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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

AMANDA MILJUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5009RBL-KLS

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Noted for August 11, 2006

This matter has been referred to Magistrate Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

Local Magistrates Rules MJR 3 and 4, and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This matter is

before the Court on plaintiff’s failure to respond with the undersigned’s order regarding service of the

complaint. (Dkt. #4). After reviewing the record, the undersigned submits the following report and

recommendation to the Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, recommending the Court dismiss this action for

failure to comply with the undersigned’s order. 

DISCUSSION

On June 6, 2006, the undersigned issued an order informing plaintiff that it had been more than 120

days since she filed her complaint, and directing her to serve the complaint and file proof of service of the

complaint with the Court by no later than July 6, 2006, or show cause why this matter should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. #4). To date, it does not appear that plaintiff has served her

complaint, nor has any proof of service been filed with this Court. 

Case 3:06-cv-05009-RBL Document 5 Filed 07/20/06 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

Page - 2

CONCLUSION

Because plaintiff has failed to respond to the undersigned’s order to show cause (Dkt. #4), and

because it appears plaintiff still has not served her complaint, the Court should dismiss this case without

prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 72(b),

the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written

objections thereto. 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the clerk is directed to set this matter for consideration on August 11,

2006, as noted in the caption. 

DATED this 20th day of July, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05009-RBL Document 5 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 14, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00635

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF F.A., S.L., D.L., AND R.L., Jr., Children,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No . 2014

- PA

- 00908 Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental rights. The disposition of this appeal is governed by the standards set forth in Rule 6.2 of the

Te xas Rules of Judicial Administration. T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. Accordingly, this appeal is required to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is

filed. Id

.

The appellant’s brief was originally due to be fi led on November 17, 2015. On November 18, 2015, this court granted appellant’s first motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief, extending the deadline to file the brief to November 30, 2015.

On November 27, 2015, appellant filed a second motion requesting an additional seven

day extension of time to file the brief. On December 1, 2015, this court granted the extension and ordered the appellant’s brief to be filed no later than December 7, 2015. The order stated,

“Given the time constrain ts governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for

extensions of time will be disfavored.”

The brief has not been filed. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant’s attorney, Ms. Jeanie Lee Cupit, file the appellant’s brief in this appeal no later than December 21, 2015. If the

brief is not filed by such date, an order may be issued directing Ms. Cupit to appear and show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failing to file the brief

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 14th day of December, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-054 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. Soethout

Dwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 483 

Recognizing the 63rd Anniversary of Big Bend National Park, established 

on June 12, 1944. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2007 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 63rd Anniversary of Big Bend National 

Park, established on June 12, 1944. 

Whereas Big Bend National Park is a scenic treasure of 

southwest Texas encompassing more than 800,000 acres; 

Whereas Big Bend National Park manages nearly one quarter of the approximately 1000 mile stretch of the Rio 

Grande River that also serves as the boundary between 

the United States and Mexico; 

Whereas along the boundary of the park, the flow of the Rio 

Grand River shifts from a southeasterly direction to the 

northeast, forming the bend after which the park is 

named; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HRES 483 IH 

Whereas Big Bend National Park is unique because it covers 

a variety of different ecosystems ranging from the 

Chihuahuan Desert to the Chisos Mountains; 

Whereas Native people inhabited the area for thousands of 

years; 

Whereas many people have traversed the Big Bend region in 

the past 150 years, including Spanish explorers, Comanche Indians, Mexican settlers, and American ranchers; 

Whereas in 1933 the Texas Legislature, led by Everett 

Ewing Townsend, established the Texas Canyons State 

Park; 

Whereas later that year the park was expanded and renamed 

Big Bend State Park; 

Whereas Townsend later became known as the Father of Big 

Bend National Park; 

Whereas between 1934 and 1942 the Civilian Conservation 

Corps worked diligently to make the park suitable for 

visitors; and 

Whereas 63 years ago Big Bend National Park, ‘‘Texas’ Gift 

to the Nation’’, was officially established on June 12, 

1944: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the 63rd anniversary of the 

3 founding of Big Bend National Park; and 

4 (2) honors the National Park Service for their 

5 service to the Big Bend region and Big Bend Na6 tional Park. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NorthernTechnologies International Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending November 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew C. Wolsfeld,Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge andbelief:

 

(1)                                                        The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
|                                                                 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Matthew C. Wolsfeld, CPA                                        |   |
| Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary                 |   |
| (principal financial officer and principal accounting  officer) |   |
|                                                            |   |
| Circle  Pines, Minnesota                                        |   |
| January 14, 2009                                           |   |

 

----
(R.D. 11547)

#### Mitsubishi International Corporation *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 13814; 13818.

(Decided June 20, 1968)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

*Eel-win 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 parties herein:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the above appeals for reappraisement consists of footwear having uppers of which over 90% of the exterior surface area is plastic and soles composed wholly or in chief value of rubber (and not having foxing or a foxing-like band applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper) ; and that said footwear was appraised under Section 402a (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> That said footwear was exported from Japan subsequent to February 27, 1958 and was entered for consumption subsequent to said date; and that said footwear is identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27,1958.

