alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Date : 10/13/2010 

Claim Number : N08057-024 

Claimant : United States Environmental Services, LLC 

Type of Claimant : OSRO

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $295,238.50 

I. Facts 

On the morning of July 23, 2008, the tank barge DM 932 sank as a result of a collision with M/T 

TINTOMARA and discharged oil into the Mississippi River, a navigable waterway of the United 

States. American Commercial Lines LLC (ACL) owned the barge at the time of the incident and 

is a responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). 

II. History of the Claim: 

The Claimant, United States Environmental Services LLC (USES or the Claimant), presented its 

removal costs invoices to the RP; however, the RP did not pay USES in full. Subsequently, the 

Claimant submitted a removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) on May 

14, 2009, for reimbursement of uncompensated removal costs in the amount of $618,852.24 for 

the time period of August 4, 2008 through August 10, 2008. ACL prepared a financial audit for 

USES invoices, providing a line by line itemization of materials, equipment, and personnel 

submitted for payment by USES and payments made to USES by ACL. The NPFC reviewed this 

audit in order to determine which removal costs had not been compensated by the RP. On 

January 12, 2010, USES reduced its sum certain to $460,924.78 to reflect a $157,927.46 

payment received from ACL for certain removal costs. NPFC made an offer on July 20, 2010, in 

the amount of $83,575.94 

IV. Request for Reconsideration

On September 13, 2010, USES requested reconsideration of their claim via email1 citing some 

mathematical errors and misinterpretations of the ACL audit. Claimant asserted that their 

uncompensated removal costs were $295, 238.50. 

V. Analysis on Reconsideration: 

The NPFC reviewed Claimant’s Attachment (B)(2), which reflects adjustments agreed to by the 

RP and the Claimant. USES agreed to certain reductions, which were amounts not known to the 

claims manager when she first adjudicated this claim. The NPFC removed the denied amounts it 

had previously entered for the LES line items as these were items already denied by ACL, which 

resulted in double deductions. After a review of the Claimant’s Attachment (B) 22 the NPFC 

determines that the Claimant incurred $295,238.50 of uncompensated removal costs that are 

supported by the record. 

 

1 See, USES email to Claims Manager requesting Reconsideration. 2 See, ATT B 2.

(b) (6)
VI. Determined Amount

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $295,238.50 as full compensation for the 

reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim # 

N08057-024. All costs claimed are for charges paid for by the Claimant for removal actions as 

that term is defined in OPA and, are compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as 

presented by the Claimant.

Claim Supervisor: Thomas S. Morrison 

Date of Supervisor’s Review: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

October 24, 2012

p1017

Order 

October 24, 2012

145439

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 145439

COA: 303443 

Kent CC: 10-005678-FH

ERIC ANDREW KLOOSTERMAN,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM S32432

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Emad H. ABDULLAH Senior Airman (E

- 4) , U.S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the United S ta tes Air Force Trial Judiciary Decided 25 July 2017

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge: Brian D. Teter. Approved sentence: Bad

- conduct discharge , confinement for 7 months , forfeiture of $1,044.00 pay per month for 7 months , and reduction to E

- 1. Senten ce adjudged 7 September 2016 by SpCM convened at Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas

. For Appellant: Major Virginia M. Bare , USAF. For Appellee: M ajor Mary Ellen Payne , USAF

. Before MAYBERRY, JOHNSON, and SPERANZA , Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _____ __ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

_______ _______ __________

PE R CURIAM : The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materi ally prejudicial to Appellant ’ s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice , 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c).United States v. Abdullah , No

. ACM S32432

2 Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

KURT J. BRUBAKER Clerk of the Court
#### Robert Evans, Appellant, v Steven M. Conley, Defendant, and Target’s Brass Rail, Inc., Respondent.

Memorandum: Defendant corporation moved to vacate a default judgment entered against it in an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal *982injuries received as a result of an alleged attack by a patron in defendant’s bar. Special Term vacated the judgment finding justifiable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense. We reverse and hold that defendant failed to establish by competent evidence a justifiable excuse. By appearing *pro se,*defendant’s president violated CPLR 321 and her appearance was a nullity *(Matter of Lefkowitz v Therapeutic Hypnosis, 52*AD2d 1017).

While defendant’s failure to serve an answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint may under the circumstances be understandable, no justifiable excuse was given why defendant again defaulted by not appearing at the inquest after notice of the hearing had been timely and properly served upon it by registered mail, return receipt requested *(Passalacqua v Banat,*103 AD2d 769, *appeal dismissed*63 NY2d 770; *Rondout Val. Pub. Co. v AM Intl.,*93 AD2d 912, 913). In view of our determination, we need not address the question of whether defendant established the existence of a meritorious defense.

All concur, except Callahan, J. P., and Schnepp, J., who dissent and vote to affirm. Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Sullivan, J. — vacate default judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries of CCC Information Services Group Inc.:

CCC Information Services Inc.
DriveLogic, Inc.
Certified Collateral Corporation of Canada, Ltd.
CCC Consumer Services Inc.
CCC Consumer Services Southeast Inc.
Professional Claims Services Inc. (California)
Professional Claims Services Inc. (Nevada)
Professional Claims Services Inc. (Washington)
Professional Claims Services Inc. (Utah)
Professional Claims Services Inc. of Arizona
PCS Claims Administration, Inc. (Texas)
CCC International Holding Ltd
Rayfield Limited (dba CCC International)
D W Norris Limited
CCC Partsco Holdings, Inc.
Asset Management Inc.
Credit Card Service Corporation
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of United Energy Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies, 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.



