alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32
                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 Salisbury Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John F.
Perotti,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  and I, John F. Foley,  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 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/  John F. Perotti                            /s/  John F. Foley
----------------------                          --------------------
     John F. Perotti                                 John F. Foley
     Chief Executive Officer                         Chief Financial Officer

Date:  May 10, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41975-41976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20408]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Water 
Act

    Notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United 
States v. Johnson Engineering, Inc. & Lee County School Board, Civil 
No. 97-283-CIV-FTM-24D (M.D. Fla.), was lodged with the United States 
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on July 23, 1997. The 
proposed Consent Decree concerns alleged violations of sections 301(a) 
and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Secs. 1311(a) and 1344, 
resulting from the unauthorized discharge of fill material into 
wetlands located within

[[Page 41976]]

the approximately 19-acre Colonial Elementary School Site in the City 
of Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The defendant, Lee County School 
Board is alleged to have owned or controlled the Site and to have 
discharged unauthorized fill material or to have controlled, directed, 
or participated in unauthorized filling activities at the Site. The Lee 
County School Board has agreed to a proposed Consent Decree to settle 
its alleged violations of the Clean Water Act.
    The proposed Consent Decree would require the Lee County School 
Board to pay a $7,500 civil penalty and to create approximately 2.1 
acres of wetlands on-site in mitigation for those wetlands destroyed. 
The Decree would also permanently enjoin the Lee County School Board 
from committing future Clean Water Act violations at the Site.
    The U.S. Department of Justice will receive written comments 
relating to the proposed Consent Decree for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Comments should be 
addressed to S. Randall Humm, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of 
Justice, Environmental Defense Section, P.O. Box 23986, Washington, 
D.C. 20026-3986 and should refer to United States v. Johnson 
Engineering, Inc. & Lee County School Board, Civil No. 97-283-CIV-FTM-
24D (M.D. Fla.), DJ# 90-5-1-6-626.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 2301 
First Street, Room 106, Fort Myers, Florida 33901.
Letitia J. Grishaw,
Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 97-20408 Filed 8-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
PRESS RELEASE


Contact: David J. O'Connor
         Chief Executive Officer
         New England Bancshares, Inc.
         (860) 253-5200

              NEW ENGLAND BANCSHARES, INC. ANNOUNCES CASH DIVIDEND

         Enfield,  Connecticut - August 13, 2007. New England  Bancshares,  Inc.
(Nasdaq GM: NEBS) announced today that the Company's Board of Directors declared
a cash dividend for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 of $0.03 per share. The cash
dividend  will be payable on  September  19, 2007 to  stockholders  of record on
August 31, 2007.

         New England Bancshares, Inc. is headquartered in Enfield,  Connecticut,
and operates  Enfield  Federal Savings and Loan  Association  with eight banking
centers  servicing  the  communities  of  Enfield,  Manchester,  Suffield,  East
Windsor,  Ellington and Windsor Locks and Valley Bank with four banking  centers
serving  the  communities  of  Bristol,  Terryville  and  Southington.  For more
information  regarding  Enfield  Federal's  products and services,  please visit
www.enfieldfederal.com and for more information regarding Valley Bank's products
and services, please visit www.valleybankct.com.
#### Elzra JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1148.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 28, 1977.

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, and Paul C. Helm, Asst. Public Defender, Bar-tow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court, but we remand this case for resen-tencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specifically set forth the period of credit time appellant is to receive as Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975) requires. *Smith v. State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). Appellant need not be present at resentencing.

McNULTY, Acting C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2410 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lightweight digital camera lenses 

measuring approximately 70 mm or more. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lightweight digital 

camera lenses measuring approximately 70 mm or more. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIGHTWEIGHT DIGITAL CAMERA LENSES MEAS4 URING APPROXIMATELY 70 MM OR MORE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2410 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Lenses designed for digital 

cameras, the foregoing with a 

focal length measuring approximately 70 mm or more 

but not over 200 mm and 

weighing between 1,535 and 

1,545 grams (provided for in 

subheading 9002.11.90) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2013189EN.01002402.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/24

---

Order of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — FH v Commission

(Case T-405/12) (1)

1

(Action for annulment and damages - Decision of the Commission to withdraw from the applicant the documents giving him access to the Commission buildings - Action for annulment - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility - Action for damages - Causal link - Harm - Action manifestly unfounded in law)

2013/C 189/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: FH (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot and R. Murru, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Firstly, annulment of the Commission decision of 10 July 2012 withdrawing from the applicant the documents giving him access to the Commission buildings and, secondly, an action seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested decision.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | FH shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

FH shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

1

---
No. 00-721.

