alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.2







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002







In connection
with the Quarterly Report of nFinanSe Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended April 4, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raymond P. Springer, in my capacity as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




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.







/s/ Raymond P.
      SpringerDate: 
      May 15, 2009
            Raymond
      P. Springer
              Secretary
      and Chief Financial Officer
#### Wm. H. Plummer & Co., Ltd. v. United States

No. 6573.

Entry No. 707118, etc.

Invoices dated Birmingham, England, August 1943, etc.

Certified August 1943, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 2, 1943, etc.

(Decided December 4, 1946)

*B. A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

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

Keefe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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 importer on entry because of advances by ■the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2013178EN.01000202.xml

| 22.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 March 2013 — VDP Dental Laboratory NV, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-144/13)

2013/C 178/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: VDP Dental Laboratory NV, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Appellants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 17(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted to mean that if a national statutory provision, contrary to the Directive, provides for an exemption (in respect of which the right to deduct is excluded), the taxable person is entitled to the right to deduct in reliance on Article 17(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 17(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted to mean that if a national statutory provision, contrary to the Directive, provides for an exemption (in respect of which the right to deduct is excluded), the taxable person is entitled to the right to deduct in reliance on Article 17(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive?

1

| 2. | Should Article 143(a) and Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive (2) be interpreted to mean that the exemptions from VAT contained in those provisions do not apply to the importation and the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses? If the answer to that question is in the negative, is the application of the exemptions then subject to the condition that the dental prostheses must have been supplied from another country by a dentist or dental technician and/or supplied to a dentist or dental technician? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Article 143(a) and Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive (2) be interpreted to mean that the exemptions from VAT contained in those provisions do not apply to the importation and the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses? If the answer to that question is in the negative, is the application of the exemptions then subject to the condition that the dental prostheses must have been supplied from another country by a dentist or dental technician and/or supplied to a dentist or dental technician?

2

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

2

---
1 Participant List US EPA Listening Session on Greenhouse Gas Standards for Utilities and Petroleum Refineries Session with States, Local Governments and Tribes February 17, 2011

Tad Aburn Director Maryland Department of the Environment Karen Bassett Chief Deputy Director Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Jim Blizzard Senior Counsel Environmental Counsel of States Stuart Clark Program Manager Washington Department of Ecology Larry Greene Air Pollution Control Officer Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Mangement District Susana Hildebrand Chief Engineer Texas Council on Environmental Quality Charlie Lippert Air Quality Technician Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Department of Natural Resources and Environment John Lyons Director Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection Paul Miller Special Assistant to the Secretary Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Bill O'Sullivan Director, Air Quality Division New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection John Paul Supervisor Dayton, Ohio Regional Air Pollution Control Agency Amy RoydenBloom Senior Staff Associate National Association of Clean Air Agencies Doug Scott Director Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Dave Shaw Director, Air Resources Division New York Department of Environmental Conservation

Brian Turner Deputy Director, Washington, DC Office of Jerry Brown and Assistant Executive Officer for Federal Climate Policy California Air Resources Board Mary Uhl Chief New Mexico Environment Department Joy Wiecks Air Quality Technician Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Environmental Department
Exhibit 10.06










Exhibit 10.06


 



August 26, 2003


 


Mr. Hiram Willis 

2851 Holiday Court 

Morgan Hills, CA 95037




RE: Your Company Stock

Dear Mr. Willis, 


This letter formally notifies you of the termination of our February 26, 2003 agreement. 


The SCTN Utah office will order 2,736,484 shares of SCTN Restricted 144 stock based an the following: $ 20,000 monthly income @ .05 per share equals 400,000 shares of stock per month. For 6 months, this totals 2,400,000 SCTN
Restricted 144 shares. From August 1, 2003 through August 26,2003 you earned an additional 335,464 shares (26/31) of stock, for a total of 2,735,484 SCTN Restricted 144 stock. 


Should you have any questions please contact me.










_______________________________________________________________________
 330 East Warm Springs Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 U.S.A.

Telephone: 702.837.3594 Fax: 702.263.5052

Website: www.SCTN.com
No. 96-7965.

#### Golden *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Before the First Division,

October 29, 1941

No. 46512.

#### Petition 6180-R of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The petition was dismissed.
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 State

          - [Delegation of Authority 304] 

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, including section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), I hereby delegate to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security the authority to approve submission of reports to the Congress pursuant to: 

(1) Section 1344 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law 107-228; 

(2) Section 2809(c)(2) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Public Law 105-277; 

(3) Section 1343(a) of the Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 2002 (incorporated in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003), Public Law 107-228; 

                    (4) Section 204(c) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701*et. seq.*) and section 401(c) of the National Emergencies Act, (50 U.S.C. 1601*et. seq.*);                 

(5) Section 1308(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY 2003, Public Law 107-228; and 

(6) Determination and Congressional Reporting Requirement Concerning Israeli Participation in the IAEA required by the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006, Title II of Public Law 109-102. 

