alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 59679.

#### S. B. Penick & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 243299-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IV 

House Calendar No. 63 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 409 

[Report No. 110–156] 

Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget 

for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008 and including 

the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 

2012. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2007 

Ms. SUTTON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) 

setting forth the congressional budget for the United 

States Government for fiscal year 2008 and including 

the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 

and 2009 through 2012. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:05 May 17, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR409.RH HR409

jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

HRES 409 RH 

1 ting forth the congressional budget for the United States 

2 Government for fiscal year 2008 and including the appro3 priate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 

4 through 2012. All points of order against the conference 

5 report and against its consideration are waived. The con6 ference report shall be considered as read. The conference 

7 report shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 

8 controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 

9 of the Committee on the Budget. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS

jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 63 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 409 

[Report No. 110

–156] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the conference report 

2012. levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2008 and including the appropriate budgetary for the United States Government for fiscal year Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. 

MAY 16, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
Before the Third Division,

July 15, 1958

No. 62180.

#### Dental Perfection Company, Inc., and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 289798-K (Los Angeles).

Johnson, Judge:

The merchandise involved in this case consists of artificial teeth imported from Sweden in 1954 and 1955. It was assessed by the collector at 70 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 212 of the Tariff Act of 1930, by virtue of the similitude clause in paragraph 1559, as decorated porcelain articles. It is claimed that the merchandise is dutiable at 45 per centum ad valorem under said paragraph (apparently as modified) or at 10 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1558, as modified, as unenumerated manufactured articles.

It was stipulated at the trial that this merchandise is similar in all respects to that involved in *Maher-App & Company*v. *United States,*44 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 22, C. A. D. 630, and the record in that case was incorporated herein. That merchandise was described in a stipulation as “artificial teeth for use in place of natural human teeth, composed of 99 percent by weight of plastic and 1 percent *324by weight of mineral pigment, plastic being the component material of chief value.” It was held that it was not classifiable under paragraph 212 by similitude, because of the limitation of said paragraph to china, porcelain, and other vitrified ware “composed of a vitrified nonabsorbent body which when broken shows a vitrified or vitreous, or semivitrified or semivitreous fracture,” and articles wholly or in chief value thereof. It was held that these words were not merely descriptive, but exclusionary, and that wares or articles which did not show such a fracture could not be covered by paragraph 212 through any application of the similitude paragraph, including similitude of use. It was further pointed out that, as a matter of common knowledge, artificial teeth are made of substances other than porcelain and that there was no more reason for classifying the merchandise by similitude to porcelain teeth than to any of the other materials of which artificial teeth are made.

The amendment to paragraph 1559 by the Customs Simplification Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1136), limiting similitude to similitude of use, does not warrant any different conclusion.

On the authority of the decision cited, we hold that the instant merchandise is properly dutiable at 10 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1558 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 52739, and the President’s notification of September 18, 1951, T. D. 52827, as unenumerated manufactured articles. To that extent, the protest is sustained. In all other respects, it is overruled. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[Crim. No. 1611.

Third Appellate District.

February 14, 1938.]

#### In the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM ALBRECHT for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Walter B. Thompson for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, Gordon S. Hughes, Deputy Attorney-General and Hugh B. Bradford, City Attorney, for Respondent.

THOMPSON, J.

This is a petition for a writ of *habeas corpus.*The petitioner is deprived of his liberty under a warrant issued from the police court of the city of Sacramento, based on a charge of violating the provisions of an ordinance of that city, number 166, fourth series, which requires all persons desiring to canvass for subscriptions of newspapers, magazines, periodicals and books in Sacramento, to first procure from the chief of police a written permit to do so.

The issues which are presented on this proceeding are precisely the same as those which were involved in a similar proceeding, entitled *In the Matter of the Application of Lynn Hartmann for a Writ of Habeas Corpus,*the opinion in which we have this day filed *(ante,*p. 55 [76 Pac. (2d) 709]). That opinion is determinative of all the issues of this case.

On the authority of that case the writ of *habeas corpus*is denied, and the petitioner remanded to the chief of police of the city of Sacramento.

•Pullen, P. J., and Plummer, J., concurred.
EPA_OG_HF_Well_Comp_Comments - MSC

Good afternoon,

On behalf of Mr. Dave Spigelmyer, President of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, attached are our comments on the 

EPA White Paper on Hydraulically Fractured Oil Well Completions and Associated Gas during Ongoing 

Production

Thank you,

Loren

Loren A. Anderson, CPESC

Strategic Projects Manager

24 Summit Park Drive, 2nd Fl.

Pittsburgh, PA 15275

Office: 412.706.5160, Ext. 105

Mobile: 412.335.1912

http://www.marcelluscoalition.org/

SHALE INSIGHTTM 2014 Conference 

September 24­25, 2014 | Pittsburgh, PA

David L. Lawrence Convention Center 

www.shaleinsight.com

Loren Anderson <landerson@marcelluscoalition.org>

Mon 6/16/2014 1:30 PM

To:OilandGas.Whitepapers <OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov>; 

 1 attachment

EPA_OG_Sector_HF_Well_Comp_Assoc_Gas_Comments_MSC.pdf; 

EPA_OG_HF_Well_Comp_Comments - MSC - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 1 of 1

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/26/2014
Filed 12/6/18 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2018 ND 249

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Joel Mejia, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20180178

Appeal from the District Court of Mountrail County, North Central Judicial

District, the Honorable Richard L. Hagar, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Wade G. Enget, Mountrail County State’s Attorney, Stanley, ND, for plaintiff

and appellee.

