alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Koberstein, Appellant.

[614 NYS2d 956]

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: The record shows that defendant was absent during the *Sandoval*conference and that the court subsequently placed on the record the substance of the conference and its ruling. Because defendant’s presence at the conference would not have been "superfluous”, reversal is required *(People v Odiat,*82 NY2d 872, 874; *see, People v Favor,*82 NY2d 254).

Defendant also argues that the search warrant permitting the Sheriffs Department to obtain blood and hair samples and dental impressions from him was improperly issued. We conclude that the only preserved contention with respect to that issue, that the warrant was issued without probable cause, is lacking in merit *(see, Matter of Abe A.,*56 NY2d 288). We decline to reach the remaining contentions concerning the issuance of the warrant as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

In view of our determination, we do not address defendant’s remaining contentions. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present— Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2


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 Report of China Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bode Xu, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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: November 14, 2011/s/ Bode XuBode XuPrincipal Financial and Accounting Officer
No. 6274.

#### J. S. GARCIA vs. JOSEPH CALAMARI.

Syllabus.

Questions of fact only are involved.

Appeal from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Division “B,” No. 105,995. Honorable F. D. King, Judge.

E. Pomes, for plaintiff and appellee.

*167P. L. Fourchy, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Plaintiff’s claim is for a balance due upon a building contract and for compensation for extra work performed during the execution thereof.

The evidence clearly establishes that instead of there being a balance due plaintiff upon his contract, he has been overpaid in the sum of $11.50. To what extent, if any, his claim for extras should be upheld is hot so clear, as the testimony is quite vague and confusing.

The principal item on this score is for the installation of a stairway in the building. We are satisfied that the parties originally intended to utilize an existing stairway in the yard as a means of access to the upper floor, but that this plan was abandoned during the building operations and it was then concluded to install another stairway in the building itself. While plaintiff is entitled to recover for the extra labor and material thus required, the amount claimed is excessive and an allowance of $50.00 is ample.

The necessity of erecting the partition fence and the additional cost for drainage were indirectly due to tne change in the plan with respect to the stairway, and these two items, aggregating $14.30, must be allowed.

So also must the claim for picture moulding amounting to $7.00, be allowed as an extra, a,s neither the'plans nor specifications provided that it should be furnished by the contractor. The testimony does not show that the change of the wall-coating to an alabastine finish was authorized or in any event entailed an additional cost and for that reason this item should not be allowed-

*168Opinion and decree, January 18, 1915.

Rehearing refused, February 1, 1915.

To sum up, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover $50.00 for the stairway, $14.30 for the fence and drainage, and $7.00 for the moulding’, or a total of $71.30. From this, however, must be deducted $11.50, the amount plaintiff has received above the contract price, thus leaving a balance in plaintiff’s favor of $59.80. The trial Court gave judgment for only $53.20 but as plaintiff has not .appealed nor answered the appeal, no amendment can be made in his favor.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Inter-Maritime Fwdg. Co., Inc., et al. v. United States

No. 6597.

Entry No. 723660, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, September 29, 1941, etc.

Certified October 21, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 8, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 11, 1946)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiffs. • *Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding 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.
----

----

| (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 16, 2010 |   | /s/ Jamie L. Mancl            |
|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                              |   | Jamie L. Mancl                |
|                              |   | President                     |
|                              |   | (principal executive officer) |

----

----
No. 47765.

#### Protests 909178-G, etc., of J. Milton Hagy Waste Works (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following *United States*v. *Schapiro*(24 C. C. P. A. 343, T. D. 48771) the wiping rags in question were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1750 in accordance with the facts as set forth in stipulation entered into between counsel.
Exhibit 32.2

AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIES

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

In
connection with the Annual Report of Amtech Systems, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bradley C.
Anderson, Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.

| | By | /s/ Bradley C.
      Anderson                             
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------
| |    | Bradley C.
    Anderson                                   
| |    | Vice President  Finance
      and Chief Financial Officer
| |    | Amtech Systems,
    Inc.                                  
| |    | Date: November 24,
      2009                             

81

---
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                                 --------------

I, David Kimbell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report (this "annual report") on Form 10-K/A of
ATC Healthcare, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. The registrant's other certifying officers 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, 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 annual 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 evaluations; and

                  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
fourth Fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 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: June 28, 2007                        /s/ David Kimbell
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           David Kimbell
                                           Chief Financial Officer,
                                           Senior Vice President, Finance and
                                           Treasurer


                                       23
----

----

**EXHIBIT      32**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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                8, 2007 |   | /s/                Mel Switzer, Jr.                                                                           |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                              |   | Mel                Switzer, Jr.,                                                                              |
|   |                                                              |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer                                                          |
|   |                                                              |   | (Principal                Executive Officer)                                                                  |
|   |                                                              |   |                                                                                                          |
| Dated  |       August                8, 2007 |   | /s/                Mary Dieter Smith                                                                          |
|   |                                                              |   | Mary                Dieter Smith                                                                              |
|   |                                                              |   | Executive                Vice President and Chief Operating Officerand                Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                                                              |   | (Principal                Financial Officer and Principal  Accounting                Officer)       |

----
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHNNY E. COLEMAN, Seaman, U. S. Navy, Appellant

8 USCMA 758, 25 CMR 262

No. 10,477

Decided February 28, 1958

*Major R. D. Humphreys,*USMC, and *Lieutenant (jg) W. W. McNeilly, Jr.,*USNR, were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles H. Beale, Jr.,*USMC, and *Commander Louis L. Milano,*USN, were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam:

The accused’s unauthorized absence from his unit for 144 days resulted in his trial by general court-martial for desertion, in violation of Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 885. He was found not guilty of desertion however, but guilty of the lesser offense of absence without leave, in violation of Article 86 of the Code, supra, 10 USC § 886. Review was granted to consider the effect of certain irregularities and deficiencies in the post-trial review. We have carefully examined the staff legal officer’s review and are convinced that the accused could not have been prejudiced in view of the court-martial’s findings of guilt of the lesser offense. If, when considered as a whole, the review is not misleading, “isolated inaccuracies may be disregarded.” United States v Morris, 8 USCMA 755, 25 CMR 259.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
No. 96-7990.

