alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TRICKS OF THE TRADE: CUSTOMS CLEARANCE FOR GOODS INTO KAZAKHSTAN

----

**February 1999**
by Natalya Antonenko
Goods shipped to Kazakhstan must be declared to Kazakhstani customs within 15 days of arrival. The State CustomsCommittee, located in Astana, is the central customs body.  It manages 13 customs departments,located in each oblast, and16 customshouses, located throughout Kazakhstan, including four in Almaty oblast.  Customsclearance is completed by thecustoms departments (excluding the department for Almaty city and oblast) and customshouses. Customshouses manage oneor several customs points located in Kazakhstan.
Imported goods are subject to customs clearance at the customshouse of their arrival.  If, forexample, a firm is registeredwith a customshouse in Almaty and the goods arrive in a customshouse in Atyrau, the firm isrequired to present confirmation(issued by the customs body with which the firm is registered in Almaty) that it has nooutstanding customs debts. 
Customs clearance procedure includes submission of all required documents together with anelectronic copy of thecustoms declaration; verification of the documents by a Customs officer; Customs' valuation ofthe declared goods; Customs'calculation of taxes, fees, and duties; and Customs' inspection of goods in the presence of theimporter or the agent andauthorization of their release.
The documents required for completing customs clearance include, but are not limited to:
The Hon. Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western 1 District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

______________ No. 98-1584WM

______________ Cheryl Ann Hall, * * Appellant, * * On Appeal from the United v. * States District Court for * the Western District of * Missouri. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of * Social Security, * [Not to be published.] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: September 24, 1998 Filed: October 2, 1998

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. This is a social-security case in which the claimant asserts disability, principally upon the basis of depression. The Commissioner found that the depression was not a significant

problem, and the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform a limited range of sedentary work. The District Court held that this finding was 1-2-

supported by substantial evidence o n the record as a whole, and granted the defendant Commissioner's motion for summary judgment. We affirm. Having reviewed the bri efs and record and heard oral argument, we agree with the District Court. We do not believe that the case has sufficien t precedential significance to justify the writing of a full opinion. Affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S.COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 97-20695

_____________________ TRANS CHEMICAL LIMITED; ET AL, Plaintiffs, TRANS CHEMICAL LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY IMPORT AND EXPORT CORPORATION; ET AL, Defendants, CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY IMPORT AND EXPORT CORPORATION Defendant-Appellant.

******************************************************* In The Matter Of: MOHAMMED H. HALIPOTO, M.D.; ZAREENA HALIPOTO, Debtors,

--------------------------- CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY IMPORT AND EXPORT CORPORATION, Appellant,
v. TRANS CHEMICAL LIMITED, Appellee.

*******************************************************2 C N M I E C, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. T C L, Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

_________________________________________________________________ December 8, 1998 Before KING, JOLLY, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CMC) appeals the district court’s confirmation of an arbitral award rendered against it. We affirm. On appeal, CMC raises four issues: (1) Is CMC, a Chinese corporation, an “agent or instrumentality of a foreign state” under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1603, such that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the arbitral award rendered against CMC, 28 U.S.C. § 1330? (2) Was the arbitral award “not considered as domestic . . . in the State where [its] recognition and enforcement are sought” such that the district court could enforce it pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517 (1970), reprinted in9 U.S.C. § 201? (3) Did the1 We do not, of course, imply that the other portions of

the opinion are in any way erroneous. 3 contract between CMC and TCL involve “commerce” such that the district court could enforce the arbitration award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2? (4) Did the district court err in refusing to vacate the award under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1)? We agree with the district court’s analysis of these issues and therefore adopt Parts I-V of its careful and comprehensive opinion, In re Arbitration Between: Trans Chemical Ltd. & China National Machinery Import & Export Corp. , 978 F. Supp. 266 (S.D. Tex. 1997). 1 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
## MEMORANDUM March 5, 2009

