alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### C. J. Hendry Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 7678.

Invoices dated Vancouver, Canada, June 2, 1941, etc.

Certified June 2, 1941, etc.

Entered at San Francisco, Calif., June 28, 1941, etc.

Entry No. 7127, etc.

(Decided March 4, 1949)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (Frank L. Lawrence*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*David N. Edelsiein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief 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:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows between counsel for plaintiff(s) and the. Assistant Attorney General for the United States, concerning the merchandise referred to herein:

> 1) That the involved issues in these appeals are the same in all material respects as in Tower *v.*US, RD 7624, on Canadian sales tax, and that the record in that case may be incorporated herein.

> 2) That the appraised value of said merchandise, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> 3) That these cases may be deemed to be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

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 *421the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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 Form 10-QSB of Eastern Environment Solutions, Corp. (the
      "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Yun
                WangYun
                WangChief
                Executive Officer
              Date:
                May 15, 2007


/s/
                  Jianhua SunJianhua
                  SunChief
                  Financial Officer
                Date:
                  May 15, 2007
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Eastern Environment Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Eastern Environment
        Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
        its
        staff upon request.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, H. Douglas Chaffin, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted
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/ H. Douglas Chaffin
---------------------------
H. Douglas Chaffin
Chief Executive Officer
May 6, 2005
#### In the Matter of Frank Properties, Inc., Respondent, *v.*Frances E. Kirkwood, Appellant. *

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 10, 1965.

*116*Charles J. Fine*for appellant. *Szold & Schapiro (Martin Szold*of counsel), for respondent.

*

 Revd. 25 A D 2d 508. — [Rep.

*Per Curiam.*

Subdivision f (par. [1], cls. [a], [b]) of section 2 of the New York City Bent, Eviction and Behabilitation Begulations relates only to leases for entire structures or premises, as distinguished from the individual housing accommodations therein contained. The entire structure or premises at bar is the building 400 West 57th Street, New York, not the individual apartments therein contained. Moreover, the tenant resided in the premises *(Matter of McCoy*v. *McGoldrick,*303 N. Y. 744).

The final judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and the petition dismissed, with costs.

■Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Hoestadter and Hecht, JJ.

Final judgment reversed, etc.
Case No. 9,324a.

#### MAXWELL v. WILLIAMS.

[Hempst. 172.] 1

Superior Court, Territory of Arkansas.

Jan., 1832.

Dismissal or Appeal — Release op Bail.

1. After the dismissal of an appeal, the appellate court has nothing further to do with the case.

2. Delay in suing out execution releases bail under the statute.

Appeal from Arkansas circuit court.

Before JOHNSON, ESKRIDGE, and CROSS, JJ.

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

The record in this case shows the following state of facts: [Arden] Williams, the appellee, obtained a judgment before a justice of the peace, against Walter Tucker and James Bennett, on the 13th of March. 1S30; and on the same day [John] Maxwell, the appellant, became bound as special bail for the stay of execution, which expired on the 13th of July, 1830. On the 17th of August, upwards of a month after the expiration of the stay, an execution was issued on the judgment, and returned the 7th of September, indorsed “No property found.” A scire facias was sued out on the 9th of December following, requiring Maxwell to show cause why an execution should not issue against him, jointly with Tucker and Bennett, and upon the same day an execution was awarded by the justice. Maxwell appealed to the circuit court, and at the first term thereafter, on the motion of Williams, by his attorney, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the justice confirmed. From this decision Maxwell prayed an appeal to this court.

Two points are relied on to reverse the judgment: First, it is contended that the circuit court erred in confirming the judgment of the justice, after dismissing the appeal; and, second, that Williams, by failing to issue execution on his judgment for upwards of thirty days after the expiration of the stay, released the special bail. It will be necessary only to notice the first objection. After dismissing the appeal, it is very clear that the circuit court had nothing further to do with the case. It then stood before the justice of the peace in the same situation it did before the appeal was prayed. If the appeal had been entertained Maxwell undoubtedly had the right to show cause why an execution should not issue against him in the same manner he could have done upon the return of the scire facias before the justice. Upon the second point, were it necessary to decide, there would be a unanimity of opinion, that the delay to sue out execution released the bail. Execution must be issued against the principal immediately on the expiration of the stay. Ter. Dig. 392. Judgment reversed.
February 18, 1949

No. 7684.

