alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CRYSTAL CITY INDEPENDENT

SCHOOL DISTRICT,

 Appellant,

v. 

MAGDALENA FLORES

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00021-CV

Appeal from the

365th District Court

of Zavala County, Texas 

(TC# 21-09-14815-ZCV)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s second motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until February 21, 2023. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT. 

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Mario G. Perez, Jr., the Appellant’s attorney, prepare 

the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 21, 2023.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of February, 2023.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Marvel
Entertainment Group, Inc. Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and Statements
of Operations.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0000874808
<NAME>                MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              36
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      292
<ALLOWANCES>                                        35
<INVENTORY>                                         99
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   501
<PP&E>                                             123
<DEPRECIATION>                                      35
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              920
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,260
<SALES>                                            581
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   581
<CGS>                                              372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   184
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  44
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (15)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (1)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (28)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (28)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  $(0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
# 05-30493  USA v Karawi

B. Fletcher, McKeown, CJJ; Schwarzer (N. Cal), DJ

444.61353
Before the First Division,

September 19, 1961

No. 66075.

#### John L. Westland & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/31884 (Los Angeles).

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The merchandise involved in this case is described on the invoice as “Organ Keyboards.” Duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 20 per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 1541(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 52739, for parts of organs. Plaintiff claims that the merchandise is properly classifiable under the provision for parts of pipe organs in said modified paragraph 1541(a), carrying a dutiable rate of only 10 per centum ad valorem.

The sole witness, who appeared herein, stated that he has been in the organ business for approximately 22 years, and that, throughout his experience, he has become familiar with the different kinds or types of organs. While his testimony on direct examination shows that the keyboards in question are necessary for the proper operation of pipe organs, cross-examination of the witness developed that these imported articles are also essential for the efficient use of electronic organs, through which sound is produced other than by pipes. In other words, plaintiff’s uncontradicted testimony establishes that the keyboards in question, being dedicated for use equally as parts of pipe organs and as parts of electronic organs, come within two different tariff enumerations, i.e., as parts of organs, as classified, and as parts of pipe organs, as claimed. Paragraph 1559 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by T.D. 53599, provides for a condition, like that before us, as follows:

> (c) If two or more enumerations shall be equally applicable to any article, it shall be subject to duty at the highest rate prescribed for any such enumeration.

*314A situation, comparable with the present one, existed in *Colibri Lighters*(U.S.A.), *Inc.*v. *United States,*43 Cust. Ct. 93, C.D. 2110, affirmed in *Same*v. *Same*(suit 6018), 47 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 106, C.A.D. 739. In that case, the merchandise consisted of certain spark wheels that were parts of two kinds of cigar or cigarette lighters, i.e., pocket lighters and table lighters, each of which was classifiable under a different tariff enumeration. Invoking the provisions of paragraph 1659, as amended, *supra,*the spark wheels were held to be dutiable at the higher rate applicable under the two different tariff enumerations.

Consistent with the decision in the cited ease, we hold the keyboards in question, which are provided for under two different provisions in paragraph 1541(a), as modified, *supra,*i.e., as parts of pipe organs and as parts of organs, to be properly classifiable under the latter provision, invoked by the collector, and carrying the higher rate of duty, of 20 per centum ad valorem, as assessed.

Consideration has been given to all of the cases cited in plaintiff’s brief, but we find it unnecessary to review any of them in the light of the controlling statutory construction, as heretofore discussed.

The protest is overruled and judgment will be rendered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7122
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE WISE, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-94-291, CA-95-3492-3-19) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MI CHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Wise, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Wise , Nos. CR-94- 291; CA-95-3492-3-19 (D.S.C. June 17, 1996). 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Monell, Appellant.

[— NYS2d —]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Leaman, J.), rendered April 8, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

In satisfaction of an eight-count indictment charging him with various drug-related crimes, defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which was 5 to 25 years. On this appeal, defendant’s attorney requests leave to withdraw as counsel on the basis that there are no nonfrivolous issues that may be raised on appeal. Having reviewed the record, defense counsel’s brief and defendant’s *pro se*submission, we agree. There is no merit to defendant’s assertion that the sentence imposed was unreasonable. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted.

*905Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
ORDER DENYING DEFAULT 

Page 1 of 2 

Case No. CV05-5608JKA 

BONNELL WEBB & GINSTER 

225 106TH AVENUE NORTH EAST 

BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 

98004 

TELEPHONE 425-454-3800

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

 

 THE HONORABLE JUDGE J. KELLEY ARNOLD 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

CHRISTINE STEPHENS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

DONOBI, INC., a Washington Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

No. C05-5608JKA 

 ORDER DENYING DEFAULT 

 This matter having come on for consideration by the motion of Christine Stephens for 

entry of default against Donobi, Inc., and the court having considered the matter and related 

submissions and Declaration of Gordon Webb, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, 

it is 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:05-cv-05608-RBL Document 14 Filed 11/18/05 Page 1 of 2
ORDER DENYING DEFAULT 

Page 2 of 2 

Case No. CV05-5608JKA 

BONNELL WEBB & GINSTER 

225 106TH AVENUE NORTH EAST 

BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 

98004 

TELEPHONE 425-454-3800

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

 ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for default is denied. Answer filed November 17, 2005. 

 DONE this 18th day of November, 2005. 

 

 _/s/ J. Kelley Arnold__________________________________________ 

 UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE J. KELLEY ARNOLD 

 Presented By: 

S/GORDON WEBB 

By______________________________ 

GORDON WEBB, WSBA #22777 

JAMES B. PARSONS, WSBA #12539 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 3:05-cv-05608-RBL Document 14 Filed 11/18/05 Page 2 of 2
(R.D. 11535)

#### Park Benziger Export Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 587.

*884(Decided May 28, 1968)

*Stitt and Bemmendinger*for the plaintiff.

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

Watson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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 the attorneys for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

> 1. The merchandise which is the subject of the above-captioned reappraisement appeal consists of tennis shoes imported July 5, 1961, under Entry No. 587 through the Port of Los Angeles.

> 2. The merchandise was returned by the Appraiser as having soles wholly or in chief value of india rubber or substitutes for rubber, dutiable upon the American selling price as defined in -Section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, under the authority of the Presidential Proclamation set forth in 63 Treas. Dec. 232, T.D. 46158; and was assessed at $2.65 per pair less 2%, net packed.

> 3. The material of chief value of the soles was high styrene resin, which was not rubber or a substitute for rubber and does not fall within the purview of the Presidential Proclamation set forth in 63 Treas. Dec. 232; T.D. 46158, and is, therefore, not subject to appraisement on the basis of American Selling Price.

> 4. Said footwear is not identified in the Final List, published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective Febi'uary 27th, 1958.

> 5. On or about the date of exportation, such or similar footwear was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, at the invoice unit prices, plus packing, plus items marked inland freight and other charges as noted on the invoice, said prices 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.

> 6. The instant appeal for reappraisement may be submitted for decision upon 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 value was the invoice unit price, plus packing, plus items marked inland freight and other charges as noted on the invoice.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case No. 8,760.

#### McDONALD v. LITTLE.

[Cited in Mayo v. Smith, Case No. 9.355. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
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 TACOMA

JON ROYAL FLEMING,

Petitioner,

v.

KEN QUINN,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5719RJB

ORDER STRIKING PLEADINGS 

FROM THE COURT’S CALENDAR

This 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief has been referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and local Rules MJR 3 and 4. Petitioner in this

action is seeking federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On June 21st, 2006, while the court was finalizing a Report and Recommendation in this

action, pleadings filed by the petitioner were posted to the record. (Dkt. # 48 and 49). Petitioner

has previously filed two motions for temporary restraining orders (Dkt. # 41 and 45). Petitioner has

also filed a motion to amend his motions for injunctive relief. (Dkt. # 47). None of the requests for

injunctive relief have anything to do with the petition in this case. 