To: F. Tanaka

Via: K. Kunaniec

From: T. Underwood

Re: Outside Test OS-2733; November 4, 5 and 7, 2008 source test of emission point P-11 Re: Outside Test OS-2734; November 4, 5 and 7, 2008 source test of emission point P-12 Re: Outside Test OS-2735; October 22, 23 and 24, 2008 source test of emission point P-13 Re: Outside Test OS-2736; October 22, 23 and 24, 2008 source test of emission point P-14 Site No: A0051 Plant No: 51; United Airlines
Emission Pt: P-11 Source No: S-16, S-17; Plating tanks Abated by: A-216, A-217; Dry scrubber with composite mesh pads
Emission Pt: P-12 Source No: S-18, S-19; Plating tanks Abated by: A-218, A-219; Dry scrubber with composite mesh pads
Emission Pt: P-13 Source No: S-20, S-21; Plating tanks Abated by: A-220, A-221; Dry scrubber with composite mesh pads
Emission Pt: P-14 Source No: S-22, S-23; Plating tanks Abated by: A-222, A-223; Dry scrubber with composite mesh pads A/C No: Title V Conditions: Reg. 11-8: plating limits based on mass rate emissions and/or yearly

amperage 6465: Cr +6 0.006 mg/A-hr, 110 million amp-hours per year*
23187: Cr +6 0.03 mg/A-hr, 60 million amp-hours per year *Note: The Title V permit cites condition ID 6465 limiting Cr +6 emissions. Condition ID 23187 is not contained in the Title V permit, and is only
found in Databank By: Blue Sky Environmental

I have reviewed the four source test reports cited above and note the following:

1) Source test was properly notified (NST-1537). 2) I did not witness the tests. 3) The testing appears to have been conducted by personnel who are familiar with proper source testing techniques. 4) Quality assurance procedures were adequate to assure data integrity. 5) Results of testing demonstrate these sources were in compliance with all
of the conditions cited above.

These sources were in compliance with District Regulations.
§ 890.1610 Minimum standards for PSHB Program plans and Carriers. ( a ) *Minimum standards for PSHB plans.* To qualify for approval by OPM, a health benefits plan under this subpart shall— ( 1 ) Meet the minimum standards for health benefits plans at § 890.201, unless otherwise stated in this subpart;
( 2 ) Provide prescription drug benefits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8903c(h)(2);
( 3 ) Provide equivalent benefits and cost-sharing in the initial contract year to the carrier's FEHB plan, as applicable, pursuant to section 8903c(c)(2);
( 4 ) Maintain separate reserves, including contingency reserves, with respect to enrollees in each PSHB plan as directed by OPM; and
( 5 ) Begin coverage on January 1 of each year.
( b ) *Minimum standards for PSHB Carriers.* The minimum standards for health benefits carriers under this subpart shall be those contained in 48 CFR 1609.70.
( c ) *Approval of plans with 1,500 or more Postal enrollees.* To the greatest extent practicable, in the initial contract year, OPM shall approve a health benefits plan offered by a carrier under this subpart that has equivalent benefits and cost-sharing to the FEHB plan offered by that carrier in which the total enrollment of Postal Service employees and Postal Service annuitants was 1,500 or more in the 2023 contract year. OPM may exempt a comprehensive medical plan, as described in 5 U.S.C. 8903(4), from the requirement in this paragraph (c).
( d ) *Withdrawal of plan approval.* Failure on the part of the PSHB Carrier's plan to meet the standards in this section is cause for OPM's withdrawal of approval of the plan in accordance with § 890.1611.
### §7112. Expedited treatment of certain claims

(a) Remanded Claims.—The Secretary shall take such actions as may be necessary to provide for the expeditious treatment by the Board of any claim that is remanded to the Secretary by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

(b) Claims Involving Military Sexual Trauma.—The Board shall promptly determine whether a notice of disagreement filed with the Board is a covered case.

