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

No. 7912.

Entry No. 719078, etc.

(Decided November 27, 1950)

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

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

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between tbe parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of these ¡appeals, with the exception of the merchandise covered by invoice #1 in entry 719361, covered by reappraisement 161315-A, are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. '7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement ■embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by each of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the annexed schedule, which is marked *“A”*and made a part of this •decision, with the exception of the merchandise covered by invoice #1 in entry 719361, covered by reappraisement 161315-A, was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value in •each case, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff .Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the ■absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

The appeal for a reappraisement in No. 161315-A insofar as it ¡relates to invoice #1 in entry 719361 having been formally abandoned ds hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 44402.

#### Protests 838454-G, etc., of Butler Bros. (Baltimore).

*331Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303) the Rockingham-ware in question was held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 210 as claimed.
No. 43183.

#### Protests 967765-G, etc., of Fern Shoe Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same as that the subject of Abstract 42426. The claim at 15 percent under paragraph 1530 (b) (4) was therefore sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                              SUBSIDIARIES OF K-III

The Apartment Guide of Nashville, Inc.
Argus Publishers Corporation
American Heat Video Productions, Inc.
ASTN, Inc.
A WEP Company
Bacon's Information, Inc.
Bankers Consulting Company
Cardinal Business Media, Inc.
Cardinal Business Media Holdings, Inc.
Channel One Communications Corp.
Cover Concepts Marketing Services, LLC
CSK Publishing Company Incorporated
DRF Finance, Inc.
Daily Racing Form, Inc.
Data Book, Inc.
The Electronics Source Book, Inc.
Excellence in Training Corporation
Films for the Humanities & Sciences, Inc.
Funk & Wagnalls Yearbook Corp.
Gareth Stevens, Inc.
GO LO Entertainment, Inc.
Guinn Communications, Inc.
Haas Publishing Companies, Inc.
Health & Sciences Network, Inc.
Intermodal Publishing Company, Ltd.
IDTN Leasing Corporation
Industrial Training Systems Corporation
IntelliChoice, Inc.
Intertec Market Reports, Inc.
Intertec Presentations, Inc.
Intertec Publishing Corporation
K-III HPC, Inc.
K-III Prime Corporation
Law Enforcement Television Network, Inc.
Lifetime Learning Systems, Inc.
Little Rock Apartment Guide, Inc.
Lockert Jackson & Associates, Inc.
McMullen Argus Publishing, Inc.
Memphis Apartment Guide, Inc.
Musical America Publishing, Inc.
Nelson Information, Inc.
Park Avenue Publishing, Inc.
Pictorial, Inc.
Plaza Communications, Inc.
PRIMEDIA Holdings III Inc.
PRIMEDIA Information Inc.
PRIMEDIA Magazines Inc.
PRIMEDIA Magazines Finance Inc.
PRIMEDIA Reference Inc.
PRIMEDIA Special Interest Publications Inc
PRIMEDIA Workplace Learning, Inc.
QWIZ, Inc.
R.E.R. Publishing Corporation
Straight Down, Inc.
Symbol of Excellence Publishers, Inc.
Tel-A-Train, Inc.
TI-IN Aquisition Corporation
Weekly Reader Corporation
Westcott Communications Michigan, Inc.
Westcott ECI, Inc.
Western Empire Publications, Inc.
')^ 

Q 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

December 14, 2009 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Ronald J. Cozad, Esq. 

Law Offices of Ronald J. Cozad 

2100 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 214 

Carlsbad, CA 92011 

(fax no. 760-454-1705) 

Anita C. Willis, Esq. 

400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300 

Culver City, CA 90230 

(fax no. 310-391-7572) 

Pamela J. Walls, Esq. 

County of Riverside 

3960 Orange Street 

Riverside, CA 92501 

(fax no. 951-955-6363) 

•'•J 1 

i—d 

•''•.•0 

CD 

Re; ORANGE COUNTY SOARING ASSOCIATION, et al, v. THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, 

FAA Docket No. 16-09-13 

Dear Mr. Cozad, Ms. Willis and Ms. Walls: 

The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") received the Coniplainant's written request for an 

extension of time until January 6, 2010, in which to file a Reply to the Respondent's Answer. 

Based on counsel's representation that there is no opposition to the request and based upon good 

cause shown, the FAA hereby grants the request for an extension until January 6, 2010. 

Sincere! 

iymond Veatch 

'Attorney, Airport Law (AGC-610) 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591
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 March 31, 2010 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: December 28, 2011





/s/ Bode XuBode Xu

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
**Exhibit      32.2**

| (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 14, 2008 | By:   | /s/                Lihong Guo     |
|---------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                  |            |                                   |
|                                  |            |                                   |
|                                  |            | Chief                Financial Officer |

----
#### In the Matter of Rachel C. and Others, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Mary R., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[700 NYS2d 925]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law and facts without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Family Court erred in determining that respondent neglected her four children. The specific allegations concerned only Rachel and Joseph. With respect to Rachel, the petition alleged that respondent’s boyfriend grabbed the child by the neck *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f| [i] [B]). A finding of neglect cannot be sustained where, as here, there is no evidence that the parent “knew or should reasonably have known that the child was in imminent danger of becoming physically, mentally or emotionally impaired” *(Matter of Melissa U.,*148 AD2d 862, 863). Furthermore, the court’s determination that respondent did not attempt to locate Rachel for sevéral days after the incident was erroneously based entirely on hearsay evidence *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [iii]). Thus, the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that respondent neglected Rachel.

