alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STERLING
DRILLING FUND 1983-2 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          22,018
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,836
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,854
<PP&E>                                      13,426,810
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,144,168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,327,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,327,496<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,327,496
<SALES>                                        349,731<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               349,731
<CGS>                                          341,678
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  341,678
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,053
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Other - Se is composed of partnership equity.
<F2>Sales - The sales line includes $499 of interest income.
<F3>EPS - Primary is based upon limited partners share of net income divided by
the outstanding partnership units of 15,697.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Robert Sedig, Appellant, v Okemo Mountain, Respon*710dent.

[612 NYS2d 643]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated December 5, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint based upon lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was injured on February 24, 1989, while skiing at the defendant’s resort in Vermont. The defendant, a Vermont corporation, solicits business in New York and sends its employees into New York State to attend ski shows. In addition, there is proof that it sells ski lift tickets to attendants at Grumman Ski Club meetings in New York at least once a year and offers complimentary lift tickets to New York ski shop employees. However, there is no proof that the defendant is licensed or authorized to do business in this State. Nor is there proof that the defendant maintains an office, has bank accounts, or owns any property within the State.

Jurisdiction under CPLR 301 may be acquired over a foreign corporation only if that corporation does business here " 'not occasionally or casually, but with a fair measure of permanence and continuity’ ” so as to warrant a finding of its " 'presence’ ” in this jurisdiction *(Apicella v Valley Forge Military Academy & Jr. Coll.,*103 AD2d 151, 154, quoting *Tauza v Susquehanna Coal Co.,*220 NY 259, 267). It is well established that solicitation of business alone will not subject a foreign corporation to the jurisdiction of New York courts *(see, Miller v Surf Props., 4*NY2d 475). This "solicitation-plus” standard requires that there be activities of substance in addition to solicitation to support a finding of presence within the State *(see, Pellegrino v Stratton Corp.,*679 F Supp 1164; *Chamberlain v Jiminy Peak,*176 AD2d 1109), and the plaintiff has not carried his burden of demonstrating such presence here *(see, Peterson v Spartan Indus.,*33 NY2d 463; *Cato Show Print. Co. v Lee,*84 AD2d 947). There is no merit to the plaintiffs claim that an agency relationship exists between the defendant and the New York ski shops which display its posters and brochures and receive complimentary ski passes, because there is no evidence that the shops have authority to contractually bind the defendant and thus serve as its agents for jurisdictional purposes *(see, Pellegrino v Stratton Corp.,*US Dist Ct, ND NY, Feb. 9, 1989, McCurn, J., 1989 WL 10726).

In addition, the plaintiff’s tort claim, originating from a ski slope injury in Vermont, is too remote from the defendant’s alleged sales and promotional activities to support long-arm *711jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a) (1) *(see, McGowan v Smith, 52*NY2d 268; *Chamberlain v Jiminy Peak,*155 AD2d 768). Balletta, J. P., Copertino, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. (Hercules Products Corp.) *v.*United States

No. 7707.

Invoice dated Stratford, Canada, November 6, 1947.

Certified November 5, 1947.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 11, 1947.

Entry No. 739316.

(Decided June 13, 1949)

*Sharrelts, Hillis, Mansbach & Paley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel)' for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the above listed appeal for reappraisement are the same in all material respects as the issue decided in *C. J. Tower & Sons*vs. *United States,*R. D. 7624, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of said merchandise, less the 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 is 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.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe 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.
No. 43307.

#### Protest 959621-G of S. J. Nicholas & Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was found that while the rugs in question resemble rag rugs of the hit-and-miss variety they are certainly not made of rags and therefore are excluded from that provision. On the record presented the claim as cotton chenille rugs at 40 percent under paragraph 921 was sustained.
No. 46501.

#### Protests 780229-G, etc., of Alatary-Pitts Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Annual Report of Caprius, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George Aaron,
President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.


/s/George Aaron
-------------------------------------
George Aaron
President and Chief Executive Officer

January 13, 2003
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 September 30, 2005 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 21st day of November, 2005.

 
/s/ Richard Wachter 
Richard Wachter 
Chief Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 9153)

#### Alexander Klopka *v.*United States

Entry No. 10528.

(Decided May 14, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGibbon,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of certain candles exported from West Germany and entered at the port of San Francisco.

The following appears in the record:

> Mb. FitzGibbon: * * *

> The merchandise consists of candles imported from Germany. They were appraised without the allowance of a 6% discount, and since appraisement, the evidence has been produced that the 6% discount is allowed in the ordinary course of trade, and, therefore, we are Willing to stipulate with the importer that the dutiable value or the value for dutiable purposes is the appraised value, less 6%.

> Judge Wilson: Is that agreeable?

> Mb. Klopka: That’s not the special rebate; that’s not the special discount for me; they are the normal price.

> Judge Wilson: Are you claiming 6%?

> Mb. Klopka: No, I claim nothing.

> Mb. FitzGibbon: And you submit on that statement of ours?

> Mb. Klopka: Yes.

> Me. FitzGibbon: And the Government submits.

