alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Randy COX, Petitioner-Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 22056.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Oct. 16, 1998.

*313Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Evan J. Buchheim, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

John D. Harding, Limbaugh, Russell, Payne & Howard, Cape Girardeau, for respondent.

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

Petitioner’s driving privileges were revoked and he sought trial de novo in the circuit court. Judgment was entered in Petitioner’s favor, ordering Respondent to reinstate Petitioner’s operating privileges.1

The initial question presented here is whether certain documents offered by Respondent should have been admitted. Petitioner objected that they were hearsay. The trial court sustained the objection and excluded the records. Respondent claims error in excluding them. Petitioner now contends that they contained double hearsay. These records include similar records of those which were in question in *Misuraca v. Director of Revenue,*896 S.W.2d 719 (Mo.App.1995). There, an exhibit contained among its documents a breathalyzer printout, the alcohol-influence report, and the police report of the arresting officer. The Court there determined that these were records of the Department of Revenue and, although processed in the City of Hazelwood, the custodian of records at the Department of Revenue was a proper person to establish the foundation for admission of the documents. The Court held it was error to exclude them, reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial. We believe that *Misuraca*is applicable here and calls for a similar result.

*Wellner v. Director of Revenue,*949 S.W.2d 688 (Mo.App.1997), principally relied on by Petitioner, does not change our views. There, one officer prepared a report based on “field” notes of another officer. This, of course, would be “double hearsay,” but that is not the situation before us. The records in question were improperly excluded and should have been admitted and considered by the trial court.2

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

CROW and PARRISH, JJ., concur.

1

. The parties are referred to as they were in the trial court.

2

. The result here makes it unnecessary to consider Respondent’s second point complaining of the assessment of costs against it. On this issue, see *Clevenger v. Director of Revenue,*861 S.W.2d 193, 194 (Mo.App.1993).
Exhibit
      32.4





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 Amendment No.1 to Annual Report of ATC Healthcare, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending February 28, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Daniel Pess, Senior Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer and
      Treasurer of the Company, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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, as amended; and





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







/S/
      DANIEL
      PESS


Daniel
      Pess


Senior
      Vice President - Finance,


Chief
      Financial Officer and Treasurer





May
      31,
      2007
#### Gimbel Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6596.

Entry No. 749492, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, March 2, 1946, etc.

Certified March 2, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 2, 1946, etc.

(Decided December 10, 1946)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiffs.

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

Mollison, 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.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm

As independent registered public
accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements Nos. 333-09917, 333-10117, 333-47098 and 333-131044 on
Form S-3 and Nos. 333-09911, 333-09909, 333-46086, 333-76812, 333-103101,
333-09911 and 333-131051 on Form S-8 of our report dated December 10, 2008,
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Amtech Systems, Inc. as of
September 30, 2008 and September 30, 2007 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders equity and comprehensive income (loss),
and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended
September 30, 2008, included in the 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Amtech
Systems, Inc.

|                                        | /s/ Mayer Hoffman
      McCann P.C. | 
|--------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | 
|                                        |                                    
|                                        |                                    
|Phoenix,
      ArizonaDecember 10, 2008 |                                     | 

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 4.14

PROMISSORY NOTE

|         |  |                                      
|-------- |  | -------------------------------------
|$500,000 |  | November 5, 1998
Alexandria, Virginia

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, a Virginia corporation (the
Borrower) hereby promises to pay to the order of RESEARCH INDUSTRIES
INCORPORATED, a Virginia corporation (the Lender), at 123 North Pitt Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314, or such other location as the holder hereof may in
writing designate, the principal sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/00 DOLLARS
($500,000), in lawful money of the United States of America in immediately
available funds, on February 2, 1999, without defense, offset or counterclaim,
together with interest on the unpaid principal amount hereof, at such office, in
like money and funds, from the date hereof at the rate of eight (8) per cent per
annum.