With respect to Joseph, the petition alleges that respondent was not at home when the child returned from school. Respondent explained that she is blind and therefore was unable to read the written notice of the early dismissal. Respondent testified that she was at the Family Court office filing a PINS petition regarding Rachel when Joseph returned home early. That testimony was not controverted by petitioner, but the court failed to credit respondent’s explanation. “In the exercise of our independent power of factual review, we make a different credibility determination” *(Matter of Michael C.,*170 AD2d 998, 999) and thus determine that petitioner failed to meet its *952burden of proving neglect of Joseph by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]).

There are no specific allegations with respect to the other two children, who were apparently found to be derivatively neglected. Having determined that the order insofar as it concerns Rachel and Joseph must be reversed, we conclude that the order insofar as it concerns the other two children must also be reversed. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Mix, J. — Neglect.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.
#### WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, petitioner, v. Beverly A. STRAIGHT.

No. 98-418.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 9, 1998.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
# C_2013171EN.01001703.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 25 March 2013 — Le Rayon d’Or SARL v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-151/13)

2013/C 171/35

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Le Rayon d’Or SARL

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive, (1) incorporated in Article 73 of Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the ‘healthcare lump sum’ disbursed by sickness insurance funds to residential care homes for the elderly pursuant to Article L. 174-7 of the Code de la sécurité sociale and exempted from value added tax under Article 261(4)(1b) of the Code général des impôts represents a subsidy which is directly linked to the price of the healthcare services provided to residents and which thus falls within the scope of value added tax?

1

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

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1995 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1995
<CASH>                                           1,740
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  148,414
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,858
<INVENTORY>                                     81,941
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               237,102
<PP&E>                                         155,483
<DEPRECIATION>                                  66,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 597,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,011
<BONDS>                                        182,029
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,597
<OTHER-SE>                                     280,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   597,909
<SALES>                                        601,927
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               601,927
<CGS>                                          396,276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  396,276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               162,631
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,863
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,392
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,471
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,471
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of WealthCraft Systems Inc.
("WealthCraft") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kelly Jay Michael
Tallas, Chief Executive Officer of WealthCraft, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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


                                                /s/ Kelly Jay Michael Tallas
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name:  Kelly Jay Michael Tallas
                                                Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                                Date:  May 15, 2008
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 this amended Quarterly Report of Goldspring, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Steve Parent, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best
of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
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.


June 23, 2004                                    /s/ Steve Parent
                                                -------------------------------
                                                    Steve Parent
                                                    Principal Executive Officer
June 10, 2015 

Mr. Donald Fiedler 

980 County Road W 

Fremont, NE 68025 

 

Dear Mr. Donald Fiedler: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 14, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1670), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### Russeks Fifth Ave., Inc. (Leading Forwarders, Inc. — Broker), et al. *v.*United States

No. 6612.

Entry No. 727841, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, September 8, 1941, etc.

Certified September 9, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 3, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 12, 1946)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

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

Code,- Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of *479the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geó. 6 Ch.: 48;” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (e)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

The agreed set of facts, embodied in the stipulation of submission, establish that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)) is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values of the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar cases.
#### Raymond ARGYROS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-05358.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 31, 1998.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1998.

*223Denis M. de Vlaming, Clearwater, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Raymond Argyros challenges his perjury conviction on two grounds: first, that the State failed to prove that every allegedly perjurious statement was false; and, second that the State failed to prove that any of the alleged perjuries were material. The second contention has merit, and we reverse Mr. Argyros’ conviction. Because our resolution of this issue is dispositive, we need not address Mr. Argyros’ first contention.

The State charged Mr. Argyros, an attorney, with making three false statements in a deposition and further alleged that those statements were material to the issues of testamentary capacity or undue influence in a wills contest case. The statements concerned who was present at the execution of certain documents. The physical ability of the testator to sign the will was also in issue. We conclude, however, that none of the allegedly perjurious statements were material to resolution of any issue in the will contest.

To sustain a perjury conviction, the State must prove “that such testimony was material to the issue upon which the trial was had.” *Rader v. State,*52 So.2d 105, 108 (Fla.1951). To be material, the challenged testimony must have “weight and reference to determination of an issue.” *Smith v. State,*92 So.2d 411, 413 (Fla.1957). Mr. Ar-gyros’ allegedly perjurious statements did not meet that standard. Further, the questions that elicit a sworn response should be stated in an affirmative manner with appropriate specificity. *See Smith,*92 So.2d at 413. The question Mr. Argyros was asked— “okay, for all the documents?” — does not satisfy this criterion.

Accordingly, we reverse with instructions to grant Mr. Argyros’ motion for directed verdict and to discharge him.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., concur.
No. 49495.

#### Protests 998418-G (C), etc., of O. Yoshizawa Co. (New York).

*333Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was found from the record that certain items consist of hats similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith those imported or withdrawn for consumption prior to the effective date of the Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075) were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), and those subsequent to said date were held dutiable at 12)4 percent under the same provision as modified by T. D. 48075.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2223 

To address the implementation of certain prohibitions under the Bank 

Holding Company Act of 1956, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2012 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. WARNER, Mr. TOOMEY, Mrs. HAGAN, Mr. 

CORKER, and Mr. CARPER) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 

Affairs 

A BILL 

To address the implementation of certain prohibitions under 

the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF VOLCKER RULE 

4 PROHIBITIONS. 

5 Section 13(c)(1) of the Bank Holding Company Act 

6 of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1851(c)(1)) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘earlier of’’ and inserting ‘‘later of’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS