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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2355 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2355

 To extend and modify the temporary reduction of duty on (3-acetoxy-3-
            cyanopropyl)methylphosphinic acid, butyl ester.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 2012

   Mr. Levin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend and modify the temporary reduction of duty on (3-acetoxy-3-
            cyanopropyl)methylphosphinic acid, butyl ester.

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

SECTION 1. (3-ACETOXY-3-CYANOPROPYL) METHYLPHOSPHINIC ACID, BUTYL 
              ESTER.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.10.79 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to (3-acetoxy-3-
cyanopropyl)methylphosphinic acid, butyl ester) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``1.7%'' in the column 1 general rate of 
        duty column and inserting ``2.8%''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ALACHUA GENERAL HOSPITAL et al., Petitioners, v. Mary F. KIMBLE, Respondent.

No. CC-342.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 1, 1977.

L. William Graham, Dell, Graham, Will-cox, Barber, Rappenecker, Ryals & Henderson, and W. C. O’Neal, Chandler, O’Neal, Gray & Lang, Gainesville, for petitioners.

*1353Aaron A. Green, Gainesville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing that review is here sought of an order of the trial court denying a motion to dismiss an action founded on tort and the petitioners having failed to demonstrate that the learned trial judge departed from the essential requirements of law and it further appearing that review is not permitted by way of interlocutory appeal and that common law certiorari is not, for the reasons above mentioned, a proper remedy to vest jurisdiction in this Court, it is

ORDERED that the petition for writ of certiorari is denied and the petition dismissed.

BOYER, C. J., MILLS, J., and JOPLING, WALLACE, Associate Judge, concur.
Exhibit
      16






April
      3,
      2006




Securities
      and Exchange Commission


Washington,
      D.C. 20549




Ladies
      and Gentlemen:




We
      were
      previously principal accountants for Somerset Hills Bancorp and subsidiary
      and,
      under the date of March 3, 2006, we reported on the consolidated financial
      statements of Somerset Hills Bancorp and subsidiary as of and for the years
      ended December 31, 2005 and 2004. On March 30, 2006, our appointment as
      principal accountants was terminated. We have read Somerset Hills Bancorp and
      subsidiary’s statements included under Item 4.01 of its Form 8-K dated March 30,
      2006 and we agree with such statements, except that we are not in a position
      to
      agree or disagree with Somerset Hills Bancorp and subsidiary’s statement that
      the change was approved by the audit committee of the board of directors and
      we
      are not in a position to agree or disagree with Somerset Hills Bancorp and
      subsidiary’s statements contained in paragraph 4 of Item 4.01 in the Form 8-K
      dated March 30, 2006.




Very
      truly yours,




/S/
      KPMG
      LLP




Short
      Hills, NJ
**Exhibit      32**

**Certifications**

**Pursuant      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As      adopted pursuant to**

**Section      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|                                   |                                   |                                             |
|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                              |                              |                                        |
| Dated: March              9, 2007 |                                   | /s/ J.              Allen              Fine |
|                                   | J.                Allen Fine           |
|                                   | Chief                Executive Officer |

|                                        |                                     |                                                  |
|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: March              9, 2007 |                                          | /s/ James              A.              Fine, Jr. |
|                                   | James                  A. Fine, Jr.      |
|                                   | Chief                  Financial Officer |

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES 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 Amtech Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jong S. Whang, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

| By     | /s/ Jong S.   Whang                     |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                         |   |
|   | Jong S.   Whang                         |   |
|   | President   and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   | Date:   January 29, 2007                |   |
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Evans BROWN.

No. 60189.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 27, 1977.

In re: Evans Brown applying for writs of certiorari and/or review, mandamus and prohibition.

Writs denied.
#### In re John DOE.

No. 59556.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 23, 1977.

In re: John Doe applying for supervisory review from certain rulings of the Committee on Professional Responsibility & Stay Order

*1388Application denied for the reason that the Committee has the power & duty to decide the admissibility of any tapes to be used in the hearing. This court would authorize contempt proceedings in aid of its jurisdiction. If the Committee possesses or determines that there are “originals” of the tapes involved, the Committee must comply with the previous order of this court in # 58,565.

MARCUS and DENNIS, JJ.,

are of the opinion that the writ should be granted and the proceedings stayed until it be determined that complainants have produced the original tapes and recorder in compliance with the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Committee and ordered by this court.

TATE, J.,

concurs in the denial: An inadequate showing has been made for the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction at this time. The tapes may not be introduced at the hearing without a foundation proving that they are the original and not a (possibly altered) reproduction of them. In my opinion, the respondent should not be required to present his defense until as authenticated original is presented.
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

 

**RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION**

 

I, John C.K. Sham, certify that:****

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A - 1 of Global-Tech Appliances Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Annual Report; and 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report. 

 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: 

 

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

 

****(c) Disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by this Annual Report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: September 23, 2005
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 Quarterly Report of Atlas America Public #9 Ltd. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, 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,
and


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





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            November
      16, 2009
No. 40565.

#### Protest 928506-G of L. Oppleman, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of pistols and parts the same as those the subject of *Laszlo*v. *United States*(C. D. 47). The claim at 275⁄8 percent under paragraph 372 was therefore sustained.
#### Gotham Watch Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 7889.

Entry No. 719746, etc.

