alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

March 14, 1962

No. 66555.

#### Zunold Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 61/8519 (New York).

*367Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel tbat tbe merchandise consists of bead strings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. S. *H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

December 18, 1963

No. 68175.

#### H. A. & J. L. Wood *v.*United States,

protest 61/11288 (Pembina).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish blocks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons of Nia., Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 229, C.D. 2340), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Timothy Armes, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of MedCareers Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2018 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of MedCareers Group, Inc.  By:/s/ Timothy Armes Timothy Armes Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial/Accounting Officer)  November 7, 2018
No. 64598.

#### Dux, Incorporated, and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/25800, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of furniture similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 39, C.A.D. 669), the claim at 11 percent under the provision in paragraph 412, as modified, *supra,*for other furniture was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of chairs the same as those in C.A.D. 669, *supra,*were held dutiable at 19 or 18 percent, depending upon the date of entry, under the provision in said paragraph, as modified, *supra,*for “Furniture, * * * Chairs.”
(LOGO)
    
    Wachovia Corporation
301 South College
Street Charlotte, NC
28288-5578
    
    (WACHOVIA LOGO)
 
 WDS Receivables LLC
    
    U.S. Bank. National Association444 East Warm Springs Road
    
    60 Livingston Avenue, EP-MN-WS3DLas Vegas, Nevada 89119
    
    St. Paul, MN 55107-2292Attn: Keith FordWachovia Auto Owner Trust 2008-A
    
    Moodys Investors Service, Inc.c/o Wilmington Trust Company
    
    ABS Monitoring DepartmentRodney Square North
    
    99 Church Street1100 North Market Street
    
    New York, New York 10007Wilmington, Delaware 19890-0001Standard & Poors Ratings ServicesAttention: Asset Backed Surveillance Department55 Water StreetNew York, New York 10041
    Dated: March 27, 2009
    WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
As Master Servicer,/s/ William NelsonWilliam NelsonVice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE THIRD
QUARTER 1996 10-Q OF INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000874578
<NAME> INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                           11767
<SECURITIES>                                     99952
<RECEIVABLES>                                    72764
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      98354
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                317200
<PP&E>                                          482416
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1282309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           159134
<BONDS>                                         239760
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      694387
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1282309
<SALES>                                         544135
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                544135
<CGS>                                           320295
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   320295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               21879
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  98251
<INCOME-TAX>                                     35647
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              62604
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     62604
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
        

</TABLE>
No. 68492.

protests 306829-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### The American Import Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the-merchandise consists of paperweights similar in all material respects to those-the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 10.3

STOCK SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT 

is made and entered as of April 02, 2018

 

 

 

Seller: Leo Members, Inc. 

Address: ES Tower 6F, Teheranro 52 Gil 17, Gangnamgu, Seoul Korea. 

 

Buyer: Young-hee Kim 

Address: 31, Sangmo-ro 10-gil, Gumi-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea. 

 

 

AGREEMENT

 

The Seller desires to sell, and the Buyer desires to purchase, Two Thousand (2,000) shares of common stock (the “Shares”) of Leo Trading, Inc. on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.  

 

In consideration of, and in express reliance upon, the representations and warranties of the Seller and the Buyer in this Agreement, the Seller agrees to sell, assign and transfer to the Buyer, all of its right, title and interest in and to the Share at the per sharers price of KRW 1,000, for an aggregate purchase price of 2,000,000 KRW ("Purchase Amount") for the Shares. 

 

The Purchase Amount shall be paid by cash or wire transfer to bank account designated by the Seller within Ten (10) days from the Agreement established.  

 

 

Leo Members, Inc. ("Seller")

 

By:                                                                       

 

/s/ Shi Chul Kang

__________________________                      

Name:Shi Chul Kang                               

Title:CEO                                          

Date:          April 02, 2018

 

Young-hee Kim ("Buyer ")

 

By:                                                                       

 

/s/ Young-hee Kim

__________________________                      

Name:     Young-hee Kim 

Date:         April 02, 2018
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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DAN BEDKER, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN, KIMBERLY ACKER,

VICTORIA ROBERTS, and SIX TO BE

NAMED DEFENDANTS, 

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5276RBL

ORDER GRANTING

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge J. Kelley Arnold, objections to the report and recommendation, if any, and the remaining record,

does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;

(3) Plaintiff’s causes of action are DISMISSED; and plaintiff’s pending motions, if any, are

denied as being moot;

(4) Defendant’s request to publish is DENIED.