#### Florea *& Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. Reap. Dec. 7612. Motion by plaintiff.
Exhibit 32.1

 

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 INC.**(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Richard Wachter, 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:

- 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 

Dated this 8th day of August, 2006.

 
RICHARD WACHTER 
Richard Wachter 
Chief Financial Officer
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

# DLA optimizes installation management

By Dianne RyderDLA Public Affairs

                Fort Belvoir, Virginia  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Installation SupportDLA Installation ManagementHQ DLA Installation OperationsInstallation SupportInstallation Management
(V.D. 118)

#### Traveler Trading Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 101447.

(Decided March 9, 1961)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*William H. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *Traveler Trading Co.*v. *United States,*43 Cust. Ct. 327, Abstract 63314. By the judgment therein and under the terms of the statute (28 U.S.C. 2636(d)), the matter was remanded to a single judge for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law. The proceeding has been abandoned by counsel for the importer. It is, therefore, dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT
32.1




SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Sunnyside Acres Mobile Estates (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Hui Peng Cheng, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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, 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 results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
January 20, 2010




By:
            /s/
      Hui Peng ChengHui
      Peng ChengPrincipal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, LLP




Consent of Independent Auditors





We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the use in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of our reports dated December 13, 2011 with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of Nordion Inc.  (the “Company”) as at October 31, 2011 and 2010 and the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended October 31, 2011 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of the Company as at October 31, 2011, which appear in the Company’s 2011 Annual Report to Shareholders.





We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our reports dated December 13, 2011 in the following Registration Statements of the Company:





1. Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-12058),


2.      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-12548),


3.      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-13538), and


4.      Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-170783).








/s/ Ernst & Young LLP





Ottawa, Canada


December 13, 2011
No. 96-7566.

#### Hampton *v.*Killinger, Warden, et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
----

----

| (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:  June 13, 2011 |   | /s/ Timothy Sherlock            |
|---------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|
|                            |   | Timothy Sherlock                |
|                            |   | Interim Chief Financial Officer |
|                            |   | (principal financial officer)   |

----

----
EXHIBIT 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE



UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE



SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this Amendment to the Annual Report of Global-Tech Appliance Inc. (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kin Shek Leung, Acting 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.



/s/ Kin Shek LeungKin Shek LeungActing Chief Financial OfficerDate: December 10, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      85,688,220
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,342,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (54,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 48,428,667
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           155,823,216
<PP&E>                                      10,730,077
<DEPRECIATION>                               (566,667)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             194,577,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       81,311,821
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       244,060
<OTHER-SE>                                 113,021,206
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               113,265,266
<SALES>                                     22,946,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,946,283
<CGS>                                       20,912,530
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,912,530
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           118,047,910
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (112,337,679)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (112,337,679)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                             (112,337,679)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (5.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.06)


</TABLE>
# C_2012209EN.01000902.xml

| 14.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/9

---

Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO)

(Case T-197/12)

2012/C 209/15

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, 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: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Modify the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 2440/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Modify the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 2440/2010-1;

| — | Subsidiary and only in the case the former claim would be rejected, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 2440/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Subsidiary and only in the case the former claim would be rejected, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 2440/2010-1;

| — | Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark, in colours ‘METRO’, for amongst others services in class 36 — Community trade mark application No 7585045

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 7111974 of the figurative mark in colours ‘GRUPOMETROPOLIS’, for services in class 36

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Highway Administration 

# AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

# ACTION:

Rescind Notice of Intent. 

# SUMMARY:

The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that the Notice of Intent published on August 28, 2002, to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed highway project in Mobile County, Alabama is being rescinded. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Mark D. Bartlett, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 500 Eastern Boulevard, Suite 200, Montgomery, Alabama 36117-2018, Telephone (334) 223-7370. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FHWA is rescinding the notice of intent to prepare an EIS on a proposal to construct a “loop” around the western side of Mobile from I-10 southwest of the city of Mobile to I-65 north of Mobile. The project is being rescinded since the Alabama Department of Transportation has decided not to pursue this project at this time. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.)

William R. Van Luchene, 

Environmental Engineer, Montgomery, Alabama.

 [FR Doc. E8-10053 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P