Any act, executive order, regulation or procedure subject to, or affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation or procedure as amended from time to time. 

                    Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary may at any time exercise any authority or function delegated by this delegation of authority. This delegation of authority shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

Dated: February 16, 2006. 

Condoleezza Rice, 

Secretary of State, Department of State.

 [FR Doc. E8-10112 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
**TAH** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0206

__________________________________________________________________ BRENT YAGER, Petitioner and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondents and Appellees.

__________________________________________________________________ **ORDER**

__________________________________________________________________ Upon consideration of A

ppellee Department of Public Health and Human Services ’ motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including August 14 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file the Appellee’s response brief .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 16 2020

07/16/2020
Case Number: DA 20-0206
#### WARNER v. T. H. BANCROFT.

May 13, 1837.

*Rule to show cause why execution should not issue.*

Where A. became security for a stay of execution on a judgment rendered against B. and before the expiration of the *cesset,*A. gave bond to take the benefit of the insolvent laws, the court refused the plaintiff permission to take out execution against B. the defendant.

THIS was an action brought to Dec. 1836, 259. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff, and the defendant gave security for stay of execution. M. Bancroft was the security, and, before the expiration of the period designated as the stay in the recognizance, having been arrested on a *capias ad satisfaciendum,*he filed a bond in the Court of Common Pleas, to appear at its next term, to take the benefit of the insolvent laws. (See *Stroud’s Purd. tits. Execution, Insolvents, Action.)*Thereupon the plaintiff obtained this rule to show cause why he should not be permitted to have execution against the defendant, notwithstanding the recognizance for stay entered.

*McLaughlin,*for the rule.

Pee Curiam.

There is no express direction in the acts of assembly to grant this application. The 26th section of the act *96of 13th June, 1836, relates to the insolvency of the special bail» *on*original process, and the issuing of a special writ of *capias ad respondendum.*Whether the court have general power to interfere, according to this application, it is unnecessary to determine, inasmuch as the mere giving of a bond to take the benefit of the insolvent laws, in the absence of a statutory provision to that effect, is not evidence of actual insolvency sufficient to induce an inquiry as to the power of the court.

Rule discharged.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the information by reference in the registration statements of 
Nobel Education Dynamics, Inc. (formerly the Rocking Horse Child Care Centers of
America, Inc.) and subsidiaries on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-3793, 333-3797 and 
33-73496) and Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-21859, 33-44888 and 33-64701) of our 
report dated August 7, 1998, except for Note 17, as to which the date is August 
17, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Nobel 
Education Dynamics, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 1998, December 31, 1997
and 1996, and for the six months ended June 30, 1998 and each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 1997 which report is included in this Annual 
Report on Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 23, 1998
(Reap. Dec. 9708)

#### Plywood & Door Manufacturers Corporation et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 13542, etc.

(Decided May 16, 1960)

*James W. Young*for tne plaintiffs.

*George Ooehram, Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of my decision herein, for decision upon stipulation on the basis of which I find foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amendéd, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the Finnish plywood and blockboard involved, and that, except as to the merchandise specified in schedule “B,” also attached to our decision herein, such foreign value was the appraised unit values, less 4 per centum, net, packed.

The appeals for reappraisement having been abandoned as to the merchandise specified in schedule “B,” they are, to that extent, dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

*721Schedule B

Los Angeles Entry Nos. R58/26672, etc. Merchandise appraised as invoiced, less nondutiable charges noted on invoices

Reappraise- Collector’s Date of

ment No. No. Entry No. export

R59/271 17327 19980 12/23/55

Flush doors as follows:

Grade A, 1#' thick 47#' x 22#'

“ 78" x 23#'

“ 80#' x 23#'

“ 76" x 20"

“ 57#' x 13#ib"

“ 60" x 17#s"

“ 60" x 17 #6"

R59/276 17332 23761 2/10/56

Flush doors as follows:

Grade A, 1% " thick 47#' x 22#'

“ 78" x 2334"

“ 80#' x 2334"

“ 76" x 20"

“ 57#' x 18 #ia"

“ 60" x 17#6" '

R59/286 17356 4436 7/20/55

Flush doors as follows:

Grade A, *1%*" thick 80#' x 2534"

“ 78" x 2334"

“ 76" x 20"

“ 60" x 17 #6"

“ 57#' x 13 #o"

“ 54#' x 17#6"