(5) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Hon. J. Kelley

Arnold

DATED this 24th day of April, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05276-RBL Document 33 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cv-05014-RBL Document 28 Filed 09/14/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-05014-RBL Document 28 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 79 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 79

Recognizing the establishment of Hunters for the Hungry programs across 
 the United States and the contributions of those programs efforts to 
              decrease hunger and help feed those in need.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 2007

  Mr. Gingrey (for himself, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. 
  Miller of Michigan, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. McCotter, Mr. 
Carter, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Coble, Mr. Carney, Mr. Terry, Mr. Calvert, Mr. 
    Miller of Florida, Mr. Pearce, and Mr. English of Pennsylvania) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                             on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the establishment of Hunters for the Hungry programs across 
 the United States and the contributions of those programs efforts to 
              decrease hunger and help feed those in need.

Whereas Hunters for the Hungry programs are cooperative efforts among hunters, 
        sportsmen's associations, meat processors, State meat inspectors, and 
        hunger relief organizations to help feed those in need;
Whereas during the past three years Hunters for the Hungry programs have brought 
        hundreds of thousands of pounds of venison to homeless shelters, soup 
        kitchens, and food banks; and
Whereas each year donations have multiplied as Hunters for the Hungry programs 
        continue to feed those in need: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the cooperative efforts of hunters, 
        sportsmen's associations, meat processors, State meat 
        inspectors, and hunger relief organizations to establish 
        Hunters for the Hungry programs across the United States; and
            (2) recognizes the contributions of Hunters for the Hungry 
        programs to efforts to decrease hunger and help feed those in 
        need.
                                 <all>
```
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000517 31-JUL-2013 07:58 AM
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-31020 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SIMEON RAFAEL; EPIFANIO GONZAGA, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. CR-94-104-B-M1

- - - - - - - - - - September 11, 1996 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Simeon Rafael and Epifanio Gonzaga challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions for importation of cocaine, possession of cocaine on board a vessel arriving in the United States, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. We have throughly reviewed the record and the arguments raised in the briefs and find no reversible error. See United States v.2

Velgar-Vivero , 8 F.3d 236, 241 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 1865, 2715 (1994). The appellants also challenge the admission of testimony concerning a statement by Gonzaga and of the witness’s opinion concerning what Gonzaga meant. Even if the admission of Bambao’s testimony was error, it was harmless in light of the other evidence against Rafael and Gonzaga. See United States v. Gadison , 8 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 1993). Rafael and Gonzaga’s convictions are AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 464 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 72
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 464

                          [Report No. 110-179]

  Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 5) to amend the Public 
 Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 6, 2007

    Ms. Matsui, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 5) to amend the Public 
 Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.

    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (S. 5) to amend the Public 
Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. 
All points of order against the bill and against its consideration are 
waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall 
be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: 
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; 
and (2) one motion to commit.
    Sec. 2. During consideration of S. 5 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may 
postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be 
designated by the Speaker.
                                                  House Calendar No. 72

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 464

                          [Report No. 110-179]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 5) to amend the Public 
 Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 6, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
No. 62308.

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 169586-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *E. C. Carter & Son, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 368, C. D. 1889), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-1163

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Steve Euans, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 6, 2003 Filed: June 19, 2003