#### Coffee et al. *v.*General Motors Acceptance Corp.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Appellant, v. Richard BIRCHFIELD, Appellee.

No. 97-3953.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 15, 1998.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 26, 1998.

Carol A. Gart, Fort Lauderdale, and Gregory D. Venz, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Alan H. Schreiber, Public Defender, and Diane M. Cuddihy, Chief Assistant Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order holding the appellant, Department of Children and Family Services, in contempt for failing to place the appellee in the Mentally Retarded Defendant Program as previously ordered by the court. The trial court violated the separation of powers doctrine in considering the appellant’s ability to move funds in order to comply with its mandate. *See State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Brooke,*573 So.2d 363, 371 (Fla. 1st DCA *2031991) (transfers of appropriated monies among agency programs are strictly within agency’s discretion, and member of judiciary may not direct an executive agency to spend its money in a particular way). In basing its contempt finding on appellant’s ability to move funds, the trial court’s order was tantamount to an order directing the agency how to spend its funds.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AR GARITO LUC AS R ODAS-LOPEZ, Pe titione r, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-70391 Age n c y No. A095-605-013 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Nove m

be r 18, 2014 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. M argarito Luc a s R oda s-Lope z , a native an d c itiz e n of Gua te m a la , pe titions for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic at ion for withholding of rem o v a l. W e have jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e v ide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 

# FIL ED NOV 24 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.1049, 1056 (9th C ir. 2009), a n d we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t e ve n though R oda s-Lope zsuffe re d pa st pe rse c ution by gue rrilla s in 1992, his pre sum ption of a fe ar of future pe rse c ution wa s re butte d by e vide n c e of a funda

m e nta l c ha

nge in c irc um s ta nc e s in Gua

te m a la ba se d on the1996 pe a c e a c c o rds be twe e n the gue rrilla s a

nd the Guate m a la

n gove rnm e nt . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A); se e a lso Gonzale

z-He rnande

z v . Ashc roft , 336 F.3d 995, 1000-01 (9th C ir. 2003) (upholding B IA’ s finding tha t pe titione r’ s pre sum

ption wa s re butte d). W e re je c t R oda s-Lope z ’ s c onte ntion tha t the B IA fa ile d to c onduc t a n individualiz e d a

na ly sis of how the c ha

nge d c i rc um s ta

nc e s a ffe c te d his spe c ific situa tion. Se eSow ev . Muk ase y , 538 F.3d 1281, 1286 (9th C ir. 2008). In light of our c onc lusions, wedo not re a c h R oda s-Lope z ’ s c onte ntion re ga rding his brother and brothe r-in-la w. Fina lly , we re

je c t R oda s-Lope z ’ s c onte ntion tha t the B IA e rre d in its disc u ssion of the 2 003 inc ide nt a

t his pa re nts’ hom e . R oda s-Lope z did not a rgue , a nd doe s not c onte nd be fore the c ourt, tha t the 2003 inc ide nt wa s “ c lose l y tie d” to his m istre at m e nt by gue rrilla s in 1992. Se eArriaga-Barrie ntos v . IN S , 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th C i r. 1991). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 1 - 7 0 3 9 1 2
No. 00-771.

#### Edwards *v.*Gober, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20511]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[AZ-020-5410-A142; AZA 29933]


Notice of Segregation

SUMMARY: An application for the conveyance of federally-owned minerals 
has been filed for the following described land, under the provisions 
of 43 U.S.C. 1719:

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona

T. 6 N., R. 4 E.,
    Sec. 10, W\1/2\NW\1/4\NE\1/4\.

    Containing 20 acres.

    Upon publication in the Federal Register, the mineral interests 
owned by the United States in the land described above, will be 
segregated from appropriation under the public land laws, including the 
mining laws. The segregation will terminate upon issuance of a patent 
for the mineral interests, rejection of the application, or 2 years 
from the date of publication, whichever comes first.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Wood, (602) 417-9360.

    Dated: July 24, 1997.
Mary Hyde,
Acting Supervisor, Lands and Minerals Operations.
[FR Doc. 97-20511 Filed 8-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from Davidson
Diversified  Real Estate I, L.P. 1999 Fourth  Quarter 10-KSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                  0000721673
<NAME>                                 David Diversified Real Estate I, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000


<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                 681
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          202
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                 14,325
<DEPRECIATION>                         (7,877)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          7,712
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                10,210
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                             (3,298)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            7,712
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        3,218
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        3,264
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     823
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        0
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           (46)
<EPS-BASIC>                            (58.54)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
Case No. 6,610.

#### GORDON v. LINDO.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 588.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1809.