Caitlyn A. Pierson, Minot, ND, for defendant and appellant.
State v. Mejia

No. 20180178

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Joel Mejia appeals from a criminal judgment entered after he was found guilty

of simple assault following a bench trial. Mejia argues there was insufficient

evidence to sustain his conviction for simple assault and that the district court was

required to make a finding on his claim of self-defense. We summarily affirm under

N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3), concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the

guilty verdict. We also affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7), concluding in a case

tried without a jury, the court need only find the defendant guilty or not guilty. State

v. Berger, 235 N.W.2d 254, 263 (N.D. 1975).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jon J. Jensen

Jerod E. Tufte

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

1
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 Annual Report of SINOCOM PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Xuexiang AI, Chief Executive 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.      By: /s/ Xuexiang AI, CEO  Date:April 15, 2011
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-11247

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VICTOR SANDOVAL CONTRERAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CR-12-5-C

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

April 11, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor

Sandoval Contreras has filed a motion for leave to withdraw and

has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Contreras has not filed a response. Our independent

review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous

issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
825 Lotus Avenue 

Louisville, KY 40213 

502.359.5000 tel

May 1, 2013 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

400 7th Street SW, Plaza 401 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 

Re: Exemption 8118D, Docket Number FAA-2003-15439 

Ladies/Gentlemen: 

In accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR) § 11.61, United Parcel 

Service (UPS), Operating Certificate IPXA097B, petitions the Administrator for an extension of 

Exemption No. 8118, Docket FAA-2003-15439. This exemption was originally granted on August 

26, 2003. Extensions were granted on August 17, 2005, June 22, 2007, August 31, 2009, and 

June 7, 2011. The current extension is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2013. 

Exemption No. 8118 provides relief to the extent necessary permitting UPS to substitute a 

qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to 

observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified 

in 121.424(1)(ii). 

The conditions and circumstances, in regard to public interest and equivalent levels of safety, 

which warranted the original grant of exemption, continue to exist. This petition does not seek to 

change the conditions and limitations of the current exemption. This exemption is not a 

compromiser of safety. 

The renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue. For this reason, and the reasons 

stated above, UPS requests that a finding of good cause be made for waiving publication in the 

Federal Register (14 CFR §11.87). Granting the requested relief will set no precedents. The 

existence of the exemption is well known and widely accepted. 

A summary of this petition as required by 14 CFR § 11.25 is attached. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact either myself or Andrew 

Newcomer, UPS Flight Operations Compliance, at (502) 395-5713 or anewcomer@ups.com. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Christopher A. Williams 

Director of Operations 

Attachment 

cc: Mr. William H. King 

 ACE-LOU-UPS-CMO-25 POI 

 Mr. Philip K. Dougherty 

 ACE-LOU-UPS-CMO-25 APOI 
Attachment 

SUMMARY OF UNITED PARCEL SERVICE (UPS) PETITION 

United Parcel Service (UPS) petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 8118. 

This exemptions permits UPS to substitute a qualified and authorized check 

airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying 

pilot in command who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 

121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and landing, subject 

to certain conditions and limitations.
#### William F. Wilson, Plaintiff, v. Charles White, Defendant.

— Judgment for plaintiff upon submitted case. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 377 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                           May 8, 2007.
    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1294) to extend Federal recognition to the 
Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division, the 
Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, 
and the Nansemond Indian Tribe. All points of order against consideration of the 
bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural 
Resources now printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules to accompany this resolution, shall be 
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
    Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1294 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 
Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

OSSUR HOLDINGS, INC. and

GENERATION II, USA, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BELLACURE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-1552JLR

MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable

James L. Robart:

The court has received Plaintiffs’ motion to file the declaration of Palmi Einarsson

under seal (Dkt. # 2). The court GRANTS the motion, subject to later objection from the

Defendants.

Filed and entered this 13th day of September, 2005.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

s/Consuelo Ledesma

By

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01552-JLR Document 7 Filed 09/13/05 Page 1 of 1
H. Res. 229

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 9, 2007.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 720) to amend the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act to authorize appropriations for State water pollution control revolving funds, and for other purposes. The first 

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall 

be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 

divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendment in 

the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill, 

modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report 
2

•HRES 229 EH 

of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, 

shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered 

as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment 

under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. 

All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, 

are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 

on Rules. Each further amendment may be offered only in 

the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 

Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 

shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 

shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 

to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 

the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

further amendments are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration 

of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 

the bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall 

be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto 
3

•HRES 229 EH 

to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest:

Clerk.
February 2, 1960

No. 63775.

Suit 4990.

#### United States *v.*Kurt Orban Co., Inc.

C.D. 2041 affirmed December 7, 1959. C.A.D. 724.
From: chris.johnson@ch2m.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:09:03 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Chris Johnson

Castle Rock, CO 80104
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Alkermes, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Richard F. Pops,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James M. Frates, 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, to my knowledge that:

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

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

Date: February 8, 2005                      /s/ Richard F. Pops
                                            ------------------------
                                            Richard F. Pops
                                            Chief Executive Officer

                                            /s/ James M. Frates
                                            ------------------------
                                            James M. Frates
                                            Chief Financial Officer
No. 67083.

protests 59/29809 and 60/23902 (Philadelphia).

#### Falcon Sales Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 59200.

protest 253023-K (New York).

#### H. George Caspari, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the paper napkins the subject of *Wesley & Winter, Inc.*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 24, C. D. 1575). Upon the agreed statement of facts and following the cited authority, it was held that the merchandise is dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 1413, as modified, *supra.*