alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 69691.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/15988(B) and 62/12736(A) (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pole ends similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. C. De Jong & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 26, C.A.D. 852), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 666 

Recognizing and celebrating the 35th anniversary of Guadalupe Mountains 

National Park, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2007 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing and celebrating the 35th anniversary of 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, and for other purposes. 

Whereas Guadalupe Mountains National Park is a scenic 

treasure of western Texas that stretches more than 135 

miles; 

Whereas Guadalupe Mountains National Park includes Guadalupe Peak, the highest point in Texas at approximately 

8,749 feet; 

Whereas for more than 10,000 years, diverse people have 

traveled through and continuously inhabited the region 

now known as Guadalupe Mountains National Park; 

Whereas until the 19th century, the Mescalero Apaches lived, 

hunted, and harvested agave in the Guadalupe Mountains 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 666 IH 

region and remain an integral part of the history of the 

region; 

Whereas innovations in transportation and infrastructure 

after the Civil War allowed settlers and miners to travel 

west and study the Guadalupe Mountains region; 

Whereas the United States Cavalry, including the famed Buffalo Soldiers, were ordered to protect settlements along 

the stage route through the Guadalupe Mountains region; 

Whereas McKittrick Canyon is thought to be named after 

Felix McKittrick, who in 1869 was one of the first nonnative people to permanently remain in the Guadalupe 

Mountains region; 

Whereas Frijole Ranch, constructed in 1876, was the first 

permanent ranch house in the Guadalupe Mountains region and is now a museum; 

Whereas in much of the 20th century, the geologist Wallace 

Pratt owned thousands of acres in the Guadalupe Mountains, including McKittrick Canyon, which he believed to 

be the most beautiful spot in Texas; 

Whereas Wallace Pratt and his family shared their home with 

scientists and researchers, who helped to convince Wallace Pratt that his land should be turned into a national 

park; 

Whereas in the early 1960s, Wallace Pratt donated approximately 6,000 acres, including McKittrick Canyon, to the 

National Park Service to establish McKittrick Canyon 

Park; 

Whereas Wallace Pratt successfully encouraged the Federal 

Government to expand McKittrick Canyon Park by purchasing approximately 80,000 acres from neighboring 

landowner J. C. Hunter, Jr; and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 666 IH 

Whereas on September 30, 1972, Guadalupe Mountains National Park was established and formally opened to the 

public: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes and celebrates the 35th anniver3 sary of the founding of Guadalupe Mountains Na4 tional Park; and 

5 (2) honors the National Park Service for its 

6 service to the Guadalupe Mountains region and Gua7 dalupe Mountains National Park. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
From: elwat45@tampabay.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:27:16 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,

Lorraine Watkins

Tampa, FL 33624
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-FLORES,

a.k.a. George Steven Martinez,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70497

Agency No. A098-406-553

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Antonio Hernandez-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for

cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 

FILED

DEC 30 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70497

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Hamazaspyan v. Holder,

590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition

for review. 

The BIA properly concluded that Hernandez-Flores was not prejudiced by

the IJ’s failure to notify him of pre-conclusion voluntary departure at his removal

proceedings. His due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d

1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring both error and “substantial prejudice” to

prevail on a due process challenge in removal proceedings). 

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of HernandezFlores’ application for post-conclusion voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C.

§§ 1252(a)(2)(B), 1229c(f). 

Hernandez-Flores’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
No. 63360.

protests 313364-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Guy B. Barham Co. and Rogan & Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Shoji panels similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United Enterprises et al.*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 73, C.D 2023), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: cndgroen@frontiernet.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:24:56 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,

Donna Groen

Renville, MN 56284
``

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 Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of Methes Energies International Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended November 30, 2012, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned, Michel G. Laporte, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, 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.


``




``

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.


``



``




``




``

Dated: March 15, 2013

/s/ Michel G. LaporteMichel G. LaporteChief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
(R.D. 11540)

#### Authentic Furniture Products, Inc. Arthur J. Fritz & Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 841655, etc.

