distributors et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found; not landed, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as not landed, not found; manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 49468.

#### Protest 107108-K of Frosted Foods Sales Corporation (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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                              58
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      708
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (41)
<INVENTORY>                                        631
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,491
<PP&E>                                           1,036
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (439)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              657
<BONDS>                                          1,219
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,028
<SALES>                                          3,429
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,429
<CGS>                                            2,389
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     6
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  76
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    241
<INCOME-TAX>                                        87
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                154
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (13)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       141
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.51


</TABLE>
#### American Shipping Co. *v.*United States

No. 6794.

Entry No. 710927.

Invoice dated London, England, October 1942.

Certified October 1942.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 5, 1942.

(Decided January 22, 1947)

*Goldwater & Flynn*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawkence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the value of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar eases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SHAHID ABNEY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 411 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of February, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Opinion issued August 31, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NOS. 01-12-00344-CR

01-12-00634-CR

———————————

IN RE NORRIS SKINNER, Relator

Original Proceedings on Petitions for Writs of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Norris Skinner filed petitions for writs of mandamus complaining of 

Judge Ellis’s actions in the underlying case.

1

 Skinner has since filed motions to 

dismiss, which we grant.

 

1

The Honorable Mark Kent Ellis, judge of the 351st District Court of Harris 

County, Texas. The underlying lawsuit is State v. Skinner, No. 1241923 

(351st Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex., Jan. 24, 2011), appeal dismissed, No. 

01-12-00290-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 28, 2012, no pet.).
2

Accordingly, we dismiss the petitions for writs of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Sharp.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of

Chief Executive Officer

of Mannatech, Incorporated



This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the
Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003 of Mannatech, Incorporated (the Issuer).



I, Samuel L. Caster, the Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer certify that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 15, 2004



/s/     Samuel L.
CasterSamuel L. Caster Chief Executive
Officer




Subscribed and sworn to before me

This 15thday of March, 2004



|                          |  |                              
|------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                         
|/s/    Christina
Meissner
|Name:                     |  | Christina Meissner           
|Title:                    |  | Notary Public, State of Texas



My
commission expires: March 19, 2006



A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mannatech,

Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
33910.

#### MARKS v. OSWALT.

Nichols, Chief Justice.

This is a child custody case. The former husband filed a complaint against the former wife seeking legal custody of his son. He alleged that circumstances and conditions had changed since the parties were divorced and that it was no longer in the best interest of the minor child of the parties to be in the permanent care, custody and control of his mother. After a full hearing, the trial court denied the father’s requested relief and left legal custody of the child with the mother.

The former husband argues that the trial court abused its discretion and made findings of fact unsupported by the record. Although the evidence is *292conflicting, this court cannot say that the evidence shows that the trial court abused its discretion. *Culbreth v. Culbreth,*236 Ga. 583 (224 SE2d 417) (1976).

Submitted August 4, 1978

Decided September 28, 1978.

*Gerry E. Holmes,*for appellant.

*Howe & Sutton, Richard C. Sutton,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
33882.

#### SIMMONS v. DAVIS et al.

Bowles, Justice.

The facts of this case are set out in *Simmons v. Davis,*240 Ga. 282 (240 SE2d 33) (1977), where this court held that the will executed in 1964 by Saint Elmo Gay and his wife Vivian Frazier Gay was joint and mutual, and that the trial court properly ordered appellant to specifically perform the contract as expressed in the joint and mutual will.

A second suit was filed on February 9, 1978, by appellees, as named devisees and legatees of the joint and mutual will, alleging that the appellant, individually and as executrix of the estate of Saint Elmo Gay, had failed to comply with the trial court’s order of specific performance, and the decision of this court affirming that order. The trial court again ordered appellant to specifically perform *398the terms of the will probated as the last will and testament of Vivian Frazier Gay. We affirm.

Argued September 12, 1978

Decided October 18, 1978.

*Duncan, Thomasson & Mallory, Thurman E. Duncan,*for appellant.

*Ketzky & Hipp, P. Seale Hipp,*for appellees.

The judgment rendered when this case was formerly here effectually disposes of all appellant’s enumerations of error. The record in that case covered the issues now presented, and if not then presented, absent a showing of fraud, accident or mistake, the failure of the party to do so is attributed to her own neglect. The matter is, therefore, res judicata. Appellant has had her day in court. It is time this controversy should end, and the order of the trial court be effectuated.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
# C_2012217EN.01001202.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 24 May 2012 — Telecom Italia SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-255/12)

2012/C 217/26

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

Applicant:

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

1

---

(1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

1

---