Bail — Judgment Obtained in Another County.

A resident of Alexandria may be held to special bail in Washington in an action of debt founded upon a judgment in an action of debt in Virginia, in which bail was given; although no previous writ had been issued against the defendant in Alexandria county.

Motion by Mr. Law for defendant, to appear without ball.

1st Because the defendant is a resident of Alexandria county, and has never resided in this county; and by the law of Maryland (1791, c. 43, § 14) cannot be arrested here until a non est has been returned in Alexandria county.

*8152d. Because this is an action of debt upon a judgment in an action of debt in Virginia, in which bail was given. 1 Sell. Pr. 45; Col. lins v. Powell, 2 Term It. 757; Melan v. Fitz-james, 1 Bos. & P. 138. If this action had been brought in Virginia, he could not have been held to bail. Upon a foreign contract ■on which the defendant could not in that county be held to bail, no bail can be required here.

3d. Because these suits were brought while other suits for the same cause were pending in Alexandria. Sell. Pr. 50.

Mr. Porter, contra.

If the first suit be in a different court, bail shall be given. Davies v. Leckie, Barnes, Notes Cas. 94; Kendal v. Carey, 2 W. Bl. 768. The defendant ought to be put to his plea of abatement on the ground of other actions depending in Alexandria.

THE COURT

stopped Mr. Porter on the 1st point; saying it had been decided in the case of Thompson v. Lacy [Case No. 13,905], at March adjourned court, at Washington, 1802, that a resident of Alexandria, arrested here, must give special bail, although no previous writ had been issued against him in Alexandria county; and after further argument THE COURT (nem. con.) ruled the defendant to give special bail; being of opinion,

1. That the act of assembly of Maryland did not apply, inasmuch as there was but one county in this district subject to the law of Maryland. THE COURT had considered the two counties, for several purposes, as two separate states; slaves imported into Washington from Alexandria had been de. cided to be imported from another state. Process does not run from one county to the other.

2. That the law of practice of England, not to hold to bail in an action on a judgment does not apply, because this is not the jurisdiction under which the original judgment was rendered. The reason of the decisions in England, was the oppression and vexation of holding to bail, a second time, when the plaintiff might have had execution.

*3.*That the law of Virginia for not holding to bail, being also founded upon the supposed vexation or oppression of twice holding to bail, can only apply to the same jurisdiction.

[See Cases Nos. 5,231 and 5,232.]
#### Vincent C. PIANO, a/k/a Vic Piano, et ux., petitioners, v. Albert F. NASUTI, Trustee.

No. 98-407.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 9, 1998.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 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 Report of China Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Qinan Ji, 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: May
11, 2009




/s/ Qinan JiQinan
      Ji, Principal Executive
Officer
No. 48280.

#### Protests 5893-K, etc., of W. X. Huber Co. (Los Angeles).

Cole, Judge:

Woven tie fabrics, less than 30 inches wide, not Jacquard-figured, and consisting of wool and silk, the latter material being in chief value, were classified under the specific provision therefor in paragraph 1205, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1001), as amended by the trade agreement with Switzerland, published in T. D. 48093, and accordingly assessed with duty at 50 per cent ad valorem. In addition, duty at the rate of 50 cents per pound and 60 per cent ad valorem was assessed on the wool content of the merchandise in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1122, and 1109, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1001, par. 1122 and par..1109).

Plaintiff does not dispute the classification under paragraph 1205, *supra,*but claims that the provisions of paragraphs 1109 and 1122, neither paragraph having been modified by the Swiss Trade Agreement, have no application here, and in support of such contention relies upon the following language in article II of the said trade agreement:

> Articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of Switzerland enumerated and described in Schedule II annexed to this Agreement shall, on their importation into the United States of America, be exempt from ordinary customs duties in excess of those set forth and provided for in the said Schedule.

In presenting this issue, however, plaintiff has entirely overlooked the second paragraph of the “NOTE” appearing at the beginning of schedule II referred to, which says that if any article enumerated in the said schedule is subject “to additional or separate ordinary customs duties, * * * such separate or additional duties shall continue in force * * The importance of this “NOTE” is embodied in article IV of the said trade agreement, reading:

> Schedules I and II annexed to this Agreement, *the notes included in them,*and the Declaration annexed to this Agreement shall have force and effect as integral parts of this Agreement. [Italics ours.]

It is clear from the foregoing that it was never the intention of the negotiators of the Swiss Trade Agreement to suspend the provisions of any paragraph of the Tariff Act of 1930 as originally enacted, as they affected any class of merchandise.

The protests are overruled and the decision of the collector in each instance is affirmed. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.