The petition deals with denial of good time credits from 1996 to 2001. All of the injunctive

Case 3:05-cv-05719-RJB Document 55 Filed 06/23/06 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- 2

relief motions deal with access to courts and petitioner’s being placed on cell confinement. (Dkt. #

41, 45, 47, 48, and 49).

On May 24th, 2005 petitioner filed the traverse in this case. No further briefing is required. 

Petitioner cannot show that he is being denied access to courts in this case because all required

briefing has been filed. This court has issued a Report and Recommendation filed June 22nd, 2006

which addresses petitioner’s first two motions for injunctive relief. The court will not consider

petitioner’s subsequent attempts to repetitively file for the same relief. 

The court orders the clerk’s office to strike docket numbers 48 and 49 from the courts

calendar. The documents will remain in the record but will not be considered. 

Petitioner is warned that further filings which repetitively raise an issue without waiting for a

ruling from the court may result in sanctions.

The clerk is directed to send copies of this order to petitioner and counsel for respondent.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05719-RJB Document 55 Filed 06/23/06 Page 2 of 2
From: angel0515@spe.midco.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:12:13 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,

Vicki Hoffer

Spearfish, SD 57783
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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

BERNARD JASPERS,

Petitioner,

v.

KENNETH QUINN,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5049FDB

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

NOTED FOR:

July 21st, 2006

This 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief has been referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and local Rules MJR 3 and 4. Respondent

answered this petition and argued the petition is over one year time barred. In addition the

respondent argues the petition contains unexhausted but procedurally barred claims. (Dkt. # 11). 

Petitioner has filed a motion to dismiss the petition without prejudice. (Dkt. # 14). 

Petitioner indicates he wishes to seek legal advice before proceeding further and cannot reply to

respondents arguments. Respondent has not responded to the motion. Under Local Rule 7 failure to

respond to a motion may be deemed as a concession the motion has merit.

The court has considered whether Respondent would be prejudiced by granting petitioner’s

Case 3:06-cv-05049-FDB Document 15 Filed 06/30/06 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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 2

motion and determines there would be no actual prejudice. If the respondent’s position is correct the

petition will still be time barred. Further, respondent’s failure to file a pleading in opposition to

petitioner’s motion indicates no opposition to the motion. Accordingly, the court recommends

petitioner’s motion be GRANTED and this petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 A proposed order accompanies this report and recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the

parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule

72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on July 21st, 2006, as noted in the

caption. 

Dated this 30th day of June, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05049-FDB Document 15 Filed 06/30/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 61557.

#### Glensder Textile Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 301013-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 542 

Expressing the unconditional support of the House of Representatives for 

the members of the National Guard. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 12, 2007 

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the unconditional support of the House of 

Representatives for the members of the National Guard. 

Whereas the National Guard has made tremendous contributions in support of United States military operations 

around the world; 

Whereas, between September 11, 2001, and March 31, 2007, 

235,703 members of the National Guard have deployed 

to Iraq or Afghanistan; 

Whereas members of the National Guard typically leave other 

employment to serve on active duty in the Armed Forces; 

Whereas the National Guard has responded admirably in 

times of domestic emergencies to lead rescue and recovery efforts; and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 542 IH 

Whereas many members of the National Guard have made 

the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in service to the 

United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) unconditionally supports the members of the 

3 National Guard; 

4 (2) recognizes the tremendous sacrifices made 

5 by members of the National Guard on behalf of the 

6 United States; 

7 (3) will do everything in its power to ensure 

8 that the National Guard receives the resources it 

9 needs; and 

10 (4) will support the families of members of the 

11 National Guard who have died while serving on ac12 tive duty. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
No. 65180.

#### Porter Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/29004(B) and 59/29036 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Bao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *General Twine Corp.*v. *United States (42*Cust. Ct. 121, C.D. 2075), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.