On the aforesaid stipulation, I find and hold that the proper value of the merchandise herein involved is the appraised value, less 6 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6077

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROSALEE J. EVANS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-90-60)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rosalee J. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying her

motion to require the United States Parole Commission to grant her

a particular parole date or a sentence reduction. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Evans, No. CR-90-60 (E.D. Va. Dec. 20,

1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                      OF

                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                      OF

                      COLE TAYLOR FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

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

                  Adopted in accordance with the provisions 
                   of Section 242 of the General Corporation
                         Law of the State of Delaware
                  ------------------------------------------

     The undersigned, being the Secretary of Cole Taylor Financial Group, Inc. 
(the "Corporation"), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of
the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL"), as amended, does hereby certify:

          1.   That the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is
     hereby amended by changing the Article numbered "FIRST" so that, as
     amended, said Article shall read in its entirety as follows:

          "FIRST: The name of the corporation is RELIANCE ACCEPTANCE GROUP,
          INC."

          2.   That the foregoing amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation
     of the Corporation has been duly adopted in accordance with Section 242 of
     the DGCL.

          3.   That the Board of Directors of the Corporation duly adopted
     resolutions setting forth the foregoing amendment, declaring said amendment
     to be advisable and referring such amendment to the stockholders of the
     Corporation for consideration thereof.

          4.   That the foregoing amendment has been duly adopted in accordance
     with the provisions of the DGCL by the affirmative vote of the holders of a
     majority of all outstanding stock entitled to vote at a meeting of
     stockholders.
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Certificate to be
signed this 12th day of February, 1997.

                                        COLE TAYLOR FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.


                                        
                                        By: /s/ James I. Kaplan
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Name: James I. Kaplan
                                            Title: Secretary

                                      -2-
**EXHIBIT32.01**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of PDF Solutions, Inc., or the Company, on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on May 11, 2009, or the Report, I, John K. Kibarian,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
|     |     | /s/ JOHN K. KIBARIAN                     |
|----------|----------|------------------------------------------|
|     |     | John K. Kibarian                         |
| * * | * * | *President and Chief Executive  Officer* |
| * * | * * | *(Principal Executive Officer)*          |

 

Date: May 11, 2009

 

----
**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 thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of Metabolix, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Richard P. Eno, President,Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company andJoseph D. Hill, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial and AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to ourknowledge that:

 

1.            The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.            The informationin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

This certification is beingprovided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of theReport, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.

 
| Dated: August 5,  2009 | /s/   RICHARD  P. ENO                 |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                        | *President  and Chief Executive Officer*        |
| * *                    | *(Principal  Executive Officer)*                |
|                        |                                            |
| Dated: August 5,  2009 | /s/   JOSEPH  D. HILL                 |
|                        | *Chief  Financial Officer*                      |
| * *                    | *(Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
No. 46554.

#### Protest 40697-K of T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It appeared from the testimony that the steamship *City of Salisbury*sank in Boston harbor, and part of her cargo consisted of cashew nuts.. Some of the nuts were salvaged and others were damaged by water. From the evidence, including the official papers, it was found that at Boston an allowance in duty of 9,650 pounds out of 36,100 pounds was made upon.the net landed weight. At New York it was found by actual segregation that only 42 cases amounting to. 2,020 pounds were worthless and the remainder was released for consumption. The importer claims that duty upon 42 cases should be refunded. From the record it was clear that the importer was not entitled to a further refund as it appeared that he has already received in allowance far more than the segregation established that he was entitled to. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 96-6057.

#### Green *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
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 Quarterly Report of Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc., (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 (the Report), I, Alan L. Wells, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by 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), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |                                                                                                                  
|----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 3, 2007 |  | /s/ Alan L. Wells                                                                                                
|                  |  | Alan L. Wells President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2245 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2245

To preserve existing rights and responsibilities with respect to waters 
                         of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 28, 2012

 Mr. Barrasso (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Heller, Mr. 
Vitter, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Crapo, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Wicker, 
Mr. Risch, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Thune, Mr. Lugar, 
  Mr. Blunt, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Coats, Mr. 
 Paul, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Moran, Mr. Isakson, 
  Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, and Mr. Cochran) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To preserve existing rights and responsibilities with respect to waters 
                         of the United States.

    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 ``Preserve the Waters of the United 
States Act''.

SEC. 2. IDENTIFICATION OF WATERS PROTECTED BY THE CLEAN WATER ACT.

    (a) In General.--Neither the Secretary of the Army nor the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall--
            (1) finalize the proposed guidance described in the notice 
        of availability and request for comments entitled ``EPA and 
        Army Corps of Engineers Guidance Regarding Identification of 
        Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act'' (EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0409) 
        (76 Fed. Reg. 24479 (May 2, 2011)); or
            (2) use the guidance described in paragraph (1), or any 
        substantially similar guidance, as the basis for any decision 
        regarding the scope of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
        (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or any rulemaking.
    (b) Rules.--The use of the guidance described in subsection (a)(1), 
or any substantially similar guidance, as the basis for any rule shall 
be grounds for vacation of the rule.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Sybron Dental Specialties,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Floyd W. Pickrell, Jr., 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 to the best of 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.

/s/ Floyd W. Pickrell, Jr.

Floyd W. Pickrell, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
August 6, 2002