alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 58310.

protests 161594-K, etc. (Pembina).

#### F. C. Mackay *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the Western white spruce lumber the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(31 Cust. Ct. 13, C. D. 1538), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said items.
10

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
i9
20

21

23
24
25

26

a
FES en ODGEP

TT RECEIVED

MAR 5 2608

CLERK 8.5, 5

2 Gar TACO
WESTER TISTICT GF WASHINGTON AT TACT,

BY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. CR05-5828FDB
* VERDICT

BRIANA WATERS,

Defendant.

We the jury unanimously find the following:
Count 1: Conspiracy
Guilty Not Guilty

If you find the defendant guilty of this Count, answer question number 1. If you find the
defendant not guilty of this Count, proceed to Count 4.
Question 1
We unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the particular crime(s) that the
defendant and another person or persons conspired to commit is (are):
arson
using destructive devices during crimes of violence

making unregistered destructive devices

ML
ML!

05-CR-05828-VRDCT

ORDER - I



10
rh
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26

Count 4:

Count 5:

Count 6:

Count 7:

Possessing an Unregistered Firearm
Guilty Not Guilty
Arson of a Building in Interstate Commerce or in Activity Affecting Interstate
Commerce
Guilty vv“ Not Guilty
Using a Destructive Device During a Crime of Violence
Guilty Not Guilty
Arson of a Building Belonging to an Institution Receiving Federal Financial

Assistance

Guilty v Not Guilty

mark

DATED this @ day of Eebreary, 2008.

ORDER - 2

Q-

eal
PRESIDING JUROR
Case No. 14,265.

#### TURNER v. WILLIAMS.

[18 Int. Rev. Rec. 6.]

Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio.

1873.

Internal Revenue — Distillers—Estimates from Survey — Equitable Claims for Abatement of Tax.

This was an action brought [by Silas W. Turner] to recover money paid to Robert Williams, Jr., as collector of the Third district of Ohio, upon a second assessment made against plaintiff as a distiller. The plaintiff, for the month of September, 1868, made return as having mashed 1.167 44-100 bushels of grain, and produced 2,795 gallons proof spirits; that by reason of bursting one of the fermenting tubs, 10,907 gallons of mash, the product of 247 37-100 bushels of grain, was lost; that the surveyed capacity of plaintiff's distillery was 300 bushels of grain per day, and was capable of producing therefrom 900 gallons of spirits, or three gallons of spirits to the bushel; that having made return of his actual yield, exceeding eighty per cent, of his producing capacity, he was assessed and paid the assessment therefor. Subsequently he was reassessed for the difference between his return and the amount that he was estimated upon his survey to be able to produce from the amount of grain mashed without deduction for the material lost by the bursting of the fermenting tub. These facts being substantially set out in the petition the defendant demurred.

Warner M. Bateman, U. S. Atty., for defendant.

Bruce Wilson, for plaintiff.

THE COURT

held, following the decision of the supreme court in the case of Stevenson v Beggs [17 Wall. (84 U. S.) 182], that the distiller was liable for the amount of spirits which the survey under the 10th section of the act of July 20, 186S T15 Stat. 129]. ascertained him to be able to produce from the material used, irrespective of the *378amount which he may have-in fact, produced; nor could he be permitted to show a loss of material occurring subsequently to the beginning of the process by mashing for the production of spirits; that his only remedy was an appeal to the commissioner of internal revenue, who was vested by law with the authority to allow any equitable -claims for abatement; that under the policy of the revenue laws no such power was possessed by the courts.
No. R69/14.

reappraisements R65/13735 and R66/6258 (New York).

#### Mantell Export Co. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues and merchandise involved herein are the same in all material respects as those in *Mantell Export Company*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 662, R.D. 11290), 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, was the proper basis for the determination of the value of the second-quality wooden coat hangers and that such value in each case was $99 per 1,000, less the pro rata share of the items of ocean freight and marine insurance premium as invoiced.
No. 61112.

protests 242171-K, etc. (New York).

#### Wally Harasty and Surface Freight Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of monofilament fishing lines the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 60183, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# Official Journal C 167/20 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 167 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5020 July 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 167

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5020 July 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2007/C 167/01 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2004/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility and repealing Directive 89/336/EEC
  (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)
   (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2007/C 167/01

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2004/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility and repealing Directive 89/336/EEC
  (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)
   (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)

1

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
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 EXTENDING

TIME TO FILE INDICTMENT - 1

(Octavio Gonzales-Valdez CR05-342-JLR)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 553-1100

JUDGE JAMES L. ROBART

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

OCTAVIO GONZALES-VALDEZ,

Defendant.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR 05-342-JLR

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE

INDICTMENT

The Court, having reviewed the stipulation of the parties, and the defendant’s

agreement to extend the time for an indictment, finds as fact those facts stipulated to by

counsel in that document, and hereby makes the following findings of fact:

1. A failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence,

within the meaning of Title 18, U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B).

