alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9659)

#### Ad M. Schmid & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 839654, etc.

(Decided April 12, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purposes is the subject for determination in the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of this decision.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact which reads as follows—

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED subject to the approval of the Court that the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof consists of certain dental instruments exported from Germany.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement enumerated in Schedule A are limited to the items marked “A” and initialed JZ (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiner Joseph Zeikel (Examiner’s Name).

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED as to the items marked “A” as aforesaid 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 values less 3%, and that there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise.

> *651IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement enumerated in Schedule A are limited to the items marked “A” as aforesaid and abandoned as to all other items and the said appeals for reap-praisement may be submitted upon this stipulation.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis for determining the value of the dental instruments in controversy represented by the items marked “A” and initialed “ JZ” by Examiner Joseph Zeikel on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the instant appeals, and that said value is the appraised values, less 3 per centum. As to all other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
FIRST
        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

       

      Kody
        Newland

       

       

      This
        First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”)
        by and
        between NutraCea, a California corporation (the “NutraCea”)
        and
        Kody Newland (the “Employee’),
        entered into February 27, 2006 (the “Agreement”),
        is
        made and effective as of the 8th day of January 2008. Capitalized terms not
        specifically defined hereunder shall have the meanings assigned to them under
        the Agreement. 

       

      1.  Term.
        Section
        3.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide an extended term of two
        years,
        beginning February 28, 2008, and ending February 27, 2010. Section 3.1 of
        the
        Agreement is replaced, amended and restated to read in its entirety as
        follows:

       

      “3.1 Term
        and Termination. Unless
        earlier terminated for Cause (as defined below), Nutracea employs the Employee
        under the terms of this Agreement for a term continuing from the date of
        this
        Amendment through the end of business on February 27, 2010. The term may
        be
        further extended by mutual agreement of the parties on a month to month basis.”


       

      2.  Automobile
        Expense.
        Section
        4.5 of the Agreement is hereby amended to increase the automobile allowance
        provided to Employee to $850 per month. Section 4.5 of the Agreement is
        replaced, amended, and restated to read in its entirety as follows:

       

      “4.5 Car
        Allowance. Employer
        shall provide Employee with an automobile allowance in the amount of $850
        per
        month. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Employer shallnot be obligated to make
        any
        down payments for the purchase of any automobile by or on behalf of
        Employee.”

       

      All
        other
        terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged, except as specifically
        amended by this Amendment, and shall continue in full force and effect, except
        as may be required to effect the forgoing Amendment.

    

     

    
      
        	EMPLOYER:	 	 	EMPLOYEE:
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                
Nutracea,
                by __________	 	 	
                
Kody
                Newland
	Its
                __________	 	 	 


      

       

      
        
           

        

          1
Exhibit 31.1

            PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Donald R. Mayer, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of WorldNet, Inc.
of Nevada;

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.

                               /S/ Donald R. Mayer
Date: May 10, 2006            ____________________________________________
                              Donald R. Mayer, Principal Executive Officer
June 14, 1961

No. 65820.

