alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 65187.

#### Dato Hosiery Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 236917-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in use to thrown silk not more advanced than singles, tram, or organzine and following the principles in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the merchandise entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse, prior to June 6,1951, was held dutiable at 20 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1203 of the tariff act, by similitude, and the items entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse, on and after June 6, 1951, were held dutiable at 10 percent under said paragraph 1203, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), by similitude.
**Exhibit      32.2**

|   |      (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: November              14, 2008 | By:                                            | /s/ Roman              Livson |
|                                      | Roman LivsonChief                Financial Officer  |

----
# N FILED MAY 04 2010

Darrell Lee Wilber, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, 

### u.s. District ana Bankruptcy Courts Plaintiff,

v. Civil ActionNo. United States Government, 

# It**~r70n** Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION PlaintiffDarrell Lee Wilberhas filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees and a pro se complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed. The Court appreciates that complaints filed bypro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Evenpro se litigants, however, must complywiththe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement ofthe grounds upon which the court'sjurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand forjudgment for the reliefthe pleader seeks to obtain. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose ofthe minimum standard ofRule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants ofthe claimbeing asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whetherthe doctrine ofresjudicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977). Having reviewed plaintiffs complaint, the Court cannot decipher what claims the plaintiffintends to pursue against the sole defendant, the United States. The United States, 

# 3however, is immune from suit except where Congress has waived sovereign immunity. Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996); UnitedStates v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206,212 (1983); FDICv. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-85 (1994). As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with the requirements ofRule 8(a) and the Court cannot discern that it has subjectmatterjurisdiction over this complaint. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date:

## ~1 :l 3 1 )..L) I

### D
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 8/12/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JAMES B. KIMBALL,

Defendant-Appellant..

No. 96-3108

(D.C. No. 93-10063-01)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Kimball, appearing pro se, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

appeal the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. Because Mr. Kimball is a

prisoner and his motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees was filed June

13, 1996, he is required to pay an initial partial filing fee and subsequent installments in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The “Statement of Institutional Account”
- 2 -

contained in Mr. Kimball’s motion certifies that Mr. Kimball has 72 cents in drawable

funds and his financial declaration reveals no other assets. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4)

provides that a prisoner may not be prohibited from appealing a criminal judgment

because he “has no assets and no means to pay the initial partial filing fee.” On this basis,

we grant Mr. Kimball’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Mr. Kimball’s conviction for bank robbery was affirmed on appeal. See United

States v. Kimball, 73 F.3d 269 (10th Cir. 1995). The district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. See United States v. Page, 828 F.2d

1476, 1478 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 989 (1987). The inmate’s statement

advanced by Mr. Kimball in support of his motion for a new trial is not exculpatory, nor

would it probably have produced an acquittal. See United States v. Chatman, 994 F.2d

1510, 1518 (10th Cir.), cert denied, 114 S. Ct. 230 (1993).

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66486-66487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20991]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4503-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


Alabama; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Alabama (FEMA-4503-DR), dated March 29, 2020, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on June 29, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Robert D. 
Samaan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for this disaster.

[[Page 66487]]

    This action terminates the appointment of Gracia B. Szczech as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-20991 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Before the First División,

April 29, 1964

No. 68491.

protests 63/123 and 63/1381 (San Francisco).

#### American Import Co. and Wheeler & Miller *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the-merchandise consists of bead chains similar in all material respects to those-the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 CCPA 135, C.A.D. 716), the-claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 57009.

protest 144299-K.

#### Lenox, Inc. *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
#### Samuel A. BELCHER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-6540.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 27, 2005.

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

Samuel A. Belcher, Appellant pro se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Samuel A. Belcher, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Belcher has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

In re : BRYAN BRIGGS, Appellant

______________________

2022

- 1299

______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 4:21

- mc

- 80235

- DMR, Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.

______________________

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Bryan Briggs filed a submission at the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California commencing a miscellaneous action concerning a foreclosure of
his personal property

, requesting “a total of $187,000 .” Complaint at 44, In re Briggs

, No. 4:21

- mc

- 80235

- DMR (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2021), ECF No. 1. The court struck Mr. Briggs’ s filing as improper

, directed him to re

- file as a civil complaint, and closed the matter

. After the court denied his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Briggs filed this appeal

. Responding to thi s court’s March 4, 2022 show cause order,
Mr. Briggs contends that we have jurisdiction.

