alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28675-28676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9820]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

International Trade Administration

[A-122-840]


Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Canada: Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published its notice of initiation of an antidumping duty 
administrative review on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from 
Canada. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 68535 
(November 27, 2006). The preliminary results of this administrative 
review are currently due on July 3, 2007.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the Department shall issue preliminary results in an 
administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days 
after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication 
of the order for which a review is requested and the final results 
within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are 
published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review 
within the specified time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 
allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 
days and 180 days, respectively.
    Completion of the preliminary results within the originally 
anticipated time

[[Page 28676]]

limit, July 3, 2007, is impracticable because the Department must 
analyze complex issues regarding Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P.'s and 
Sivaco Ontario's corporate structures, their affiliations and corporate 
relationships, levels of trade, and cost of production. Because it is 
not practicable to complete the review within the time specified under 
the Act, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the 
Department is extending the time limit for completion of the 
preliminary results by 120 days to October 31, 2007. The deadline for 
the final results of this administrative review continues to be 120 
days after the publication of the preliminary results.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 16, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-9820 Filed 5-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard F. Sowerby, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Memry Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date:
September 20, 2006



|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Richard F. Sowerby                                                  
|Richard F. Sowerby Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6840.

Entry Nos. 751649/2; 753858/1.

Invoices dated London, England, March 20, 1946, etc.

Certified March 20, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 10, 1946, etc.

(Decided February 5, 1947)

*John B. Bafter*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawbence, Judge:

It has been stipulated between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to bicycles 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 values of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entries because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of **FirstBingo.com** (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended **March 31, 2005** as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Thomas M. Sheppard, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 24th day of August, 2005.

 
/s/ Thomas M. Sheppard 
Thomas M. Sheppard  
Chief Executive Officer
# C_2014102EN.01002901.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland, intervention: Kingdom of Sweden, Czech Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Poland, Kingdom of the Netherlands, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Estonia

(Case C-109/13) (1)

1

2014/C 102/41

Language of the case: Finnish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, WILLIAM R. KERR, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2004 of NortelNetworks Limited;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: January 31, 2005      /s/WILLIAM R.KERR  William R. Kerr   Chief Financial Officer
Before the First Division,

September 11, 1940

No. 44298.

#### Protests 482483-G, etc., of Millinery Clearing House (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods,, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
No. 44363.

#### Protest 2222-K of Rice & Co. Corp. (Boston).

Opinion’by

Tilson, J.

On the record presented it was held that the sewing machines In question are dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 372 as claimed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2035 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2035

  To provide support for workforce residential housing, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2012

Mr. Moran (for himself and Mr. Roberts) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide support for workforce residential housing, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Workforce Residential Housing Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. WORKFORCE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING.

    Section 513 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1731b) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking ``or (2)'' and inserting ``(2)''; 
                and
                    (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
                following: ``, or (3) the project is for workforce 
                residential housing property and is covered by a 
                mortgage insured under section 207''; and
            (2) in subsection (e)--
                    (A) by striking ``and (2)'' and inserting ``(2)''; 
                and
                    (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
                following: ``, and (3) the term `workforce residential 
                property' means multifamily housing that rents units 
                for a minimum stay of 7 days and does not provide 
                retail hotel amenities, as defined by the Secretary''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.27





EXTENSION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT





Appendix to Purchase Agreement Nr.
1201000





THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 9 th day of September 2002 by and between





NOKIA CORPORATION, represented through its Nokia Networks business group, a company incorporated in Finland with its principal office at Keilalahdentie 4, 02150 Espoo, Finland





AND





ENDWAVE CORPORATION, a
company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA, with its principal office at 990 Almanor Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94085, USA.





By this Agreement on the extension of the validity of the Purchase Agreement, the Parties agree to extend the validity of the Purchase Agreement Nr. 1201000 entered into by the Parties on 07.11.2000 by one (1) year until December 31,
2003.





The Purchase Agreement Nr. 1201000 shall to all parts remain in full force and effect, in accordance with the terms and conditions
thereof.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be signed by their duly authorized representatives.





SIGNED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF NOKIA CORPORATION Nokia Networks

SIGNED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ENDWAVE CORPORATION/s/    VILLE TAIPALE Name:  Ville Taipale Title: Date: Place:

/s/    EDWARD A. KEIBLE, JR. Name:  Edward A. Keible, Jr. Title:  President and CEO
Date:  September 9, 2002 Place:  Sunnyvale, CA  USA
#### Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. (S. S. Kresge Co.) *v.*United States

No. 6178.