#### Scott *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 46500.

#### Protests 29666-K, etc., of Ades Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

An examination of the records failed to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector. Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 48898.

#### Protests 85662-K, etc., of Heinsheimer Bros., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the hats or hoods composed of ramie and cellophane are the same as those involved in Abstract 47291. The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was therefore sustained as to those items.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40518-40519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19880]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-224-007]


Sea Robin Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

July 23, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 18, 1997, Sea Robin Pipeline Company (Sea 
Robin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets in compliance 
with the Commission's Order No. 587 and the Commission's

[[Page 40519]]

July 3, 1997 Order in this docket, to become effective June 1, 1997:

Second Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 7
First Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 22

    On July 17, 1996, the Commission issued Order No. 587 in Docket No. 
RM96-01-000 which revised the Commission's regulations governing 
interstate natural gas pipelines to require such pipelines to follow 
certain standardized business practices issued by the Gas Industry 
Standards Board (GISB) and adopted by the Commission in said Order. 18 
C.F.R. 284.10(b).
    On July 3, 1997, the Commission issued an order in this docket in 
response to Sea Robin's June 4, 1997, filing to comply with Order No. 
587. The order required Sea Robin to revise and submit a compliance 
filing to be effective June 1, 1997. Sea Robin was directed to include 
in its Tariff a statement clarifying application of the GISB 
established timelines for non-standard predetermined allocation (PDA) 
methodologies.
    Sea Robin states that it has added a new Section 2.4(g) to its 
General Terms and Conditions to clarify that the GISB timelines will be 
applicable to any non-standard PDA methodologies. The Commission also 
directed Sea Robin to include on its rate sheet the volumetric capacity 
release rate based on an annual rate period and the 100% load factor 
derivation of its firm reservation rate. The Commission also ordered 
Sea Robin to eliminate the footnote containing the text of GISB 
Standard 5.3.22, which contains the methodology for calculating the 
volumetric capacity release rate on the rate sheet.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR Section 385.211). All such 
protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19880 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20203]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[CO-956-97-1420-00]


Colorado: Filing of Plats of Survey

July 22, 1997.
    The plats of survey of the following described land, will be 
officially filed in the Colorado State Office, Bureau of Land 
Management, Lakewood, Colorado, effective 10:00 am., July 22, 1997. All 
inquiries should be sent to the Colorado State Office, Bureau of Land 
Management, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80215.
    The plat (in 11 sheets) representing the dependent resurvey of 
certain mineral claims in section 3 and the survey of a portion of the 
Hayes Building Lot, and the Metes-and-Bounds survey of Irregular Lot 
Lines in section 3, T. 4 S., R. 73 W., Sixth Principal Meridian, Group 
690, Colorado, was accepted June 25, 1997.
    The plat (in 10 sheets) representing the dependent resurvey of 
certain mineral surveys, or portions there of, in sections 17, 21, 22, 
27, 28, and 29, T. 36 N., R. 11 W., New Mexico Principal Meridian, 
Group 862, Colorado, was accepted July 10, 1997.
    These surveys were requested by the Forest Service for 
administrative purposes.
    The plat representing the remeander of a portion of the Sangre De 
Cristo Grant boundary, the dependent resurvey of a portion of the 
Eighth Standard Parallel North (north boundary), and a portion of the 
subdivisional lines, the metes and bounds survey of the upper rim of 
the right bank of the Rio Grande River, and the subdivision of 
fractional section 4, Township 32 N., R. 11 E., New Mexico Principal 
Meridian, Group 1106, Colorado, was accepted June 24, 1997.
    The plat representing the entire record of the investigative 
retracement and metes-and-bounds survey in section 15, T. 49 N., R. 2 
W., New Mexico Principal Meridian, Group 1157, Colorado, was accepted 
July 16, 1997.
    The plat representing the entire survey record of the dependent 
resurvey of Mineral Survey Number 5303, New Fisherman Placer, and the 
metes-and-bounds survey of a parcel of land within the boundaries of 
M.S. 5303, New Fisherman Placer, described as Parcel A., New Mexico 
Principal Meridian, Group 1165, Colorado, was accepted July 14, 1997.
    The supplemental plat, correcting the acreage of Tract 48, which 
excludes that portion of H.E.S. 117, contained in the right-of-way of 
U.S. Highway No. 40, in unsurveyed T. 2 S., R. 75 W., Sixth Principal 
Meridian, Colorado, was accepted June 25, 1997.
    These surveys were requested by BLM for administrative purposes.
Darryl A. Wilson,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado.
[FR Doc. 97-20203 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
Reaction products:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT OCTOBER 31, 2000 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
OCTOBER 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                          90,607
<SECURITIES>                                     7,514
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                       750
<INVENTORY>                                     97,021
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               243,817
<PP&E>                                         428,696
<DEPRECIATION>                                 183,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 541,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          101,465
<BONDS>                                        420,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (141,550)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   541,170
<SALES>                                        560,689
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               560,689
<CGS>                                          487,190
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  487,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,709
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    37
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,595
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,483)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,483)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,483)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
No. 48901.

#### Protests 928864-G, etc., of J. A. Freeman & Son et al. (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Laweence, J.

The protests were dismissed.