#### Richard S. Reade *v.*United States,

protests 60/23207 and 60/23208.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-69951, 333-90635 and 333-39460), and in the
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-87749 and 333-32342), of
Answerthink, Inc. of our report dated February 11, 2003, relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Miami, Florida
March 31, 2003
```

[115th Congress Public Law 212]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 1541]]

Public Law 115-212
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
6 Doyers Street in New York, New York, as the ``Mabel Lee Memorial Post 
            Office''. <<NOTE: July 24, 2018 -  [H.R. 4463]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MABEL LEE MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 6 Doyers Street in New York, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Mabel Lee Memorial Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mabel Lee 
Memorial Post Office''.

    Approved July 24, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4463:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Mar. 20, considered and passed House.
            June 28, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
No. 96-5866.

#### Almonte-Nunez *v.*United States.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14


                         AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT

        AMENDMENT No. 1, dated as of September 16, 1998, to that certain 
Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of June 25, 1998, by and between IVI 
Checkmate Corp., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter, the "Company"), and J. 
Stanford Spence (hereinafter, "Spence");

                                  BACKGROUND
                                  ----------

        The Company and Spence desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term 
thereof as set forth herein.

        NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual 
covenants and agreements set forth herein and in the Agreement, and other good 
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby 
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

        1.  Amendment of Agreement.  Effective as of the date hereof, Section 3 
of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted 
therefor:

        3. Engagement Period. Unless earlier terminated herein in accordance
           -----------------
        with Section 7 hereof, Spence's engagement under this Agreement shall
        begin on the Effective Date and extend for a period (the "Engagement
        Period") ending on December 31, 2005.

                     *************************************

        The terms of the Agreement not hereby amended shall be and remain in 
full force and effect and are not affected by this Amendment.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed and delivered 
this Amendment as of the date first above written.

                                        IVI CHECKMATE CORP.

                                        By: /s/ L. Barry Thomson
                                           -----------------------------
                                        Title: President & CEO
                                              --------------------------

                                        EXECUTIVE:

                                        /s/ J. Stanford Spence
                                        --------------------------------
                                        J. Stanford Spence
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1292

JOHN R. ZSIGRAY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. COUNTY COMMISSION OF LEWIS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA; LEWIS COUNTY SHERIFF’ S DEPARTMENT; JAMES H. MCATEE , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Elkins

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 2:16

- cv - 00064

- JPB )

Submitted : August 21, 2017 Decided: January 12, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. William B. Summers, SUMMERS & ASSOCIATES, Parkersburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sylvester A. Hill, Jr., CIPRIANI & WERNER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John R. Zsigray appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We affirm. Zsigray alleged in his complaint that, as he was leaving a courthouse in Lewis County, West Virginia, Defendant McAtee, a security officer, grabbed him and shoved him against a wall. Zsigray asserted that McAtee’s actions were unjus tified and violated both his federal constitutional rights and state law. Notably, Zsigray stated several times in his complaint that a video recording of the incident supported his version of the facts. The district court granted the Defendants’ motio n to dismiss. The court reviewed the video and described it in considerable detail in its order. The court observed that, contrary to the a llegations in the complaint, Zsigray and McAtee had no “semblance of a physical altercation.” The court’s conclusi on that McAtee failed to state a claim for relief was based primarily on its review of the video. Zsigray contends on appeal that the district court erred by considering the video when it ruled on the motion to dismiss. However, “ in reviewing a Rule 12 (b)(6) dismissal, we are not confined to the four corners of the complaint.” United States ex rel. Oberg v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 745 F.3d 131, 136 (4th Cir. 2014). “We may also consider [materials] incorporated into the complaint by reference

. . . so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review de novo a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Woods v. City of Greensboro , 855 F.3d 639, 646 (4th Cir. 2017).3 We hold that the district court’s consideration of the video was permissible. The video, to which Zsigray referred several times to authenticate his version of events, was integral to the complaint. Further, the authenticity of the video was not in question

. We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit
 32



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 report on Form 10-Q ofComCam
 International, Inc. for thequarterly
 period endedSeptember 30,
 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,Don Gilbreath,
 do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
 best of my knowledge and belief:



| | (1) | This 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 of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:January
 29, 2010



/s/
 Don Gilbreath

Don
 Gilbreath,Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
 Officer



This
 certification accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
 required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933,
 as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), irrespective
 of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



33
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000435

16-APR-2018

11:44 AM
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  In connection with the Annual Report of Datalink Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul F. Lidsky, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and  (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Paul F. LidskyPaul F. LidskyPresident and Chief Executive   OfficerDated: March 1, 2011  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 Datalink Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory T. Barnum, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that to my knowledge:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and  (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Gregory T. BarnumGregory T. BarnumVice President of Finance and   Chief Financial OfficerDated: March 1, 2011
DSpace Repository

# Archeological Exploration of Patawomeke: The Indian Town Site (44St2) Ancestral to the One (44St1) Visited in 1608 by Captain John Smith

Login

      -  DSpace Home 
      - →
      -  Smithsonian Contributions Series 
      - →
      -  Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 
      - →
      - View Item

# Archeological Exploration of Patawomeke: The Indian Town Site (44St2) Ancestral to the One (44St1) Visited in 1608 by Captain John Smith

Stewart, T. Dale

DOI:					https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810223.36.1

Date:					1992

### Abstract:					

### Citation:					

*Archeological Exploration of Patawomeke: The Indian Town Site (44St2) Ancestral to the One (44St1) Visited in 1608 by Captain John Smith**Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology*https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810223.36.1

Show full item record

## Files in this item

Name:SCtA-0036-Hi_res.pdf

Size:39.77Mb

Format:PDF

View/Open

Name:SCtA-0036-Lo_res.pdf

Size:7.642Mb

Format:PDF

View/Open

Name:SCtA-0036.epub

Size:40.86Mb

Format:Unknown

Description:ePub

View/Open

Name:SCtA-0036.mobi

Size:52.51Mb

Format:Unknown

Description:mobi

View/Open

## This item appears in the following Collection(s)

            -  Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology  [60]  

# Search DSpace

# Browse

              -  All of DSpace                  -  Communities & Collections 
                -  By Issue Date 
                -  Authors 
                -  Titles 
                -  Subjects 
              -  This Collection                  -  By Issue Date 
                -  Authors 
                -  Titles 
                -  Subjects 

# My Account

              -  Login 

Terms of UsePrivacyContact UsSend Feedback

DSpace softwareDuraSpace

Theme by
# C_2012098EN.01002501.xml

| 31.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/25

---

Action brought on 1 February 2012 — Chrysamed Vertrieb v OHIM — Chrysal International (Chrysamed)

(Case T-46/12)

2012/C 98/41

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Chrysamed Vertrieb GmbH (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: T. Schneider, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chrysal International B.V. (Naarden, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the action, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 22 November 2011 in Case R 0064/2011-1 and reject the opposition against the application for the Community trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 22 November 2011 in Case R 0064/2011-1 and reject the opposition against the application for the Community trade mark;

| — | order OHIM or the potential intervener to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM or the potential intervener to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Chrysamed’ for goods in Class 5 (application No 6 387 071)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Chrysal International B.V.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international word mark ‘CHRYSAL’ for goods in Classes 1, 5 and 31 (trade mark No 645 337), the international word mark ‘CHRYSAL’ for goods in Class 1 (trade mark No 144 634) and the international figurative mark ‘CHRYSAL’ for goods in Classes 1, 3, 5 and 31 (trade mark No 877 785)

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue

Pleas in law:

---