“ 47#' x 22>4"

Plywood & Door Western Corporation cases

R59/2825 18764 27238 1/23/57

Blockboard as follows:

A/BB grade, #' thick 53#' x 22Ke"

“ 44" x 22#"

" 39" x 223io"

BJ “ “ “ 32" x 32"

BJ/WG “ “ “ 57#' x 35#'

*tt tt tt*“ 3634" x 57"

*tt tt tt*“ 36#' x 3034"

*tt tt tt*“ 35#' x 5#'

*tt tt tt*“ 32" x 32"

“ 19#' x 19#'

R59/2829 18768 24236 12/18/56

Blockboard as follows:

A/BB grade, #' thick 5334 x 2234c"

“ “ “ “ 44" x 2234b"

“ “ “ “ 39" x 2234b"
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments                           ( print page 25706)                        must be received not later than May 21, 2008.                

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas**                     (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:                

*1. The Haskell Bancshares, Inc., Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Haskell, Texas, Dan R. Griffith, Andrew Gannaway both of Haskell, Texas, Robert Howard, Abilene, Texas as Trustees;*                     to retain ownership and control of Haskell Bancshares, Inc., Haskell, Texas, and thereby indirectly its subsidiary, Haskell National Bank, Haskell, Texas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 2, 2008.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E8-10057 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
USGSHomeContactUSGSSearchUSGS

Data Series 417
No. 96-54.

#### Sheet Metal Workers International Assn. Local Union No. 28 *v.*Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 43276.

#### Protests 777726-G, etc., of S. S. Kresge Co. et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.
No. 48911.

#### Protest 98136-K of Winsor & Newton, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The uncontradicted record showed the articles to be in chief value of tin plate, similar to those the subject of Abstract 46411, which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained to that extent.
No. 55603.

#### W. A. Taylor *&*Co. *v.*United States,

protests 121195-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Seymour Halliday vs. the Jacksonville and Alligator Plank Road Company.

1. The Supreme Court has ^authority to entertain an Appeal, coming up directly from a Justice’s Court.

DuPONT, J.

This is an Appeal taken from the judgment of the Circuit Court, held in and for the County of Duval.

The decision made in the case of Henderson vs. Brown, determined at the present term, and the views contained *304in the opinion therein delivered, are decisive inregard to this case. This Court will not entertain jurisdiction of a cause coming up by appeal, directly from a Justice’s Court.

Let the appeal be dismissed with costs.
EXHIBIT
32.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002







In connection
with the Quarterly Report of nFinanSe Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q
for the period ended October 3, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry R. Welch, in my capacity
as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




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.







/s/
      Jerry R. WelchDate:  
      November 13, 2009
            Jerry
      R. Welch
              Chief
      Executive Officer and Director
Case No. 10,072.

#### NEALE v. WALKER.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 57.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Jan. Term, 1802.

Pleading at Law — General Issue — Statute op Limitations.

The defendant cannot avail himself of the statute of limitations upon the general issue.

Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Issue non assumpsit.

Mr. Simms, for defendant,

contended that under the act of Virginia of 1793, § 9 (Rev. Code, p. 115), every article which appeared in the plaintiff’s account to be charged more than one year before the action brought, ought to be rejected by the jury; upon which Mr. Taylor, for plaintiff, moved the court to instruct the jury that they were not to re*1268gard the act of limitations, as it 'was not specially pleaded.

Mr. Simms, for defendant,

contended that this act differs from common acts of limitation in that it was imperative to the jury. Tlie seventh section enacts that all actions or suits founded upon any account for goods, wares, and merchandise, “sold and delivered, or for articles charged in any store account, shall he commenced and sued within one year next after the cause of such action or suit, or the delivery of such goods, &e. and not after.” The ninth section declares, that “to prevent any doubt in the construction hereof, it is hereby declared, that the before mentioned limitation of one year, shall take place and be computed from the respective dates or times of delivery of the several articles entered or charged in any such account; and that all such articles as shall have been of more than one year’s standing when the action or suit was commenced, shall be disallowed and rejected, and verdict shall be given, or judgment rendered for no more than the amount of such articles as appear to have been actually charged or delivered within one year next before the commencement of the suit as aforesaid.”

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

But

THE COURT

decided that the time was not put in issue by the plea of non as-sumpsit; and the jury were only to try the issue joined, and so instructed the jury.
No. 48904.

#### Protests 693550-G, etc., of Mon Hing & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247) the merchandise was found to contain salt and was therefore excluded from paragraph 5. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 43258.

#### Protests 977271-G, etc., of Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha, Ltd. (New York).

Opinion by

Beown, J.

On the record presented the protests were overruled.