This Note is subject to the terms and conditions of the Subordination
Agreement dated January 27, 1998 entered into by and among Research Industries
Incorporated, Crestar Bank and Halifax Corporation as modified in writing by
Crestar Bank in a certain letter dated October 30, 1998.

This Note is one of two Notes referred to in the November 2, 1998
Amendment to the Loan Agreement between the Borrower and the Lender dated
October 8, 1998.

The Borrower hereby waives presentment, demand, notice of dishonor,
protest and all other demands and notices in connection with the delivery,
acceptance, performance and enforcement of this Note. Lender shall be entitled
to recover any costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred in the collection
of this Note.

This Note may be prepaid at anytime without penalty.

This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without reference to conflict of laws
principles.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower has caused this note to be executed by
its duly authorized President as of the day and year first above written.

| |                                           
| | ------------------------------------------
| | BORROWER                                  
|
| | HALIFAX CORPORATION
a Virginia Corporation
|
| | By:  /s/  HOWARD C. MILLS                 
| |                                           
| | Name:  Howard C. Mills
Title: President
#### J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7880.

Entry No. 8808.

(Decided September 20, 1950)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief 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 appeal for reappraisement enumerated above are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *C. J. TOWER & SONS*v. *UNITED STATES,*Reap. Dec. 7624, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> *430IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise in the case enumerated above, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, are equal to the prices, 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 may 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 the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 MetroPCS, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roger D. Linquist, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to my knowledge, 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/ Roger D. Linquist  
|Roger D. Linquist      
|Chief Executive Officer



May 11, 2004
SERVED AUGUST 29, 2011 

.:"^:R^RTMENTOr 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . ..;iv:')'S^9RTA!jpN 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS '-'•- ^J^'ERftilOKS 

WASI-IFNGTON, DC 

ZOil WG 30 A S^ 33 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. 

•AA DOCKET NO. |T0 REASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Aclion) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0774 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (hercloforc dcsignaled as Case No. 2010SW270157) has been assigned lo 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Sen'ice List. 

Lonnie A. Yoder 

Chief" Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0773 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1OOO' 

ONE COPY 

Thomas Newton Boiling, Respondent V Counsel 

Vice President and Associate General Counsel 

United Airlines and Continental Airlines, Inc., Respondent 

11 W. Wacker Drive-16*'' Floor 

Chicago, IL 60601 

TEL: 312-997-8068 

FAX: 312-997-8068 

Tirn DufF, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel, ASW-7. 

Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration. 

.2601 Meacham Blvd. 

Ft. Worth, TX 76193-0007 

TEL 817-222-5099 

FAX 817-222-5945/5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202- 366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For serx'ice in person or by expedited courier, use ihe following address: Federal 

Aviation Adniinislralion, 600 Independence Avenue. S.W.. Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000. Washington, 

DC 20591; Atlcntion: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### Fred C. Gloeckner *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7796.

Entry No. 740482.

(Decided February 15, 1950)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Cline, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto:

> That the merchandise covered by the instant appeal to reappraisement consists of 125 2%" Amaryllis Bulbs, and 125 3” Amaryllis Bulbs imported from Bermuda. *552At the time of exportation, such or similar Amaryllis Bulbs were freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Bermuda in the usual wholesale quantities and, in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, packed ready for shipment to the United States at the following prices:

> *2fi"*Amaryllis Bulbs_$20 per hundred

> 3" Amaryllis Bulbs_$25 per hundred

> That at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States the foreign value was no higher.

> That the instant appeal be submitted on this stipulation.

On these 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 as follows:

> *2%"*Amaryllis Bulbs_$20 per hundred

> 3" Amaryllis Bulbs_$25 per hundred

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 96-339.

#### Brown Group, Inc., dba Brown Shoe Co. *v.*Aaron et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Aline H. Clarke, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Brie County,

February 17, 1966.

*Miles, Cochrane, Grosse, Rossetti S Lord (Lowell Grosse*of counsel), for proponents. *Lipsits, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Schuller & James (Herald P. Fahringer, Jr.,*of counsel), for contestants.

William J. Began, S.