(Decided June 6, 1968)

*Stein & Shostak*for the plaintiffs.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Watson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, which is incorporated herein:

> 1. That on the dates of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or in the absence of sales freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were invoice unit prices net packed.

> 2. That the merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the'attached Schedule is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54721, [sic] effective February 27,1958.

> 3. That all the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement was entered for consumption subsequent to February 27, 1958.

> 4. That the ‘appeals for reappraisement may be deemed submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such values were the invoice unit prices, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,211
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      124
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,067
<PP&E>                                           8,009
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,956
<BONDS>                                          2,788
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,749
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,670
<SALES>                                         15,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,065
<CGS>                                            7,243
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,265
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  24
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,533
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,133
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,133
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30600 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. ANTHONY J GOBERT, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:06-CR-20001-ALL
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Anthony J. Gobert has appealed his jury conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He contends that the evidence introduced to prove his guilt was insufficient. We review this question for a manifest miscarriage of justice because Gobert failed to renew his motion forjudgment ofacquittal at the close ofall the evidence. S ee United States v. Avants, 367 F.3d 433, 449 (5th Cir. 2004). Under that standard, Gobert must show that the record is “devoid of United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 23, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-30600

2 evidence of guilt” or that the evidence is “so tenuous that a conviction is shocking.” Avants, 367 F.3d at 449

. Gobert contends only that the Government failed to prove that he was in possession ofa firearm. S ee United States v. Guidry, 406 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2005) (listing elements of offense); 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Gobert was observed by an acquaintance in possession of a firearm. Accordingly, there was direct evidence that Gobert possessed a firearm and the record was not “devoid of evidence” as to that element of the offense. S ee Avants, 367 F.3d at 449; United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 416 (5th Cir. 1998). The conviction is AFFIRMED.
No. 68463.

protest 63/22342 (Tampa).

#### Labels Unlimited, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rayon labels similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bruce Duncan Co., Inc., a/c Standard Commodities Import & Export Corp.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 27, C.D. 2409), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: Zoomjrl@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:13:41 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,

James Lacy

Oklahoma City, OK 73115
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 DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

THOMAS A. WEBER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TIME WARNER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1706L

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #119)

of this Court’s January 31, 2006 order regarding the parties’ cross motions for summary

judgment and plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. #111, the “Order”). In their

memoranda regarding those motions, defendants requested that the Court impose sanctions on

plaintiff because he sued the wrong defendants and refused to withdraw his claims against them.

Plaintiff contends that the Court erred in imposing sanctions on him because, he argues,

the Court lacked authority to impose the sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Plaintiff has

misconstrued the Order. The Order did not address Rule 11 or impose sanctions pursuant to that

rule. Instead, the Order stated that sanctions were being imposed on plaintiff pursuant to

General Rule 3(d). Therefore, plaintiff’s arguments regarding Rule 11 are inapplicable.

Case 2:05-cv-01706-RSL Document 124 Filed 02/14/06 Page 1 of 2
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 DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

DATED this 14th day of February, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01706-RSL Document 124 Filed 02/14/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 57423.

#### Fred Whitaker & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 193688-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content T. D. 53159” in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
No. 66002.

#### Florea & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 306172-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the items marked “A” were held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 915, as modified, *supra,*as knit nylon gloves similar in use to cotton gloves, and the items marked “B” at 30 percent under paragraph 1208, as modified, *supra,*as knit nylon gloves similar in use to silk gloves.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
 By: 
Name:
    
    /s/ Sean P. McGrath

Sean P. McGrathTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer of
the Managing General PartnerDate:
    
    March 30, 2011
  46
Before The Second Division,

April 11, 1967

No. P67/105.

#### Seedman International Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 63/10342 and 63/11516 (Los Angeles).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of pumps similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Victoria Distributors, Inc.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 284, C.D. 2639), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.