(c) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) The term "covered case" means a case—

(A) that concerns a claim for compensation based on military sexual trauma; and

(B) for which the appellant has requested a hearing in the notice of disagreement filed with the Board pursuant to section 7105 of this title.

(2) The term "military sexual trauma" has the meaning given that term in section 1166 of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 108–183, title VII, §707(b)(1), Dec. 16, 2003, 117 Stat. 2673; amended Pub. L. 117–300, §2(a)(1), (2)(A), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4379, 4380.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–300 substituted "certain" for "remanded" in section catchline, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and inserted heading, and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 22, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00169

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.J.P. A CHILD

,

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 13590

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellant ’ s motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to July 11, 2016.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of June, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
###### Editorial Note on Part 70

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear at 63 FR 10303, Mar. 3, 1998, and at 73 FR 46553, Aug. 11, 2008.

#### § 70.3 Effect of boundary changes occurring or reported after the cutoff dates.

The Bureau of the Census will not recognize changes in boundaries that become effective after January 1, 2010 in taking the 2010 Decennial Census; the Bureau of the Census will enumerate the residents of any area that are transferred to another jurisdiction after that date and report them for the 2010 Census as residents of the area in which they resided on January 1, 2010. The Bureau of the Census will not recognize in the data tabulations prepared for the 2010 census changes occurring on or before January 1, 2010, but not submitted officially to the Bureau of the Census until after March 1, 2010 except as necessary to conduct decennial census operations.
NRC INFORMS WESTINGHOUSE OF SAFETY ISSUES 

 WITH AP1000 SHIELD BUILDING

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has informed Westinghouse that the company 

has not demonstrated that certain structural components of the revised AP1000 shield building 

can withstand design basis loads. An NRC letter to Westinghouse states that progress on the 

shield building review will require the company to provide modifications to the design, as well 

as testing that demonstrates the building will perform its intended safety function under design 

basis loads. The staff will continue its review of the remainder of the AP1000 design certification 

amendment application. 

 

 As the name implies, the AP1000 shield building would protect the reactor’s primary 

containment from severe weather and other events. The building’s other functions would include 

providing a radiation barrier during normal operation and supporting an emergency cooling 

water tank. 

 “We’ve been talking to Westinghouse regularly about the shield building since October 

2008, and we’ve consistently laid out our questions to the company,” said Michael Johnson, 

director of the NRC’s Office of New Reactors. “This is a situation where fundamental 

engineering standards will have to be met before we can begin determining whether the shield 

building meets the agency’s requirements.” 

The impact on the overall AP1000 certification review schedule will be established after 

the staff and Westinghouse discuss the company’s plans to address the NRC’s conclusions 

regarding the shield building design. The impact on related review schedules for Combined 

License applications referencing the AP1000 will be addressed once the design certification 

review schedule is better understood. 

The staff’s letter to Westinghouse will be available on the NRC’s electronic documents 

database, ADAMS, by entering ML092320205 at this address: 

http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm. 

### 

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 09-173 October 15, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6408

RONALD CEO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

JON OZMINT, Director of SCDC; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General

for South Carolina,

Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(4:06-cv-02003-RBH)

Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Ceo, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant

Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Ceo seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Ceo has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ProUroCareMedical Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Richard C. Carlson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, RichardB. Thon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of ourknowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, 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 operation of the Company. |

 

 
| /s/ Richard C. Carlson  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Richard C. Carlson      |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| May 14, 2009       |   |
|                    |   |
|                    |   |
| /s/ Richard B. Thon     |   |
| Richard B. Thon         |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| May 14, 2009       |   |

 

----
11-349-cr

United States v. Bogle

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

 

August Term, 2012

(Argued: February 6, 2013 Decided: May 23, 2013)

Docket No. 11-349-cr

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Appellee,

— v. — 

GARY BOGLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

B e f o r e:

WALKER, KATZMANN, and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

__________________

Defendant Gary Bogle challenges his conviction for possessing a firearm and body

armor as a convicted felon, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates his Second

Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We hold that § 922(g)(1) does not violate

Bogle’s Second Amendment rights, and AFFIRM his conviction. 