Invoice dated Familleureux, Belgium, March 29, 1938.

Certified April 1, 1938.

Entered at Baltimore, Md., May 6, 1938.

Entry No. 5066.

(Decided June 25, 1945)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Edward P. Sharretts*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision Upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> .It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise covered by the instant appeal to reappraisement consists of certain glassware exported from Belgium.

> That the facts, circumstances, and conditions of sale surrounding the purchase and sale of the merchandise covered by the instant appeal both for home consumption and for export to the United States prevailing at the time of the exportation thereof are the same as the facts, circumstances, and conditions of *369sale surrounding the purchase and sale of the merchandise covered by Reappraisement No. 131968-A *(Person & Weidhorn, Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 6080).

> It is further stipulated and agreed that on the date of exportation of the merchandise involved in the present appeal the entered values represented the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities’and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the record in Reappraisement No. 131968-A *(Person & Weidhorn, Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 6080) be incorporated herein and that the instant appeal to reappraisemqnt is submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited as aforesaid.

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 value is the entered value.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 44354.

#### Petition 5988-R of W. H. S. Lloyd Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It appeared that between the date of purchase of the merchandise and its exportation the manufacturer had issued a new price list approximately 30 percent higher than the invoice price. It was found that there was no intention to defraud the Government, the amount involved being too small to imply any intentional deceit. The petition was therefore granted.
#### A. J. Burton v. H. H. Carrier.

No. 15,930.

Tax *Deed*— Consideration. A tax deed over five years old held sufficient, although it did not show by express recitals of what items the consideration was made up.

Error from Kiowa district court; Gordon L. Finley, judge.

Opinion filed July 3, 1909.

Reversed.

*J. W. Davis,*for the plaintiff in error.

*Per Curiam:*

The court erred in holding the tax deed void on its face. The principal objection to the deed is that the amount paid for the assignment is greater than the sale price, with interest, and it fails to show in express terms the several amounts entering into the consideration. This objection has been held insufficient to overturn a deed five years old. *(Robbins v. Brower,*74 Kan. 113; *Gibson v. Freeland,*77 Kan. 450; *Dye v. Railroad Co.,*77 Kan. 488; *Hahn v. Hill,*79 Kan. 693; *Hershberger v. Gibson,*79 Kan. 862.)

It appears that by assuming the taxes for 1898 to have been paid December 23 of that year; and figuring the interest to the date of the deed, the consideration stated is exactly accounted for. This rule of construction is proper. *(Kennedy v. Scott,*72 Kan. 359; *John v. Young,*74 Kan. 865.)

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to proceed in accordance herewith.
<PAGE>





                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                                  AS ADOPTED TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,  Korina  Houghton,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on 10-QSB of August Biomedical Corporation for the quarter ended November
30,  2002  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Annual
Report  on  Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents in all material aspects the financial
condition  and  results  of  operation  of  August  Biomedical  Corporation.





                    By:
                            /s/ Korina  Houghton
                            ________________________
                    Name:   Korina  Houghton
                    Title:  Chief  Financial  Officer



                    Date:   January  21,  2003
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1937 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1937

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the nonbusiness 
energy property credit to include the insulation component of insulated 
                                siding.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 1, 2011

Mr. Brown of Ohio (for himself and Ms. Snowe) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the nonbusiness 
energy property credit to include the insulation component of insulated 
                                siding.

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

SECTION 1. NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY TO INCLUDE INSULATION COMPONENT 
              OF INSULATED SIDING.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 25C(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(E) insulation portion of any building cladding 
                system that has a minimum thermal resistance of R-2 
                (including vinyl siding) and integral insulating 
                material.''.
    (b) Dollar Limitation.--Subsection (b) of section 25C(b) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating paragraph (3) 
as paragraph (4) and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(3) Certain insulation.--In the case of amounts paid or 
        incurred for components described in subsection (c)(2)(E) by 
        any taxpayer for any taxable year, the credit allowed under 
        this section with respect to such amounts for such year shall 
        not exceed the excess (if any) of $250 over the aggregate 
        credits allowed under this section with respect to such amounts 
        for all prior taxable years ending after December 31, 2005.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to property placed in service after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```