alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9918)

#### Haddad & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3494.

(Decided February 20, 1961)

*James G. McGoW/riele*for tbe plaintiff.

*'WilUam H. Orrielc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement for decision upon stipulation on the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402a (d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the footwear involved, which is identified in schedule “A,” attached hereto, and that such value is the invoiced unit price, ex-factory, net, packing included.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

Schedule “A”

The manufacturer and seller of the merchandise herein is:

Hiroshima Rubber Industry Co., Ltd.

Fukuyama, Japan

R60/8508 (Export Date: April 10,1959)

Tampa Collector’s No. 133

Tampa Entry No. 3494 (June 22,1959)

Rubber shoes — Sponge Sandals (Zori) 804 dozen pair, Children’s sizes invoiced at US $1.25 per dozen pair, ex-factory (Fukuyama), net packed; and, 1032 dozen pair, Men’s sizes invoiced at US $1.90 per dozen pair, ex-factory, (Fukuyama) , net packed.
No. 42145.

#### Protest 957783-G of Frank P. Dow Co. Inc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was established that the fuses in question are not safety fuses and could not be used in mining or blasting or any other operations *390where safety fuses are essential in setting off explosives. It was admitted that they are in chief value of paper. They were therefore held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1413.
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications





The undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Eastern Environment Solutions, Corp.





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





March 25, 2011
/s/ Feng YanFeng Yan (Chief Executive Officer)March 25, 2011
/s/ John W. PolingJohn W. Poling (Chief Financial Officer)








---
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Of Chief Executive Officer And

Chief Financial Officer

Of NATCO Group Inc.

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 on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, John U. Clarke, Chief Executive Officer of NATCO Group Inc. (the Company), and, I, Bradley P. Farnsworth, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

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 the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |                                       
|------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
|                    |  | 
|Date: March 2, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/    JOHN U.
CLARKE                 
|                    |  |  |  | John U. Clarke Chief Executive Officer



|                    |  |  |  |                                              
|------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------
|                    |  | 
|Date: March 2, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/    BRADLEY P.
FARNSWORTH                 
|                    |  |  |  | Bradley P. Farnsworth Chief Financial Officer
# C_2012379EN.01003201.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/32

---

Appeal brought on 15 October 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 August 2012 in Case F-57/12 R, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-464/12 P (R))

2012/C 379/53

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Set aside the order under appeal in its entirety and without exception. |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order under appeal in its entirety and without exception.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the decision of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 August 2012 rejecting the application for suspension of the operation of: (i) the Commission’s decision rejecting the appellant’s request for payment of the sum of EUR 1 661, unlawfully deducted, in the appellant’s opinion, from his invalidity allowance; (ii) the Commission’s implied decision dismissing the appellant’s complaint; and (iii) any decision on the basis of which the Commission deducted the sum of EUR 1 661 from the appellant’s invalidity allowance for the months of June, July, August and September 2011.

The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

| — | First ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons in the order under appeal, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, reasons which are manifestly illogical, unreasonable and arbitrary, as well as manifest error of assessment with regard to those reasons, in particular with regard to paragraphs 22 to 28 of the order. |
| --- | --- |

—

First ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons in the order under appeal, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, reasons which are manifestly illogical, unreasonable and arbitrary, as well as manifest error of assessment with regard to those reasons, in particular with regard to paragraphs 22 to 28 of the order.

| — | Second ground, alleging incorrect, false and unreasonable interpretation and clear breach of Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, with regard to the order to ‘pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 000’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second ground, alleging incorrect, false and unreasonable interpretation and clear breach of Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, with regard to the order to ‘pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 000’.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MATTHEW ALLEN LAWTON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 342 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of January, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 10.11 – Contract with Dan Muller


CONTRACT


This contract entered into
this 11th day of January 2007.


Whereas East Fork Biodiesel,
LLC(EFB) desires to protect its investment in the 60 M gal. per year biodiesel
plant being constructed for EFB by REG, Inc.


Whereas EFB has had to
terminate the services of the person hired to watch over the construction


Therefore, EFB agrees to
hire board member, Dan Muller to watch over the best interests of EFB by
attending the weekly construction meetings, meeting with the subcontractors,
keeping abreast of the latest developments and reporting back to the Board as
needed to ensure the best interests of EFB.


For this service, EFB agrees
to pay the sum of $40 per hour for each hour spent conducting this service as
well as any travel expenses at the established Board rate.


Dan Muller accepts this
responsibility and will issue monthly statements to include time and expenses
and well as reporting to the Board by communicating with the President or
during Board meetings.


	
 

	
 


	
For East Fork Biodiesel,
 LLC

	
Dan Muller


	
 

	
 


	


	



	


	



	
Kenneth M. Clark

	
 


	
President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL STONE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 120 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL STONE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 121 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of March, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 32.4


SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


In connection with the Annual Report of Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (the “ Company ”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”), I, Diane M. Morefield, Chief Financial 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.

Dated: March 28, 2013


/s/ Diane M. MorefieldDiane M. MorefieldChief Financial Officer
# C_2013026EN.01005303.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/53

---

Action brought on 6 November 2012 — CeWe Color v OHIM (SMILECARD)

(Case T-484/12)

2013/C 26/108

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG (Oldenburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2012 in Case R 2279/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2012 in Case R 2279/2011-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SMILECARD’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 9 861 691

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
USGSHomeContactUSGSSearchUSGS

Data Series 446
II 

Calendar No. 246 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1792 

To clarify the authority of the United States Marshal Service to assist 

other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the investigation of cases involving sex offenders and missing children. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. LEAHY, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

DECEMBER 1, 2011 

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment 

A BILL 

To clarify the authority of the United States Marshal Service 

to assist other Federal, State, and local law enforcement 

agencies in the investigation of cases involving sex offenders and missing children. 