2. An extension of time in which to indict may result in the possible

resolution of the case without an indictment and without trial. Thus, the ends of justice

will be served by ordering a continuance in this case, that a continuance is necessary to

ensure effective trial preparation, and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the

public in a more speedy trial, within the meaning of Title 18, U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time within which an indictment in this case

must be filed against the defendant shall be extended from October 13, 2005 to

Case 2:05-cr-00342-JLR Document 12 Filed 10/12/05 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 EXTENDING

TIME TO FILE INDICTMENT - 2

(Octavio Gonzales-Valdez CR05-342-JLR)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 553-1100

November 18, 2005.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period of delay from October 13, 2005,

through November 18, 2005, is excludable time pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18

U.S.C. § 3161, et seq.

Dated this 12th day of October, 2005.

A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Presented by,

s/Nancy D. Tenney

Attorney for the Defendant

Federal Public Defender’s Office

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98101

206/553-1100

206/553-0120

Nancy_Tenney@fd.org 

s/Patricia Lally

Assistant United States Attorney 

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, WA 98101

206/553-7970

206/553-0755

Patricia.Lally@usdoj.gov

Case 2:05-cr-00342-JLR Document 12 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

ROZ GLASSER,

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES

SERVICE, et al.,

 Defendant.

 C06-561 JCC

 MINUTE ORDER

 REASSIGNING CASE

Pursuant to the Amended General Order entered by the Chief Judge on

November 3, 2004, this action has been reassigned to the Honorable John C. Coughenour, United

States District Judge. 

All future documents filed in this case must bear the cause number C06-561 JCC and bear

the Judge’s name in the upper right hand corner of the document.

Dated this 7th day of June, 2006

BRUCE RIFKIN

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ PETER H. VOELKER

 Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00561-BHS Document 7 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

May 7, 1964

No. 68525.

protest 63/17515-16336 (New Orleans).

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorative after-dinner cups and saucers the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 31.1
 
 
 I, Jack W. Hanks, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MMEX Mining Corporation;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.
 
 4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:
 
 a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
 
 b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
 
 c. presented in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 
 5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
 
 6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 /s/ Jack W. HanksJack W. Hanks

Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer

and  Principal Financial Officer)

August 11, 2011
No. 57481.

#### The Berry Seed Co. *v.*United States,

protest 204966-K (B) (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bird’s-foot trefoil seed *(Lotus corniculatus)*similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Transcontinental Seed, Inc. (Alltransport, Incorporated)*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 163, C. D. 1462), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 57053.

protest 193754-K (New York).

#### Theodore B. Smith Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bird’s-foot trefoil seed *(Lotus corniculatus)*similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Transcontinental*Seed, *Inc. (Alltransport, Incorporated)*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 163, C. D. 1462), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

LEOPOLDO GOMEZ-ZAVALA,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 05-203M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Count I: Unlawful entry, first offense (misdemeanor) in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1325(a)(2).

Count II: Unlawful entry, second offense (felony) in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (a)(2).

Date of Detention Hearing: Initial Appearance, 4/28/2005.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds

that no condition or combination of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure

the appearance of defendant as required. If new issues surface, then the defendant may request

another hearing on release.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) In the Complaint for Violation dated April 21, 2005, criminal records are cited that

reflect several prior controlled-substance offenses committed by Defendant. In addition, the

Case 2:05-mj-00203-JPD Document 7 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

Complaint notes other violations relating to deportation and removal.

(2) Defendant appears to have no substantial ties to the community or to the Western

District of Washington.

(3) The defendant has stipulated to detention due to the detainer placed on defendant

by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but reserves the right to the possibility

of a subsequent motion for release if there is a change of circumstances. 

(4) No conditions or combination of conditions are apparent that will reasonably assure

the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of

the Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation

with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for

the government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States,

to counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United

States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 28th day of April, 2005.

s/ JAMES P. DONOHUE 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-mj-00203-JPD Document 7 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 55002.

#### Raymond Abraham et al. *v.*United States,

protests 114035-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the items of merchandise marked “A” or “B” on the invoices consist of watch movements similar in all material respects to those which were the subject of *United States*v. *Helbros Watch Co. et al.*(38 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 430). Upon the agreed statement of facts and the cited authority, the items marked “A” were held properly dutiable at the base rate of 90 cents each as watch movements more than 1 inch but less than 1.77 inches wide, and the items marked “B” were held dutiable at $1.20 each as watch movements more than *%o*of 1 inch but not more than 1 inch wide under paragraph 367 (a) (1), as modified, *supra.*
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

LARRY GENE BAILEY, JR,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5041M 

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 (X) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 ( ) Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Other:

 (X) Defendant stipulated to detention without prejudice

 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 February 28, 2006.

____s/ Karen L. Strombom____________-

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05206-RBL Document 8 Filed 02/28/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMOTREX
CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 2, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                                102,539
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          19,292
<ALLOWANCES>                                            1,235
<INVENTORY>                                            14,738
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      332,946
<PP&E>                                                 55,243
<DEPRECIATION>                                         13,265
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        433,917
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  43,673
<BONDS>                                               189,508
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  196
<OTHER-SE>                                            129,709
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          433,917
<SALES>                                                13,853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       22,848
<CGS>                                                   8,956
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          20,623
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        1,894
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           61
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      2,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (9,117)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              198
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (9,294)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           (910)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (10,204)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.55)


</TABLE>