This is a proceeding commenced by the contestants in a pending will contest for an order to examine, by commission or by deposition, one of the three witnesses to the last will and testament of the deceased, dated November 6,1964.

The decedent died a resident of this county on the 22d day of June, 1965. Her last will and testament was witnessed by two attorneys practicing in this area, together with a person named Elsie G. Siefke, who is presently a resident of North 'Carolina. Both of the attorney witnesses have been examined in full, and now counsel for the contestants asked that the third witness, Elsie G-. Siefke, be examined at the expense of the estate, either here in New York or by having a commission issue to take her testimony in North Carolina.

Generally speaking, a party has a right to examine all parties who witnessed a will. Section 142 of the Surrogate’s Court Act gives a party the right to request the oral examination of any or all of the subscribing witnesses. In keeping with the recognized practice of full pretrial disclosure, this court directs that the contestants may examine the witness Siefke,

*147The more serious question raised on this motion is the question of at whose expense this examination shall take place. In the present case the proponents actually produced the witness Siefke before this court on September 4, 1965, which date had been agreed upon by .the parties prior thereto. Apparently on September 1, 1965 the contestants’ attorney notified counsel for the proponents that he would be out of town on the fourth and requested an adjournment of the examination. Unfortunately, the witness had already left North Carolina by car, so that she could not be advised of the postponement.

This court does not feel that the estate should bear the cost of bringing the witness here the second time and accordingly finds that the contestants may examine the witness Siefke either personally or by commission but that the expense of same shall be borne by the contestants except that if, on the eventual trial of this proceeding, the contestants are successful in setting aside the probate of the decedent’s will, this court will entertain an application to fix the cost of the examination as a disbursement of the estate. *(Matter of Arnstein,*32 Misc 2d 1017.)
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 OneDentist Resources, 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, Philip
J. Davis, Chief Executive Officer and 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 and 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/ Philip J. Davis
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Philip J. Davis
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     and Chief Financial Officer

                                                     August 10, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2159 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2159

   To extend the authorization of the Drug-Free Communities Support 
                   Program through fiscal year 2017.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2012

Mr. Leahy (for himself and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the authorization of the Drug-Free Communities Support 
                   Program through fiscal year 2017.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM 
              THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2017.

    Section 1024(a) of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 
(21 U.S.C. 1524(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (9) and all that 
follows and inserting the following:
            ``(9) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
            ``(10) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
            ``(11) $109,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
            ``(12) $114,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
            ``(13) $119,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
            ``(14) $124,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
            ``(15) $129,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;
            ``(16) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2013;
            ``(17) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2014;
            ``(18) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2015;
            ``(19) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2016; and
            ``(20) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2017.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. D-1794.

#### In re Disbarment of Echols.

Hugh T. Echols, of Houston, Tex., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 16, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10240 Summary Calendar

IGNACIO CHAMPION LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus COLE JETER, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CV-924

-------------------- Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ignacio Champion Lopez, federal prisoner #15603-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He challenges the district court’s conclusion that he received credit on his state sentence for the time he spent in federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. He argues that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Double Jeopardy ClauseNo. 05-10240 -2- of the Fifth Amendment when it amended the sentencing court’s judgment by denying the orally ordered credit to his sentence. Evidence in the record supported the district court’s factual determination that Lopez received credit on his state sentence for the time spent in federal prison pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Thus, this determination was not clearly erroneous. See Free v. Miles , 333 F.3d 550, 552 (5th Cir. 2003). Nor did the district court err in finding as a matter of law that Lopez was not entitled to the credit he sought. Time spent by a prisoner in federal custody for the purpose of appearing in federal court via a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is not counted towards the federal sentence if that time was credited toward his state sentence. United States
v. Brown , 753 F.2d 455, 456 (5th Cir. 1985); 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
AFFIRMED.
No. 40563.

#### Petitions 5769-R, etc., of Golding Bros. Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

Following Abstract 39917 the court found there was no intention to defraud the Government or to deceive the appraiser. The petitions were therefore granted.