___________ Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Steve Euans pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, and to possess pseudoephedrine or ephedrine pills, intending and having reasonable cause to believe that the chemical would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. At sentencing, after acknowledging that the parties had stipulated to and the presentence report (PSR) recommended a 2-level role1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -2- enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), the district court 1 instead imposed a 3-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), explaining that there were five or more participants in the criminal activity. Granting the government’s motion for a small substantial-assistance departure, the court sentenced Euans to 200 months imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. On appeal, Euans’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Euans has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that the district court should not have applied the role enhancement, that he should have been granted a largerdeparture, and that his sentence was disproportionate to the sentences of his coconspirators. Euans may not challenge the applicability of a 2-level role increase under section 3B1.1(c) because he specifically stipulated to it in his plea agreement, see United States v. Nguyen , 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995); and the district court did not plainly err in sua sponte imposing a further 1-level increase under section 3B1.1(b) based upon the involvement of five or more participants, as there is no dispute that five or more participants were actually involved in the conspiracy, and the timely received PSR afforded sufficient notice of the enhancement to satisfy due process, see United States v. Kamerud , 326 F.3d 1008, 1013 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review); United States v. Adipietro , 983 F.2d 1468, 1473-74 (8th Cir. 1993) (affirming sua sponte 3-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(b)). The extent of the substantial-assistance departure is unreviewable, see United States v. Dutcher , 8F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir. 1993), and Euans may not rely on the sentences of his coconspirators as a “yardstick” for his own, seeUnited States v. Thompson , 51 F.3d 122, 126 (8th Cir. 1995).-3- We have further reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We now grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                          21,242
<SECURITIES>                                    13,024
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,758
<ALLOWANCES>                                       914
<INVENTORY>                                     16,127
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,522
<PP&E>                                          26,797
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,185
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,078
<BONDS>                                          1,473
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,823
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,770
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,191
<SALES>                                         38,585
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,585
<CGS>                                           18,960
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,053
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,389
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  23
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,643
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,601
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,042
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,042
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        

</TABLE>
LifetimeSURVIVAL FUNCTION OF HEAT PUMPSLifetime Distribution 18.4 years Average Life 18.4 yearsFraction FractionAge Retired Surv0 0.000 1.0001 0.002 0.9982 0.002 0.9963 0.002 0.9944 0.002 0.9925 0.002 0.9906 0.002 0.9887 0.001 0.9878 0.012 0.9769 0.019 0.95610 0.026 0.93011 0.033 0.89712 0.039 0.85813 0.043 0.81514 0.046 0.76915 0.049 0.72016 0.051 0.66917 0.053 0.61618 0.056 0.56019 0.060 0.50020 0.067 0.43321 0.078 0.35522 0.093 0.26223 0.116 0.14624 0.146 0.000Wt.Avg 18.4Source:M.E. Bucher, C.M. Grastataro, W.R. Coleman. 1990. "Heat Pump Life and Compressor Longevity in Diverse Climates."ASHRAE Transactions.AT-90-29-3.Survival Function of Heat Pumps0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0 5 10 15 20 25Age (year)

% SurvivingPage 1
Before the First Division,

February 18, 1958

No. 61561.

#### Wheeler & Miller *v.*United States,

protest 294172-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

When the protest was called for trial, it was agreed that the merchandise in question is properly dutiable, as claimed. The protest was, therefore, sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herbert SMART, a/k/a Panama, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6118.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 29, 2001.

Decided June 18, 2001.

*78Herbert Smart, pro se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, VA, for appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Herbert Smart seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Smart,*No. CR-97-25; CA-00-910-2 (E.D.Va. Dec. 19, 2000). 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.*
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 680 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 23, 2007.
Whereas the Vietnam Veterans Memorial serves as a memorial to the 2,700,000 men 
        and women in the United States Armed Forces who served in the designated 
        war zone during the Vietnam Era;
Whereas 58,256 men and women died while serving in South East Asia or as a 
        result of their wounds or a service-connected disability;
Whereas on Friday evening, September 7, 2007, the United States Park Police 
        reported being notified of a light, oily, and unidentified substance 
        that was spilled over portions of some of the names, panels, and paving 
        stones of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial;
Whereas at least 14 of the 140 inscribed panels of the Memorial Wall were 
        damaged; and
Whereas the National Park Service has determined that the damage was the result 
        of an act of vandalism: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives condemns all attacks upon the 
memory of veterans and their service to the United States, as exemplified by the 
incident of vandalism of September 7, 2007.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```