alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10791)

#### Arnold, Schwinn & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. H-485, etc.

(Decided July 8, 1964)

*Spray, Price, Townsend & Oushmcm*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purposes of certain bicycle coaster brake hubs, imported from Austria, forms the subject of the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule attached to and made a part of this decision.

The cases have been submitted for determination by the court on a stipulation of fact by the parties hereto wherein it has been agreed that the bicycle coaster brake hubs in issue are not specified in the official final list promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury (93 Treas. Dec. 14, T.D. 54521), pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165). It was further agreed by the parties that, on or about the respective dates of exportation of said articles, such or similar merchandise was freely sold and offered for sale for exportation to the United States in the principal markets of Austria to all purchasers, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, at a price of $1.59 per unit.

*375Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that 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, *supra*(19 U.S.C. § 1401a (b)), is the proper basis of value for the bicycle coaster brake hubs in issue and that said value is $1.59 per unit.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE/

United States v. Rollness, CR06-041 RSL - 1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

(206) 553-7970

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

The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

v.

RODNEY LEE ROLLNESS,

Defendant.

NO. CR06-041 RSL 

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE

The Court, having reviewed the Stipulated Motion of the Parties regarding a 

proposed briefing schedule for the motion for reduction in sentence hereby states that IT

IS ORDERED that the motion be granted. The briefing schedule shall be as follow: 

a. Any amended or supplement motion by counsel on behalf of the defendant

should be filed on or before June 4, 2021;

b. The government’s response to the motion should be filed on or before

June 18, 2021;

c. Any reply should then be filed on or before June 24, 2021 and the matter

noted June 25, 2021.

DATED this _____ day of May, 2021.

ROBERT S. LASNIK

United States District Court Judge

Presented by:

/s/ Helen J. Brunner

HELEN J. BRUNNER

Assistant United States Attorney

14th
p

, 

u.S. EPA, Region 9

Mr. Gerardo Rios

AIR-3

US EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Subject: Clarification of the 2007 Transport SIP as it relates to the PSD Program in Mendocino County

Dear Mr. Rios:

The District is submitting this letter as clarification regarding the 2007 Transport SIP and the PSD program for Mendocino County.

On November 16, 2007, the California Air Resources Board submitted the “Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 to satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air Act, Section 1 1 0(a)(2)(D)(i) for the State of Californiafl (2007 Transport SIP).

The 2007 Transport SIP includes an evaluation of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs implemented by California air districts. The evaluation was included to address the requirement in CAA, Section 1 10(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding adequate provisions to prohibit emissions of air pollutants which will interfere with measures required for any other State under Title I, Part C of the CAA, to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.

The PSD program for Mendocino County was amended as a result ofthe PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR 82536 (Dec. 30, 2010). The 2007 Transport SIP should be read with respect to CAA, Section 1 l0(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) to reflect the PSD program for Mendocino County as it is currently federally approved.

Thank you. Please call the District office at 707-463-4354 if you have any questions.

Christopher D. Bro, AICP

Air Pollution Control Officer

Smaiig’Administrative/ARB-EPA/Letter to EPA re PSD.-SJP 4-21-Il
Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc., a
company duly formed under the laws of Colorado (the "Company"), for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Mark A. Smith, President (Chief
Executive Officer) and Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting
Officer) of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.



Date:  May 5, 2010                     /s/ Mark A. Smith
                                       Mark A. Smith
                                       Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Principal Financial Officer


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Before Judge Wilson,

March 30, 1966

No. R66/4.

reappraisement R65/17615 (San Francisco).

#### Shalom Baby-Wear, Inc. *v.*United States,

*914WilsoN, J.

In. accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the facts and issues are the same in all material respects as those in *Shalom Baby-Wear, Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 526, Reap. Dec. 10905), 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, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis of value for the cotton shirts and pants in issue and that such value was the appraised value, less the buying commission, as stated on the invoice.
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

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1

(C06-244RSM)

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ALEXEI SERGEEVICH MIRKIN, )

) No. C06-244-RSM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

) 

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ) STIPULATED MOTION 

Attorney General, et al., ) AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

) 

Defendants. ) ) 

Plaintiff and Defendants, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree

that the Plaintiff, Alexei Sergeevich Mirkin, is scheduled to become a naturalized citizen of the

United States on August 31, 2006, and that the above-captioned action has thus become moot. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff and Defendant hereby jointly move the Court for an order dismissing,

//

//

//

Case 2:06-cv-00244-RSM Document 7 Filed 08/28/06 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

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2

(C06-244RSM)

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

with prejudice, the Petition for Naturalization Hearing dated February 13, 2006, without claim

of either party for attorney’s fees or costs.

Respectfully submitted,

 s/Bart Klein DATED: August 23, 2006 BART KLEIN, WSBA #10909

Attorney for Plaintiff

JOHN McKAY

United States Attorney

 s/Robert P. Brouillard DATED: August 23, 2006 

ROBERT P. BROUILLARD, WSBA #19786

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendants

ORDER

The above is SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 28 day of August, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00244-RSM Document 7 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.01



CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,
Daniel Bates, 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 WindStream Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of WindStream
Technologies, Inc.



|                         | By:    | /s/
    DANIEL BATES       
|------------------------ | ------ | ---------------------------
|Date:
    April 15, 2015 | Name:  | Daniel Bates               
|                         | Title: | Chief Executive
    Officer



I,
William K. Thorpe, 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 WindStream Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of WindStream
Technologies, Inc.



|                         | By:    | /s/
    WILLIAM K. THORPE  
|------------------------ | ------ | ---------------------------
|Date:
    April 15, 2015 | Name:  | William K. Thorpe          
|                         | Title: | Chief Financial
    Officer
0 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Fed~ral Aviation 

Administration 

MAR.ll2013 

Mr. Richard S. Adler 

Certification Engineer 

Wipaire, Incorporated 

1700 Henry Avenue- Fleming Fie]d 

South St Paul, 1vfN 55075 

Dear Mr. Adler: 

Smli!ll Airplane Directorate 

90 1 Locust Street 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106 

This letter is to infonn you that we have received and begun processing your petition for 

exemption. It acknowledges receipt of the petition and describes how we will process it. 

We Have the Petition. 

We have received your February 12~ 2013 petition on behalf ofWipaire, Incorporated 

(Wipaire) for an. exemption from§§ 23.3(a) and 135.113 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations ( 14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would allow Wipaire to increase the 

number of passenger seats for the Cessna Caravan~ model 20 8, and Grand Caravan, model 

208B, airplanes to ten, while maintaining the Type Certification (TC) approved maximtun 

seats of eleven~ including crew. 

We have added your petition to the public docket (No. FAA-2013~0156) and we are 

processing it. We wi11 contact you if we need additional information .. 

How We Will Process the Petition 

A petition for an exemption, according to § 11.63 (d), must be sent to the FAA at least 

120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption .. In addition, we publish a 

summary of the petition in the Federal Register for public comment unless, according to 

§ 11.87, we determine that good cause exists for not publishing it. 
We will advise you of the agency's final decision on yotu· petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions in the meantime. you may contact Mr. Mark James, (816) 329~4137. 

Sincerely, 

Earl Lawrence 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service 

2
August 23, 2010

Hazardous Waste Management System

Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals 

Environmental Protection Agency

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640

RE: Comments Relative to “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; 

Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion 

Residuals from Electric Utilities”

The Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) appreciates the 

opportunity to submit comments on the proposed United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) rule regulating coal combustion residuals (CCR’s) under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). DelDOT has a strong interest in the proposed 

rule as it could substantially affect the beneficial use of CCR’s within our state.

Currently, DelDOT encourages the use of CCR’s, specifically fly ash, in the 

production of flowable fill (controlled low strength concrete) to mitigate the deleterious 

chemical reaction known as alkali-silica reactivity (ASR) in hydraulic cement concrete. 

Years of laboratory and field testing by DelDOT’s Materials & Research Section has 

shown that coal fly ash can decrease concrete’s permeability, therefore increasing the 

longevity of concrete infrastructure components. In addition to benefitting plastic and 

hardened concrete properties, the incorporation of fly ash into concrete mix design and 

production can reduce the need for Portland cement which subsequently reduces the 

environmental impacts associated with cement manufacturing.

Characterizing CCR’s as a “special waste” under Subtitle C would discourage the 

beneficial utilization of this product, and require it to be sent instead to hazardous waste 

landfills where its engineering and economic potential would not be realized. Of the 

proposed options, regulation under Subtitle D, which only regulates CCR’s when 

disposed in surface impoundments or landfills, would be the least harmful to DelDOT’s 

efforts to utilize materials that improve the durability of our State’s roads and bridges and 

promote the recycling of materials in construction.

In conclusion, DelDOT appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed 

rule. We would prefer the continued unregulated use of CCR’s because we believe this 

allows and encourages creativity in developing a broad array of beneficial uses. If 

regulation is unavoidable, then including it under Subtitle D is the least objectionable 

regulatory approach for agencies like ours that strive to be innovative and find beneficial 

uses for materials that offer improved quality and/or less cost to standard construction 

materials.
Sincerely,

Carolann Wicks

Secretary

Cc: Natalie Barnhart, Chief Engineer

Jim Pappas, Assistant Director, Design

Rob McCleary, Assistant Director, Engineering Support

Paul Welsh, Planning Manager
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant
to U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Cajigas, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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 as of the dates and for the periods presented.



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 6 , 2013 |  |  |  |  |  | /S/ John Cajigas                     
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | John Cajigas                         
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of
any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

KEITH L. NASH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5127 RJB/KLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Karen L. Strombom (Dkt. 78). The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation, the

plaintiff’s objections thereto (Dkt. 81), and the remaining record.

I. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Mr. Nash alleges that his civil rights were violated and seeks injunctive relief against

employees of the Airway Heights Corrections Center (AHCC), where he is currently housed.

Because AHCC employees are not parties to this lawsuit, the Report and Recommendation

recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion For a Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary

Restraining Order (Dkt. 70). 

The plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation in which he “concedes to

the entry of the magistrate’s (R&R) and only request’s [sic] the district judge to keep the (R&R) on

the record for other court purposes or future proceedings.” Dkt. 81. The Report and

Recommendation is and will remain a part of the electronic file. The Court should therefore adopt

the Report and Recommendation.

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 85 Filed 01/18/07 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 ORDER - 2

II. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that

(1) the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) the motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. 70) is DENIED;

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendants

and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 18th day of January, 2007.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 85 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 63-14 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 1 of 3

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 63 Att. 13

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 63-14 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 63-14 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 3 of 3
Before Judge Donlon,

April 3, 1969

No. R69/12.

reappraisements R62/8851, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, facts, and issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc., et al.*(54 CCPA 93, C.A.D. 914), 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 for the determination of the value of the sundry and novelty items here involved and that such values are the invoice unit ex-factory prices, net packed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       39453 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                44000 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            271653 
<PP&E>                                       39707 
<DEPRECIATION>                               12939 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             2221501 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1607701 
<BONDS>                                     967500 
<COMMON>                                  20829677 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                 198000 
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               2221501 
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            113522 
<CGS>                                       250358 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               307848 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            150125 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           18500 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (444684)
<DISCONTINUED>                              (39218)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (652528)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        

</TABLE>