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


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1792 RS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthening Inves3 tigations of Sex Offenders and Missing Children Act of 

4 2011’’. 

5 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY. 

6 Section 566(e)(1)(B) of title 28, United States Code, 

7 is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(B) as directed by the Attorney General, 

9 investigate— 

10 ‘‘(i) fugitive matters, both within and 

11 outside the United States; and 

12 ‘‘(ii) at the request of another Fed13 eral, State, or local law enforcement agen14 cy, cases involving— 

15 ‘‘(I) a sex offender (as defined in 

16 section 111 of the Sex Offender Reg17 istration and Notification Act (42 

18 U.S.C. 16911)) who violates a sex of19 fender registration requirement; or 

20 ‘‘(II) a missing child.’’. 


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 246 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1792 

A BILL 

To clarify the authority of the United States Marchildren. tion of cases involving sex offenders and missing local law enforcement agencies in the investiga- shal Service to assist other Federal, State, and 

DECEMBER 1, 2011 

Reported without amendment 


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### A. W. Salter et al. *v.*United States

No. 6578.

Entry No. 726979, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, October 16, 1941, etc.

Certified October 17, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 28, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 5, 1946)

*J ardan & Klingaman*for the plaintiffs.

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

Keefe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1482. CEDRIC KIMBROUGH v. THE STATE.

In 1993, Kimbrough was convicted by jury of selling cocaine and possession

of cocaine with intent to distribute. The trial court sentenced him as a recidivist to

life in prison. We affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. See Kimbrough v. State,

215 Ga. App. 303 (450 SE2d 457) (1994). 

In 2011, Kimbrough filed a motion to vacate/correct void sentence, arguing

that his previous convictions did not qualify him for a recidivist sentence. We

rejected this argument on appeal, holding that Kimbrough’s challenge to the factual

predicates underlying his prior convictions used in recidivist sentencing did not

present a valid void sentence claim. See Kimbrough v. State, 325 Ga. App. 519, 522

(1) (754 SE2d 109) (2014). In 2018, Kimbrough filed another motion to

vacate/correct void sentence, again arguing that his prior convictions did not qualify

him for a recidivistsentence. The trial court denied his motion, and Kimbrough filed

this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

“It is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum.” Echols

v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 (534 SE2d 464) (2000); see also Jordan v. State, 253

Ga. App. 510, 511 (2) (559 SE2d 528) (2002). Our rulings in the prior cases before

this Court act as res judicata. See Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 261 (1) (649

SE2d 313) (2007). Thus, Kimbrough is barred from seeking further judicial review

on this issue. See id.; see also Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 328 (713 SE2d 438)

April 24, 2019
(2011) (law of the case rule barssuccessive void sentence appeals). Accordingly, this

appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/24/2019
No. 43177.

#### Protests 179335-G, etc., of John Wanamaker (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of embroidered articles in part of lace, braid, braid or trimming, similar to the merchandise involved in *Glemby’s*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 533, T. D. 41397). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2434

EDWARD S. COHN; STEPHEN N. GOLDBERG, Substitute Trustee; RICHARD 

E. SOLOMON, Substitute Trustee; RICHARD J. ROGERS, Substitute Trustee; 

RANDALL J. ROLLS, Substitute Trustee,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

JOHN H. HARDING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:17-cv-03236-ELH)

Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 16, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John H. Harding, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John H. Harding seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding this 

foreclosure proceeding to the Maryland state court from which it was removed. 

Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is 

not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme 

Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] 

§ 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune 

from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127 

(1995). Thus, § 1447(d)

is tightly circumscribed to cover only remand orders within the scope of

. . . § 1447(c), based on (1) a district court’s lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction that was raised by the motion of a party within 30 days after the 

notice of removal was filed.

Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“Whether a district court’s remand order is reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined 

by whether the order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” Borneman v. United States, 213 

F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000).

The district court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this 

case. Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. We therefore 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 48219.

#### Protest 76526-K of F. W. Woolworth Co. (San Francisco).

*441Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The court found the claim appeared to be fully supported by uncontradicted evidence which disclosed that said merchandise consists of metal figures and articles composed in chief value of lead, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer, and that the importation was entered for consumption on September 30, 1939. In accordance therewith the merchandise in question was held dutiable at 3 cents per pound, but not less than *22%*nor more than 45 percent ad valorem under paragraph 397, as amended by said trade agreement. The protest was therefore sustained.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6316

JOENELL RICE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. RUBY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Medical 911 Emergency; HAZELTON USP, Evening Shift Staff; HAZELTON MEDICAL , Defendants

- Appellees

.

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

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 5:22

- cv - 00026

- JPB

- JPM )

Submitted : August 23, 2022 Decided: August 26, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS , Circuit Judge , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Joenell Rice , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6316 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Joenell Rice appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the recor d and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Rice v. Ruby Univ. Hosp. , No. 5:22

- cv - 00026

- JPB

- JPM (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 18, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre sented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6316 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
No. *42114.*

#### Protests 775351-G, etc., of P. Pastene & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of Abstract 40880 and *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 48284) the court sustained the protests.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION









<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.2

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Infinity  Capital Group,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Theodore
A. Greenberg,  Principal  Accounting  Officer,  Chief Financial  Officer,  Chief
Investment  Officer and  Secretary of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC
section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.


Dated: August 13, 2008


/s/Theodore A. Greenberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Position: Principal Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer,
Chief Investment Officer and Secretary


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  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  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.