alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Searched for **https://www.nwcg.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.nwcg.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
No. 55560.

#### Pringle Johnston Imports, Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 167851—K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
No. 55582.

#### Robert McBratney & Co., Inc. (N. Y.) *v.*United States,

protest 127653-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the "free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry involved.
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 Quarterly Report of DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Ho-Shang Lee, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.








/s/
      Ho-Shang Lee


Ho-Shang
      Lee


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


(chief
      executive and financial officer)








February
      14, 2006





This
      certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
      purpose.
The Honorable David L. Bunning, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of *

Kentucky, sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 06a0805n.06

Filed: November 1, 2006

No. 06-5146

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

CHESTER KIDD

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AIRBORNE EXPRESS, INC., a/k/a Airborne

Freight Corporation; DHL EXPRESS (USA),

INC., a/k/a DHL Worldwide Express, Inc.

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Before: MARTIN and COOK, Circuit Judges; and BUNNING, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. Chester Kidd appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment

for Airborne Express. Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, and having the benefit

of oral argument and the parties’ briefs, we determine that no jurisprudential purpose would be

served by a panel opinion and affirm the district court’s decision for the reasons stated in that court’s

opinion. We will not consider Kidd’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the test

announced in Christian v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 252 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2001), governs his case.
# C_2016364EN.01002901.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/29

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 21 July 2016 — CC v Parliament

(Case F-9/12 RENV)

((Civil service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Errors in the management of the list of suitable candidates - Open competition - Competition notice EUR/A/151/98 - Equal treatment - Measures for compliance with the judgment [confidential] (1) - European Ombudsman’s investigation))

(2016/C 364/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CC (represented by: G. Maximini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and E. Despotopoulou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for an order that the European Parliament pay compensation for the material and non-material loss suffered by the applicant as a result of errors committed in the management of the relevant reserve list.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Orders the European Parliament to pay CC the sum of EUR 12 000. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Parliament to pay CC the sum of EUR 12 000.

| 2. | Dismisses the application as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the application as to the remainder.

| 3. | Declares that the European Parliament is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by CC in Cases F-9/12, T-457/13 P and F-9/12 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the European Parliament is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by CC in Cases F-9/12, T-457/13 P and F-9/12 RENV.

---

(1)  Confidential data removed.

---
No. 40458.

#### Protest 955302-G of Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of machine guns similar to those passed upon in *Barham*v. *United States*(T. D. 47267). The claim at 27)4 percent under paragraph 372 was therefore sustained.
No. 40440.

#### Protests 478458-G, etc., of B. K. Elliott Co. et al. (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
From: John Summerhays/R5/USEPA/US To: "Irvine, Robert (DEQ)" <IRVINER@michigan.gov>, Cc: Douglas Aburano/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 12/08/2011 03:12 PM Subject: MI Haze



### Here are the materials that we have drafted for sending to Michigan. We welcome your comments on these materials before we make final comments. Please note that these are draft materials that have not undergone full EPA review. Nevertheless, you may share these draft materials with the affected companies as you see appropriate.

As you know, we have negotiated a consent decree under which we are to propose rulemaking on the Michigan SIP by May 15, 2012, and to publish final rulemaking by November 15, 2012. I apologize for the delays in providing these responses to your submittal, but I look forward to working with you to resolve these issues promptly.

MI Haze 12-11.docx NewPage.xls NewPage.xls SMC SNCR Cost Effectiveness 12-2-11.xlsx SMC SNCR Cost Effectiveness 12-2-11.xlsx



### We have also shared these materials with the Federal Land Managers. They generally support these comments, except that they have concerns that better controls for taconite facilities have recently been demonstrated. I will keep you posted as our discussions with the FLMs continue.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1738 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1738

To rescind the 3.8 percent tax on the investment income of the American 
        people and to promote job creation and small businesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2011

Mr. Cornyn (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Rubio, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. 
Burr) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
                      to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To rescind the 3.8 percent tax on the investment income of the American 
        people and to promote job creation and small businesses.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Economic Growth and Jobs Protection 
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF UNEARNED INCOME MEDICARE CONTRIBUTION.

    Subsection (a) of section 1402 of the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152) and the amendments made 
by such subsection are repealed.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM



The Board of
Directors, SonoSite, Inc.:




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
registration statements (Nos. 333-97973, 333-89518, 333-51820, 333-82739, 333-49401, 333-74833, 333-60112 and 333-110913) on Form S-8 and registration
statements (Nos. 333-68610, 333-91083 and 333-83278) on Form S-3 of SonoSite, Inc. of our reports dated March 15, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of SonoSite, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
cash flows and shareholders equity and comprehensive income (loss) for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004 and the
related financial statement schedule, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004 annual
report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc. Our report dated March 15, 2005, on managements assessment of internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2004, expresses our opinion that SonoSite, Inc. did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2004 because of the effect of a material weakness on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria and contains an explanatory paragraph
that states that as of December 31, 2004, the Company did not have the appropriate level of expertise to properly calculate and review its accounting
for income taxes. As a result of this deficiency in the Companys internal control over financial reporting, the Company did not detect errors in the
measurement of income tax amounts as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004. Specifically, the deferred
state income tax benefit was misstated due to an error in the calculation of the amount of the state tax net operating
loss carryforwards and was subsequently corrected to reflect the proper measurement of income taxes in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.




/s/ KPMG LLP


Seattle, Washington March 15, 2005

81

---
----

**EXHIBIT 13.1**

 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO   18 U.S.C. §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,  2004 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. §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. 