 

1
NICHOLAS J. PINTO, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant.

TODD KAMINSKY, Assistant United States Attorney (Jo Ann M. Navickas and

Tali Farhadian, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Loretta E.

Lynch, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New

York, for Appellee.

 

PER CURIAM:

Gary Bogle appeals his conviction for possessing a firearm and body armor as a

convicted felon. The relevant facts are set forth in the summary order disposing of the

majority of Bogle’s arguments. We write only to address whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

violates the Second Amendment, an issue that we have not yet decided by precedential

opinion. 

Bogle argues that § 922(g)(1), which makes it unlawful for a convicted felon to

possess a firearm in or affecting interstate commerce, violates his Second Amendment

right to keep and bear arms. Bogle relies on recent Supreme Court opinions developing a

more expansive interpretation of the Amendment. But in both of these opinions, the

Supreme Court clearly emphasized that recent developments in Second Amendment

jurisprudence should not “be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the

possession of firearms by felons.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626

(2008); see also McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3047 (2010) (“We made

it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory

measures as prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons . . . . We repeat those

2
assurances here.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We therefore join

every other circuit to consider the issue in affirming that § 922(g)(1) is a constitutional

restriction on the Second Amendment rights of convicted felons.1

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1 See United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313, 318-19 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v.

Barton, 633 F.3d 168, 175 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Joos, 638 F.3d 581, 586 (8th Cir.

2011); United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768, 771 (11th Cir. 2010); United States v. Williams,

616 F.3d 685, 693-94 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th

Cir. 2010); United States v. Carey, 602 F.3d 738, 741 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v.

McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009); United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348,

352 (5th Cir. 2009).

3
#### Harry Simon et al., Respondents, v. Edward Lagin et al., Appellants. Edward Lagin, Appellant, v. Harry Simon et al., Respondents.

Action No, 1 is by the sellers of real property to foreclose a purchase-money mortgage, and Action No. 2 is by the purchaser to recover damages for fraud inducing the purchase, in which action defendants Simon plead a counterclaim against their codefendant for recovery over if plaintiff should recover against them. The actions were consolidated. Action No. 2 was tried first by the court and a jury, and the court dismissed the complaint and the counterclaim at the end of the plaintiff’s ease. Action No. 1 was then tried by the court and the court granted judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Defendants Lagin in Action No. 1 and plaintiff Edward Lagin in Action No. 2 appeal from the judgment entered thereon. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ.
### §8159. Authority to pay for services authorized but not subject to an agreement

(a) In General.—If, in the course of furnishing hospital care, a medical service, or an extended care service authorized by the Secretary and pursuant to a contract, agreement, or other arrangement with the Secretary, a provider who is not a party to the contract, agreement, or other arrangement furnishes hospital care, a medical service, or an extended care service that the Secretary considers necessary, the Secretary may compensate the provider for the cost of such care or service.

(b) New Contracts and Agreements.—The Secretary shall take reasonable efforts to enter into a contract, agreement, or other arrangement with a provider described in subsection (a) to ensure that future care and services authorized by the Secretary and furnished by the provider are subject to such a contract, agreement, or other arrangement.

(Added Pub. L. 115–182, title I, §112(a), June 6, 2018, 132 Stat. 1421.)
405 P.2d 238

#### Charlie WHITE and Sally White, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Paul F. LARRAZOLO, Judge of the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of New Mexico, and the District Court of the Second Judicial District of the State of New Mexico within and for Bernalillo County, Respondents.

No. 7913.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Sept. 9, 1965.

CARMODY, Chief Justice, and CHAVEZ, NOBLE, MOISE and COMPTON, Justices, concurring.

Ordered that the rule to show cause heretofore entered herein on June 22, 1965 he and the same is hereby vacated and set aside as having been improvidently issued.
Russian Franchising Developments

----