(Decided October 2, 1950)

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

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

LawreNCE, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of these appeals 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, was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value in each case, as reported by bim 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).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 99.1

                       INTRAOP MEDICAL CORPORATION
                   (FORMERLY DIGITALPREVIEWS.COM, INC.)

                        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 Intraop Medical Corporation
(formerly Digitalpreviews.com, Inc.) (the Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for
the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Shamy,
Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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 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/   David Shamy
                                           David Shamy
                                           Principal Executive Officer
                                           Principal Financial Officer

                                           Date:  February 24, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Intraop Medical Corporation and will be retained by
Intraop Medical Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




	F-2

	F-1
Before the Second Division,

August 24, 1938

No. 39264.

#### Protests 228743-G, etc., of T. J. McGrath & Co. et al (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Hoods, hats, and other articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to the merchandise involved in Abstract 37230 were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31 as claimed.
EX-10.13



 






	 	 	 	 	 



EXHIBIT 10.13




HERITAGE FINANCIAL GROUP

DIRECTOR’S RETIREMENT PLAN




AMENDMENT TO EXISTING PLAN AGREEMENT





      On August 15, 2002, Heritage Bank of the South (the “Bank”) entered into an agreement with the
undersigned Director regarding his entitlement under the Heritage Financial Group Director’s
Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) (the “Plan Agreement”).



      The Bank now desires to amend the Director’s Plan Agreement to fully accrue his Plan benefit,
notwithstanding his actual years of credited service as a director of the Bank or Heritage
Financial Group.



      The Plan contemplates that the Plan Agreement may be amended by an agreement entered into by
the parties.



      NOW THEREFORE, it is AGREED:



      That effective as of the date hereof, for purposes of determining the Director’s entitlement
under the Plan, the Director shall be credited with fifteen (15) Years of Credited Service as a
Director.



Date: October 16, 2007




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Heritage Financial Group

 	 
	 	/s/ Antone D. Lehr
 	 
	 	By: Antone D. Lehr, Chairman 	 
	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Director

 	 
	 	/s/ Doug McGinley
 	 
	 	Doug McGinley
#### Luther M. ZUBER et al. v. LAFOURCHE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.

No. 60433.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 27, 1977.

In re: Luther and Gail Zuber applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Lafourche. 325 So.2d 764.

Writ denied.
No. 99-973.

#### Baker *v.*John.

Sup. Ct. Alaska. Motion of Drue Pearce and Brian Porter for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae*granted. Certiorari denied.
#### O. B. & R. Lazrus et al. *v.*United States

No. 7885.

Entry No. 31948, etc.

(Decided September 26, 1950)

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

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

Laweence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of these appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *435*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, 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).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 00-5666.

#### Perez Davila *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Paul V. Eisner Co. (H. Z. Bernsten Co.) et al. *v.*United States

No. 7802.

Entry No. 715224, etc.

(Decided March 6, 1950)

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

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

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of these appeals 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, 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).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
[PETERS ELWORTHY & MOORE LETTERHEAD]
                               Salisbury House, Station Road
                                 Cambridge CB1 2LA England
 
Noise Cancellation Technologies, Inc.          Our Ref:  PRC/J/5799
1025 West Nursery Road, Suite 120              Date:     31 March 1998
Linthicum, MD  21090-1203  USA

Dear Sirs

Noise Cancellation Technologies (UK) Limited

We are writing to you with  confirmation that the accounts for the year ended 31
December 1996 were audited under  auditing  standards  which are  "substantially
similar" or "similar in all  material  respects" to US General   Accepted  Audit
Standards.

Yours faithfully

/s/  PETERS ELWORTHY & MOORE
#### Seymour Halliday, Appellant vs. the Jacksonville and Alligator Plank Road Company, Appellee.

I. Under the latitude, given in the *proviso,*to the second section of the fifth article of the Constitution, the Supreme has no authority to issue writs of *certiorari,*to any of the inferior jurisdictions : but to obtain its action upon the same, it must be clearly shown, that the case presented is such a one as requires the interposition of tiie Court, in order that justice may be done.

Certiorari to a Justice’s Court.

*Felix Livingston,*for Appellant.

*G. W. Gall, Jr.*Aor Appellee.

DuPONT, J.

This cause is brought up from a Justice’s Court, by writ of certiorari; and the question presented for our consideration is, whether this Court will entertain jurisdiction of the same.

*305The second section of the fifth article of the Constitution provides that “the Supreme Court, except in cases otherwise directed ip this Constitution, shall have appellate j urisdiction only, which shall be coextensive with the State, under such restrictions and regulations, not repugnant to this Constitution, as may from time to time be prescribed by law; *provided*that the said Court shall always have power to issue writs of injunction, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and such other remedial and original writs, as may be necessary to give it a general superintendence, and control of all other Courts.”

It is not doubted, but that under the latitude given by the said proviso, a writ of certiorari will lié from this Court to any of the inferior jurisdictions, whenever an appropriate case may be presented, or it shall become necessary for the attainment of justice. This, however, is not such a case; the object of the plaintiff in certiorari, in removing his case to this Court, is to have certain errors, which are alleged to have been committed by the Justice of the Peace who decided the case, corrected here. It is a sufficient answer to his application to say, that the' statutes have provided an ample remedy for him, by ganting to him an appeal to, or writ of *certiorari*from the Circuit Court.—. Vide Thomp. Dig., 364.

Let the certiorari be dismissed with costs.