> That at the time of exportation of the said imported footwear, no domestic manufacturer offered like or similar footwear for sale, and like or similar footwear was not manufactured or produced in the United States.

> That 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 invoiced unit prices less the items of marine insurance premium and ocean freight from Kobe, Japan, to Seattle, Washington, in the amounts as noted on the invoices, 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.

> That on or about the date of exportation, the foreign value or such value as defined in Section 402a (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, of such or similar merchandise was no higher.

> *911IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the said appeals for reappraisement may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402a(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 'by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such values were the invoiced unit prices, less the items of marine insurance premium and ocean freight in the amounts as noted on the invoices.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
From: amoplle@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:31:13 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,

aracely llerena

Miami, FL 33165
No. R69/9.

reappraisement R65/9122 (Baltimore).

#### Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue is the same in all material respects as that involved in *United States*v. Gehrig, *Hoban &*Co., *Inc.*(54 CCPA 129, C.A.D. 924), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis of value for the Eleroda D.lS sparking machine tool No. 10541, with accessories, and that said value is the appraised value, less the amount described on the invoice as “agent commission”.
```

[114th Congress Public Law 34]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 129 STAT. 433]]

Public Law 114-34
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 2000 Mulford Road in Mulberry, Florida, as the ``Sergeant First Class 
    Daniel M. Ferguson Post Office''. <<NOTE: July 20, 2015 -  [H.R. 
                                1326]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SERGEANT FIRST CLASS DANIEL M. FERGUSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2000 Mulford Road in Mulberry, Florida, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Sergeant First Class Daniel M. Ferguson Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
First Class Daniel M. Ferguson Post Office''.

    Approved July 20, 2015.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1326:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015):
            June 15, considered and passed House.
            July 8, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
(Reap. Dec. 11036)

#### Bruce Duncan, a/c Goliath Distributors, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 19278, etc.

(Decided on rehearing [not published] July 7, 1965)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*539Nichols, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” annexed hereto and made a part hereof, are before me on the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That this stipulation is limited to the items marked “A” and initialed WGC (Examiner’s initials) by Examiner William G. Comthwaite (Examiner’s name) on the invoices covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on Schedule “A” annexed, and is abandoned as to all other merchandise.

> 2. Th'at the merchandise marked “A” consists of GP900E station wagon, model 12, manufactured by Goliath-Werk GMBH of Germany, and exported during the period July 1,1956 to February 27,1957.

> 3. That 'the involved merchandise consists of automobiles entered subsequent to the effective date of 'the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 and identified in the Final List proclaimed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to said Customs Simplification Act (T.D. 54521).

> 4. That on or about the time of exportation of the involved automobiles, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the country of exportation for home consumption or for exportation to the United States.

> 5. That on or about the said time of exportation such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the United States.

> 6. That the cost of production as defined in Section 402(a) (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the said Customs Simplification Act of the automobiles involved herein is as follows:

> DM4709 (plus extras where applicable).

> 7. That the appeals enumerated in the attached Schedule “A” may be submitted on this stipulation, 'the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On tiie agreed facts, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper 'basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise represented 'by the items marked with the letter “A” and the initials of the examiner on the invoices covered by these appeals and that said value is DM4709 (plus extras where applicable).

As to all other merchandise, the appeals, having been abandoned, are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 63855.

protest 303764-K (Los Angeles).

#### Maylo Imports and Arthur J. Fritz & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of kleenex dispenser covers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Quon Quon Company*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2038), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 63850.

protest 58/10654 (New York).

#### Liebermann Waelchli & Co., N.Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the item in question is a household utensil, that it is composed in chief value of tin, and that it is not plated in platinum, gold, or silver, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Mondas Minerals Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the year ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott Bengfort, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
21st day of September, 2010.


/s/ Scott Bengfort
-------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Before the Third Division,

July 8, 1953

No. 57418.

#### Northrup, King & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 176703-K (Minneapolis).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bird’s-foot trefoil seed *(Lotus*corniculatus) similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Transcontinental Seed, Inc. (Alltransport, Incorporated)*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 163, C. D. 1462), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 62274.

#### Aluminum Import Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 274675-K (St. Albans).

*350Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of aluminum alloys similar in all material respects to those the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(45 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 670), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.