alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. P67/366.

#### S. S. Kresge Co. *v.*United States, protests 65/17205 and 66/1988 (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of bicycle horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin Inter*national., *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION NOTICE OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

88 FR 67289.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:

Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:30 a.m.

# CHANGE IN THE MEETING:

The October 5, 2023 Open Meeting has been canceled.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Vicktoria J. Allen,

Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2023-22405 Filed 10-4-23; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Criminal No. 81-0306 (PLF)

)

JOHN W. HINCKLEY, JR. )

)

___________________________________ )

ORDER

Consistent with the Opinion issued this same day, it is hereby

ORDERED that the proposal of St. Elizabeths Hospital submitted under 24 D.C. 

Code § 501(e) on July 29, 2011 and its revised or supplemental proposal submitted on 

December 14, 2012 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before January 24, 2014, the Hospital shall 

submit to the Court a proposed Order setting forth the proposed terms of Mr. Hinckley’s 

conditions of release consistent with the Opinion issued today. That Order, which shall be in the 

same format as previous conditional release Orders issued by the Court, shall incorporate (1) all 

of the elements of the Hospital’s revised (e) proposal approved by the Court in the Opinion 

issued today or as modified by the Opinion; (2) all of the additional conditions described in 

today’s Opinion; and (3) all of the conditions and terms from the July 9, 2009 release Order that 

remain relevant (modified, as necessary, to be consistent with today’s Opinion). The Hospital 
2

shall circulate the proposed Order to counsel for both parties for their comments (consistent with 

the Opinion issued today) before submitting it to the Court.

SO ORDERED.

/s/___________________________

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

DATE: December 20, 2013 United States District Judge
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6934

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL DENNIS OLDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-30-F) Submitted: September 10, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Dennis Olds, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Olds does not challenge the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration in his informal brief filed in this court. He therefore has waived appellate review of that order. See4th Cir. R. 34(b). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Dennis Olds appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions filed under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000 & Supp. 2003), and for reconsideration. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The district court may not modify a sentence under § 3582 once it has been imposed except in very narrow circumstances not applicable here. Because Olds’ claims were not cognizable under § 3582, we affirm the district court’s denial of relief on that basis. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher R., Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 191]

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Pano Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered March 5, 1993, convicting him of escape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence and (2) an order of the same court, dated March 8, 1993, which found him in criminal contempt of court and imposed a fine.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the purported appeal from the order dated March 8, 1993, is dismissed.

While incarcerated at the Mid-Orange Correctional Facility, the defendant and another inmate escaped by cutting a hole in a prison fence. At trial, the defendant admitted that he escaped from the correctional facility but claimed that he acted under duress because he was afraid that his role as a prison informant had been exposed. The defendant also claimed that an employee of the Department of Correctional Services’ Inspector General’s office had threatened to "come down on [him]” if he refused to cooperate with an investigation of a drug ring that was operating within the correctional facility. The defendant’s allegations were disputed by the prosecution’s two rebuttal witnesses, and, although the affirmative defense of duress was charged, it was rejected by the jury.

The defendant contends that his conviction of escape in the first degree is against the weight of the evidence because his *782testimony establishes that his life would have been in danger if he had remained at the Mid-Orange Correctional Facility. However, the conflicting testimony of the defendant and the prosecution’s witnesses presented an issue of credibility for the jury to resolve. Its determination is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed when, as here, it is supported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Moreover, the jury properly rejected the affirmative defense of duress because the defendant’s testimony failed to establish that he was coerced to escape by the "use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force upon him” (Penal Law § 40.00 [1]; *People v Cox,*207 AD2d 995; *People v Rosario,*186 AD2d 598; *People v Brown,*68 AD2d 503, 513).

We find that the defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Delgado,*80 NY2d 780; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant challenges the propriety of the order that found him in criminal contempt of court for invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the trial of the man who was charged with helping him to escape. However, since the finding of contempt was made in a separate proceeding and the defendant failed to file a notice of appeal from the order dated March 8, 1993, this Court is without jurisdiction to review the propriety of the contempt finding *(see, People v Duggan,*69 NY2d 931; *People v Coble,*168 AD2d 982). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.
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 TAXATION OF COSTS -- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

OFFSHORE-INLAND SERVICES OF

ALABAMA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

R/V DEEPOCEAN QUEST in rem, OCEAN

SERVICES, LLC, in personam, and CASEMO

INTERNACIONAL, S.A., in personam,

Defendants.

________________________________________

DEEP OCEAN QUEST, S.A. a foreign

corporation,

 Plaintiff,

STABBERT MARITIME YACHT & SHIP LLC,

a Washington limited liability company d/b/a

Stabbert Maritime Yacht & Ship, Inc.; et al.

 Defendants

Case No. C06-183JCC

TAXATION OF COSTS

Having considered briefs in support of, and in opposition to, the cost bill herein, costs in the cause

indicated above are hereby taxed against PLAINTIFF DEEP OCEAN QUEST, S.A. , and on behalf of

DEFENDANT STABBERT MARITIME YACHT & SHIP LLC in the amount of $48,463.71 as

follows:
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 TAXATION OF COSTS -- 2

Requested Disallowed Allowed

I. SERVICE FEES $1,597.50 $1,157.50 $440.00

Service fees incurred for witnesses that did not actually testify were not allowed as taxable costs.

II. TRANSCRIPT FEES $3,027.60 $3,027.60 0

Cost for purchase of trial transcript is not taxable unless specifically authorized by the court.