Dated:   June 29, 2004              By: /s/ Ronald Wilen
                                        ---------------------------
                                        Ronald Wilen
                                        Chief Executive Officer



Dated:   June 29, 2004              By: /s/ James McKeever
                                        ---------------------------
                                        James McKeever
                                        Interim Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

 

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Paul Gothard, ChiefFinancial Officer of Medicsight, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that tothe best of my knowledge:

 

(1)    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)    the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|            | By:    | /s/PAUL GOTHARD         |   |
|-----------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|            |   | Paul Gothard            |
|            |   | Chief Financial Officer |
| August 13, 2004 |   |                    |

 

1

----
#### WEBSTER, Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF BALLSTON SPA, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

December 18, 1896.)

Action by Sarah C. Webster against the village of Ballston Spa.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Exhibit 31.2

   CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Calvin E. Jenness, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blount International,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

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

     (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

     (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report information; and

     (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.



Date: July 13, 2004

/s/ Calvin E. Jenness
----------------------
Calvin E. Jenness
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### In the Matter of Wembly Management Co., Inc., Doing Business as Bldg. Management Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration, Respondent.

Submitted January 2, 2007;

decided February 22, 2007

Motion for reargument granted [see 7 NY3d 888] and, upon reargument, motion for leave to appeal denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.3

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Jason W. Rees, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of Pyramid Breweries
Inc. ("registrant"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the registrant;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we 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 registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within the
      entity, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors:

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal
      controls over financial reporting.

Date: November 15, 2004

/s/ JASON W. REES
-----------------------------------------------

Jason W. Rees
Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
#### Marie C. Vaval, Appellant, v NYRAC, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 23, 2007;

decided June 12, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### Gio, Buton & C., S.p.A., Appellant, v Mediterranean Importing Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

— In an action pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law article 10 to set aside a conveyance of assets by the defendant Mediterranean Importing Co., Inc. (hereinafter Mediterranean) to the defendant Heublein, Inc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), dated July 19, 1984, which granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4) and (5).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The order under review was correctly made. The parties’ agreements, which were negotiated in Italy, mandated that Italian law would apply to any dispute arising thereunder, and designated the Court of Bologna, Italy, as the only competent court to adjudicate any controversy arising under the agreements. Accordingly, the determination before us constitutes a correct interpretation of the parties’ intent.

This action is also barred by the prior, unappealed order of the Supreme Court, New York County, dated July 5, 1983, which dismissed the plaintiff’s action brought in that county for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, on the condition that Mediterranean submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Bologna, Italy. The plaintiff has commenced an action in that Italian court to recover money damages for goods sold and delivered, and Mediterranean has appeared and filed an answer. The merits of that action must first be determined before the plaintiff can establish its status as a creditor in order to maintain the instant action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance. Thus, the plaintiff’s standing to bring the instant *639action pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law article 10, and the underlying merits of the allegations made in its complaint, are contingent upon the determinations yet to be made by the Italian court. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of United Energy Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies, 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.


<TABLE>
<S>                                           <C>
Dated: June 14, 2005                          By: /s/ Brian King
                                                  -----------------------------
                                              Brian King
                                              Chief Executive Officer



Dated: June 14, 2005                          By: /s/ James McKeever
                                                  -----------------------------
                                              James McKeever
                                              Interim Chief Financial Officer

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement No. 333-138073 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-31751, 333-67265, 333-62618, 333-107462, 333-118041, 333-136406 and 333-144462 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 11, 2009, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of NMT Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48, *“Accountingfor Uncertainty in Income Taxes, and interpretation of SFAS No. 109,”* as of January 1, 2007) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofNMT Medical, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 11, 2009
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2520 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the rate of excise 

tax on distilled spirits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2015 

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana (for himself and Mr. YARMUTH) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 

the rate of excise tax on distilled spirits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Distillery Innovation 

5 and Excise Tax Reform Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDUCED RATE OF EXCISE TAX ON DISTILLED 

7 SPIRITS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5001(a)(1) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘$13.50’’ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2520 IH

1 and inserting ‘‘$9 ($2.70 in the case of the first 100,000 

2 proof gallons)’’. 

3 (b) REDUCED RATE APPLIED WITH RESPECT TO

4 CONTROLLED GROUP.—Section 5001 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection 

6 (c) as subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (b) 

7 the following new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(c) REDUCED RATE APPLIED WITH RESPECT TO

9 CONTROLLED GROUP.— 

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a controlled 

11 group, the reduced rate on the first 100,000 proof 

12 gallons specified in subsection (a)(1) shall be applied 

13 to the controlled group and shall be apportioned 

14 among the taxpayers who are component members 

15 of such group in such manner as the Secretary may 

16 provide. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the 

17 term ‘controlled group’ has the meaning assigned to 

18 it by subsection (a) of section 1563, except that for 

19 such purposes the phrase ‘more than 50 percent’ 

20 shall be substituted for the phrase ‘at least 80 per21 cent’ each place it appears in such subsection. Prin22 ciples similar to the principles of the preceding two 

23 sentences shall be applied to a group of taxpayers 

24 under common control where one or more members 

25 of such group is not a corporation. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2520 IH

1 ‘‘(2) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary may pre2 scribe such regulations as may be necessary to pre3 vent the reduced rate specified in subsection (a)(1) 

4 from being applied to proof gallons in excess of the 

5 limitation specified therein.’’. 

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to distilled spirits produced or im8 ported in calendar years beginning after December 31, 

9 2015. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS