alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BEFORE THE SECOND DIVISION,

October 4, 1956

No. 60271.

protest 268714-K (New York).

#### Hanna’s *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Official Journal C 266/27 O

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 266 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4827 October 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 266

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4827 October 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 266/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 266/2 | Extension and amendment of public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services within Greece in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1) | 2 |
| 2005/C 266/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3928 — Teva/Ivax) (1) | 3 |
| 2005/C 266/4 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3720 — Baes/AMS) (1) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 266/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 266/2

Extension and amendment of public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services within Greece in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1)

2

2005/C 266/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3928 — Teva/Ivax) (1)

3

2005/C 266/4

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3720 — Baes/AMS) (1)

4

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 266/5 | Call for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’ — Thematic priority area: ‘Specific activities covering a wider field of research’ — Call identifier: FP6-2005-NEST-Path | 5 |

III   Notices

Commission

2005/C 266/5

Call for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’ — Thematic priority area: ‘Specific activities covering a wider field of research’ — Call identifier: FP6-2005-NEST-Path

5

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 115 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 115

   Expressing support for a National Day of Unity in response to the 
           President's call for a national dialogue on race.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 1997

   Mrs. Boxer (for herself and Mr. Johnson) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing support for a National Day of Unity in response to the 
           President's call for a national dialogue on race.

Whereas the President has called for a national dialogue on race;
Whereas an appropriate way to meet the President's challenge is to establish a 
        National Day of Unity when all Americans can celebrate their common 
        heritage and shared destiny;
Whereas such a day would be a means to build a bridge that would finally cross 
        the racial and other divides of our Nation and to achieve the unity our 
        Nation desires and needs; and
Whereas no particular day can close all divisions within our Nation, but by 
        coming together on a National Day of Unity, we can focus the dialogue 
        the President seeks, and that the Nation needs: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That a National Day of Unity should be established in 
order to facilitate a national dialogue to encourage Americans to renew 
their commitment to liberty and justice for all and to celebrate our 
unity.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Jose R., Respondent, v Blanche M., Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 9]

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Leah Ruth Marks, J.), entered June 24, 1993, which granted petitioner custody of the parties’ minor child and modified its prior order of visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court’s findings are to be accorded great respect *(Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167,173-174), as the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the parties and professionals, and thus its findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record *(Matter of Daniel R. v Noel R.,*195 AD2d 704, 706). The court properly determined that respondent failed to provide evidence *223that petitioner had sexually abused her daughter from a previous marriage. Nor was the court obliged to adopt the recommendations of the law guardian at trial *(Zelnik v Zelnik,*196 AD2d 700), who on appeal has undergone a change of position and now supports the determination of the trial court. The court’s custody determination was based upon the totality of the circumstances and is in the best interests of the child *(see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89, 95; *Eschbach v Eschbach, supra,*at 172-173). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Rule 13a-14(a) Certification by the Chief Financial Officer**I, Michael Schradle, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Micro Linear Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.         Date: August 17, 2005           By: /s/ Michael W. Schradle             Michael W. Schradle      Chief Financial Officer      (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Robert Holland KOON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Charles M. CONDON, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-6803.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 3, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 16, 2005.

Robert Holland Koon, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Robert Holland Koon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of *164jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 16, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on April 16, 2004.* Because Koon failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We further deny Koon’s motions for appointment of counsel. 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*

*

 On limited remand, the district court found that April 16, 2004, is the earliest date that Koon could have properly delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
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

JEREMY LOYD GRAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER KENNEDY et

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5697FDB

ORDER

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and

MJR 4. On February 13th, 2006 the court entered an Order requiring plaintiff to submit service documents

including copies of the complaint. (Dkt. # 13). Plaintiff has not complied. Instead he has sent a letter

reiterating the allegations in the complaint and asking for legal help. (Dkt. # 14). The court cannot give legal

advise. Plaintiff indicates he is getting out of prison in November and wishes to continue this action at that

time.

Plaintiff filed this action October 21st, 2005. (Dkt. # 1). The case is on the courts docket and there are

time frames for civil actions. One such time frame is the 120 day time for perfecting service. See, Fed. R. Civ.

P 4(m). While this time frame has run the court has the ability to extend time for service for a reasonable

Case 3:05-cv-05697-FDB Document 15 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order

Page - 2

amount of time. Waiting until November of 2006 is not an option at this point in the proceedings. Plaintiff

was ordered to submit service documents and plaintiff was specifically informed that failure to provide the

documents would result in a Report and Recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for

failure to prosecute. (Dkt. # 13). Plaintiff has not complied with the court’s order. Plaintiff may wish to take a

voluntary non suit, Fed. R. Civ. P 41 (a), and repay a second filing fee; or he may comply with the court’s

order and submit service documents and identify the John Doe defendants so the court can attempt service.

The court will give plaintiff until April 21st , 2006 to provide service documents. If plaintiff does not

comply a Report and Recommendation to dismiss this action without prejudice will be entered at that time.

The clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on April 21st, 2006, and send plaintiff a

copy of this order. 

DATED this 20th day of March, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05697-FDB Document 15 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Norde JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Isaiah MCKINNON, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 99-2477.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

July 6, 2001.

Before RYAN and COLE, Circuit Judges; MARBLEY,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-Appellant Norde James appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees on his claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. James was employed as Director of Police Personnel for the City of Detroit and filed suit against Defendants-Appellees the City of Detroit; Isaiah McKinnon, the Chief of Police for the City of Detroit; Kenneth Hollowell, a member of the Board of Police Commissioners; Miriam Clark, another Commissioner; and Gary Dent, Director of Human Resources. James alleges that Defendants: (1) deprived him of a liberty interest in violation the Due Process Clause by publishing stigmatizing information about him and then denying him a name-clearing hearing; and (2) violated the First Amendment by terminating him in retaliation for threatening to uncover corruption within the Detroit Police Department.

By order dated July 16, 1999, the district court (1) granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the First Amendment and procedural due process claims as to all defendants; (2) granted summary judgment on the liberty interest due process claim as to Defendants Hollowell and McKinnon; and (3) denied summary judgment on the liberty interest due process claim as to Defendants Clark, Dent, and the City of Detroit. On July 28, 1999, Defendants filed a motion for partial reconsideration on grounds that James failed to present any evidence that Defendants published any stigmatizing information about him or that he had requested, and was denied, a name-clearing hearing. On November 24, 1999, the district court granted Defendants’ motion for partial reconsideration and entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the remaining claims.

After careful review of the record, applicable law, counsels’ briefs and arguments, and the district court orders, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. We also believe that issuance of a full written opinion in this case would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, based upon the reasoning set forth in the district court’s July 16 and November 24, 1999, orders, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
No. 63879.

protests 168223-K, etc. (New York).

#### National Carloading Corp. and L. D. Ling et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, except that they are not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, nor colored with gold lacquer, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 60267.

protests 200716-K (A), etc. (New York).

#### Accurate Millinery Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that the items marked “A,” “B,” and “C” are neither appropriate nor suitable for the purpose of ornamentation to which artificial' flowers may be temporarily devoted; that the items marked “A” have been produced by subjecting fibers of straw to various processing steps, including dyeing, which result in a completed article of commerce in chief value of straw; that the items marked “B” have been produced by subjecting fibers of straw to various processing steps which result in a completed article of commerce in chief value of straw in its natural state; that the items marked “C” have been produced by subjecting fibers of ramie to various processing steps which result in a completed article of commerce, not specially provided for, in chief value of vegetable fiber (other than cotton); and that the issue is the same in all material respects as that involved in *Louis Weinberg Associates, Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 182, C. D. 1465). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited authority, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked “A” as nonenumerated manufactured articles at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 on the merchandise imported prior to October 7, 1951, and at 10 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52827), on the merchandise imported on and after said date; (2) the items marked “B” as manufactures of straw, not specially provided for, at 12)4 percent under paragraph 1537 (a), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802), on the items imported prior to December 11, 1950, and at 25 percent under said paragraph of the tariff act on the items imported on and after said date, by virtue of T. D. 52587; and (3) the items marked “C” as manufactures in chief value of vegetable fiber (other than cotton) at 20 percent under paragraph 1023, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373).
|                            |   |                                                                              |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:      March 15, 2010  | By:    | /s/      George C. Critz, III                                                     |   |
|                            |   | George      C. Critz, III                                                         |   |
|                            |   | President      (Principal Executive Officer and      Principal Financial Officer) |   |
|                            |   |                                                                              |   |

----

| *  | This      certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the      Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of      1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report),      irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such      filing. |
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
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

SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS

TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 

PAGE -1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

GREGORY BROWN,

 Defendant.

 CASE NO. CR06-35 RSM

 SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S.

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

 OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

INTRODUCTION

I conducted a hearing on alleged violations of supervised release in this case on January 5,

2006. The United States was represented by Annette Hayes for Jeffrey Sullivan. The defendant

was represented by Paula Deutsch. 

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

Defendant had been convicted of Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute

Methamphetamine on or about September 24, 1998 in the District of New Mexico. The defendant

was sentenced to 121 months of confinement, followed by five years of supervised release.

Jurisdiction of his case was transferred from the District of New Mexico on February 2, 2006 and

assigned to the Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez. 

The defendant began his initial term of supervised release on August 22, 2005. The

conditions of supervised release included requirements that defendant comply with the standard 13

Case 2:06-cr-00035-RSM Document 19 Filed 01/08/07 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

27

28

SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS

TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 

PAGE -2- 

conditions. Two previous violation reports were submitted to the court between April and October,

2006 by the U.S. Probation office.

DEFENDANT'S ADMISSION

USPO Mark Lorenzen for Christopher Luscher alleged that Defendant violated the conditions

of supervised release in one respect:

(1) Failing to reside in and satisfactorily participate in a residential reentry program, on

or about December 8, 2006, in violation of special condition requiring that he reside

in a residential reentry center as a condition of supervised release for a period of up

to 180 days.

I advised the defendant of these charges and of his constitutional rights. Defendant admitted the

violation, waived any hearing as to whether it occurred, and stipulated to detention. The matter will

be set for a disposition hearing before the Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez at a future date. 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the foregoing, I recommend the court find that Defendant has violated the

conditions of his supervised release as alleged and set the matter for a disposition hearing.

Defendant has been detained pending a final determination by the court.

DATED this 8th day of January, 2007.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Sentencing Judge : Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez

Assistant U.S. Attorney : Jeffrey Sullivan

Defense Attorney : Paula Deutsch

U. S. Probation Officer : Chris Luscher

Case 2:06-cr-00035-RSM Document 19 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 2