Our jurisdiction over final decisions of district courts is circumscribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Under that statute, this court has jurisdiction only over district cour t cases Case: 22-1299 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 05/26/2022IN RE : BRIGGS 2

arising under the patent laws, see § 1295(a)(1); or under § 1295(a)(4)(C); or certain cases against the United States for claims “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C . § 1295 (a)(2)

. Mr. Briggs ’s matter falls outside of that limited jurisdiction. *

When this court lacks jurisdict ion, we may transfer to another court, if it is in the interest of justice, where “the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, that court would be the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circui t.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The appeal and all transmittals are transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

May 26

, 2022
Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court

* The court also notes that Mr. Briggs has failed to pay the docketing fee or file a completed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis within the time set forth by this court’s March 4, 2022 order. Case: 22-1299 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 05/26/2022
No. 59785.

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

protest 247156-K (A) (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

An examination of the record showing nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector, the protest was overruled.
EXHIBIT 32.1  Section 1350 Certification  In connection with the Annual Report of Rangeford Resources, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Colin Richardson, Chief Executive Officer and Actingprincipal financial and accounting 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, as amended, and  2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.  July 15, 2014By: /s/ Colin RichardsonColin Richardson, Chief Executive Officer, Acting Principal, Financial and Accounting Officer
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Jack M. Shapiro, Appellant, v Central General Hospital, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 220]

—In a purported proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and Public Health Law § 2801-c, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the Public Health Council dated June 18, 1992, which found "no cause to credit” the petitioner’s complaint that Central General Hospital, Inc., had committed an improper practice under Public Health Law § 2801-b, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated March 10, 1993, which granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision converting the proceeding into an action for injunctive relief *(see,*CPLR 103 [c]), with the notice of petition deemed a summons and the petition deemed a complaint; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The instant litigation arises out of Central General Hospital’s rejection of the application by petitioner, an otolaryngologist, for reappointment to the medical staff at Central General. The Credentials Committee recommended rejecting the petitioner’s application upon a finding that he had made misstatements of *517fact on his application with respect to whether he had ever been denied professional privileges from another institution. Pursuant to Central General’s By-laws, a hearing was held before an Ad Hoc Committee, which also recommended rejection. The Executive Committee adopted the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee, which was affirmed on appeal before the Governing Board. The petitioner thereafter sought review by the Public Health Council, which subsequently dismissed the petitioner’s complaint. The instant proceeding ensued.

We note, initially, that it was improper for the petitioner to commence a proceeding either under CPLR article 78 or Public Health Law § 2801-c, since the only avenue for judicial review of a determination of the Public Health Council is an action for injunctive relief *(see, Matter of Cohoes Mem. Hosp. v Department of Health,*48 NY2d 583). Therefore, we have converted the purported proceeding into an action for injunctive relief *(see,*CPLR 103 [c]).

We find that the record supports the Supreme Court’s adoption of the Public Health Council’s conclusion that the petitioner had deliberately omitted relevant information from his application and that this conduct provided a good faith basis for Central General’s decision not to reappoint the petitioner to the staff *(see,*Public Health Law § 2801-b; *see generally, Fried v Straussman,*41 NY2d 376, 378; *Harris v Eisenberg,*199 AD2d 305, 307; *Jackaway v Northern Dutchess Hosp.,*139 AD2d 496). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the respondents for summary judgment. Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Structureof the Berea oil sand in the Flushing quadrangle, Harrison, Belmont, andGuernsey counties, Ohio**
 
Report | Plates: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:346
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000957978
 
July 27, 2018
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Preliminaryreport on the Santa Maria oil district, Santa Barbara county, California**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:317
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000957754
 
July 26, 2018
From: xeaglerb@crunet.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:50:32 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,

Randy Bryant, SSgt., (USAF) ret

Dresden, TN 38225
Before the Second Division,

May 19, 1966

No. P66/60.

protest 64/23755 (New York).

#### G. Joannou Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *G. Joannou Cycle*Co., *Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.