*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.*

----
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

# Never fly faster than your guardian angel can maintain your equipment

By 2nd Lt. Austen Jarboe502nd Air Base Wing Public Affairs

                JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO, Texas  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Joint Base San Antonio website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Joint Base San Antonio12th Operations Support Squadronaircraft maintenancemaintenancepersonal aircrew equipmentejection seats
1Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R.

47.5.4.

-1-

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 02-20561

SUMMARY CALENDAR

_________________________

JUAN E. VENTURI

Plaintiff - Appellant

 v.

KENNETH STARLING; C. SILVA; N. A. WEIMAN, JR.; LEE P. BROWN, Mayor

Defendants - Appellees

______________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

(H-02-CV-11)

______________________________________________________________________________

January 6, 2003

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Juan E. Venturi filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that several

state actors participated in a racially motivated conspiracy to deprive him of his constitutional

right to procedural and substantive due process. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss

Venturi’s complaint pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2), (4), (5), and (6). The district court
-2-

granted the defendants’ motion without reasons and Venturi now appeals.

Asserting that the district court could not have based its dismissal on Rule 12(b)(2), (4),

or (5) because the 120-day period within which he had to perfect service upon the defendants had

not expired, Venturi argues that the district court erroneously dismissed his complaint pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6). However, Venturi merely recites his conclusional factual allegations and provides

no legal analysis in support of his argument against a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.

Although this court construes pro se pleadings liberally, even pro se litigants must abide

by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th

Cir. 1994). By inadequately briefing this issue, see Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th

Cir. 1993), Venturi has failed to show that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint.

AFFIRMED.
Before the First Division,

June 19, 1961

No. 65821.

#### F. W. Myers & Co., Inc., for a/c Ayerst Laboratories, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/31713, 59/31717, and 60/7722 (Ogdensburg).

*547Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items invoiced as “Mysoline, Mysoline Primidone or Primidone” are dutiable, as claimed, the protests were sustained accordingly.
EXHIBIT 99.1



               WESTPAC SECURITISATION MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED
                    OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE


     The undersigned officer of Westpac Securitisation Management Pty
Limited, a company organized under the laws of New South Wales, Australia
("WSM"), hereby certifies on behalf of WSM and on his own behalf for
purposes of the Series 1999-1G WST Trust Class A Mortgage Backed
Floating Rate Notes the "Notes"), as follows:

     1.    I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Director of WSM;

     2.    I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's
           Certificate on behalf of WSM; and

     3.    To the best of my knowledge, the Issuer Trustee has complied with
           all conditions and covenants under the Transaction Documents,
           for the Series 1999-1G WST Trust issue of Notes for the period
           between May 13, 1999 and the end of the Trust Manager's fiscal
           year on June 30, 1999.

     Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
assigned to such terms in the Note Trust Deed related to the
above-referenced issue of Notes.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of December 30, 1999.




                                    /s/ Marten Touw
                                    ----------------------------
                                    By:      Marten Touw
                                             Director
                                             Westpac Securitisation Management
                                             Pty Limited
#### Lillias M. Powell, Plaintiff, *v.*Estate of Theodore E. Hinrichs, Deceased, by Hyman W. Sevits, Executor, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Montgomery County,

March 29, 1966.

*James L. Pemberton*for defendant. *Leo W. Spira*for plaintiff.

William J. Crangle, J.

Defendant seeks summary judgment in this action for work, labor and services, claiming that plaintiff has not brought her action within 60 days after rejection *855of her claim by the executor. Section 211-c of the Surrogate’s Court Act states: ‘ *‘*where a claim has been presented and rejected in whole or in part such action must be commenced within sixty days after such rejection.”

A claim was presented by the plaintiff through her attorney Edgar W. Snell to the executor on April 8, 1965. A rejection was sent by the executor to attorney Snell on April 20, 1965. Thereafter on October 20, 1965 another claim verified on that date was filed through plaintiff’s present attorney, Leo W. Spira, and the claim was rejected on October 28, 1965. The plaintiff on the same day commenced the present action.

The plaintiff takes the position that although the present action was commenced after the expiration of 60 days from the date of rejection of the first claim, its commencement was timely as to the filing and rejection of the second claim. Her attorney also argues that the rejection of the first claim was improper in that the rejection of claim was not mailed to her personally.

A reading of the two claims compels the conclusion that they are based upon the same facts and encompass the same work, labor and services. Although the amounts claimed are different, the second claim being for some $5,000 less than the first claim, the relation of the parties, the nature of the services and the time span mentioned are identical. Therefore the filing of the second claim must be disregarded in computing the period for the running of the Statute of Limitations. If the first claim was properly rejected, the action was not commenced within the 60-day period allowed by the statute.

The executor served the rejection notice by mail upon plaintiff’s attorney. Notice to the attorney for the claimant was notice to the claimant. *(Dillon*v. *Anderson,*43 N. Y. 231 ; *Heinrich*v. *Heidt,*106 App. Div. 179.)

Summary judgment is granted without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to pursue her remedy upon the judicial settlement in Surrogate’s Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

NATHAN ROBERT SAUERS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 524 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of February, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Scott C. Mahan, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:



| | 1. | To my knowledge, this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of BSQUARE Corporation.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                    
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 26, 2009 |  |                                                    
|                      | 
|                      |  | /s/ Scott C. Mahan                                 
|                      |  | Scott C. Mahan                                     
|                      |  | Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
No. 40465.

#### Protests 951481-G, etc., of Alliance Distributors, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by First Division. Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Henry L. REYNOLDS.

No. 98-K-2281.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1999.

In re State of Louisiana;-Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Jefferson 24th judicial District Court, div. “S”, No. 97-5933; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 98-KA-0170.

Granted (See order attached)

KIMBALL, J., not on panel.