III. WITNESS FEES $1,466.82 0 $1,466.82

IV. DEPOSITION COSTS $15,494.26 $5,536.89 $9,957.37

Clerk allowed as taxable costs only those expenses incurred for depositions actually used at trail.

V. COPY COSTS $65,903.24 $29,431.22 $36,472.02

The clerk allowed 25% of the difference between the requested amount, $65,903.24, and the amount

agreed to by plaintiff, $26,661.02. This represent the clerk’s estimate of the total copying costs

incurred that were directly related to the trial.

VI. DOCKET FEES $127.50 0 $127.50

Dated this 30th day of JUNE, 2009 .

A

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk, U.S. District Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of this person are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

# DATES:

                        See                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         section for applicable date(s).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OFAC: Bradley Smith, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Compliance, tel.: 202-622-2490.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (                    *https://ofac.treasury.gov*).                

## Notice of OFAC Actions

On September 28, 2023, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following individuals and entities are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
      ( print page 69682)    

Dated: September 28, 2023.

Bradley T. Smith,

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[FR Doc. 2023-22291 Filed 10-5-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
H. Res. 709 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 13, 2007. 

Whereas Samuel Taliaferro Rayburn, affectionately known as 

‘‘Mr. Sam’’, held the position of Speaker of the House of 

Representatives for a record seventeen and a half years; 

and 

Whereas the legendary former Speaker of the House served 

twenty-four consecutive terms as United States Representative of the Fourth District of Texas, until his 

death in 1961: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes 

and honors the 50th anniversary of the dedication of the Sam 

Rayburn Library and Museum on October 9, 2007, as well 

as completion of phase one of the museum restoration program, and also recognizes the many supporters and contributors whose efforts have helped maintain and improve the Library and Museum. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________ )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Criminal No. 81

- 0306 (PLF)

)

JOHN W. HINCKLEY, JR. )

)

___________________________________ )

ORDER

Consistent with the Opinion issued this same day, it is hereby

ORDERED that the proposal of St. Elizabeths Hospital submitted under 24 D.C.

Code § 501(e) on July 29, 2011 and its revised or supplemental pr oposal submitted on

December 14, 2012 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before January 24, 201 4 , the Hospital shall

submit to the Court a proposed Order setting forth the proposed terms of Mr. Hinckley’s

condit ions of release consistent with th e Opinion issued today . That Order, which shall be in the

same format as previous conditional release Orders issued by the Court, shall incorporate (1) all

of the elements of the Hospital’s revised (e) proposal approved by the Court in th e Opinion

issued today or as modified by th e Opinion; (2) all of the additional conditions described in

today ’ s Opinion; and (3) all of the conditions and terms from the July 9, 2009 release Order that

remain relevant (modified, as nec essary, to be consistent with toda y ’ s Opinion). The Hospital2 shall circulate the proposed Order to counsel for both parties for their comments (consistent with

th e Opinion issu e d today ) bef ore submitting it to the Court.

SO ORD ERED.

/s/

___________________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

DATE: December 20, 2013 United States District Judge
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

PETE AND GINGER HINSKEN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALYSSA ZACH et al.,

Defendants

Case No. C06-5107RBL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR COPIES AND

INSTRUCTING PLAINTIFF TO

SERVE FUTURE MOTIONS ON

COUNSEL OR THE DEFENDANTS

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Before the court are two motions. Plaintiff asks for the status of his

case in the first motion. (Dkt. # 12). He asks for copies of his complaint and other documents in the

second motion, (Dkt. # 13).

At the time plaintiff made the motion regarding the status of his case he had been ordered to

provide service documents. (Dkt. # 10). Service documents were received on May 22nd, 2006 and

the court ordered the United States Marshals Service to attempt service by mail on May 30th, 2006. 

(Dkt. # 14). The motion for copies was made as plaintiff did not keep a copy of his complaint and he

was unable to provide service documents. (Dkt. # 13 and attached letter). As the court has received

the service copies the motion is DENIED.

Case 3:06-cv-05107-RBL Document 15 Filed 06/01/06 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

Further, plaintiff is warned that all future filings must be served on opposing counsel once

they appear in the case, or if a party appears without counsel then on the opposing party

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff, and to any defendant who has

appeared and to remove docket numbers 12 and 13 from the court’s calendar.

DATED this 1st day of June 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05107-RBL Document 15 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
    32.1CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
        OF
        OAKRIDGE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
        PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
        AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
        SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In
    connection with the Annual Report of Oakridge International Corporation a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on
    Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
    "Report"), Lit Wai Sun, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant
    to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    The
    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
    and(2)
    The
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
    of the Company.  A
    signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Oakridge International Corporation,
    and will be retained by Oakridge International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
    staff upon request./s/ Lit Wai Sun------------------------------------------Lit Wai SunChief Executive
    OfficerNovember 3, 2015
# Official Journal L 134/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 134 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6328 April 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 134

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6328 April 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2020/577 of 24 April 2020 appointing two alternate members, proposed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of the Committee of the Regions | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (EU) 2020/577 of 24 April 2020 appointing two alternate members, proposed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of the Committee of the Regions

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 57775.

protest 202328-K (A), (Boston).

#### W. N. Proctor Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content under T. D. 53159” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
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

VISHAL SINGH UPPAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH W. WILLIS, Deportation officer, A

NIEL CLARK, Field office director,

Immigration and Customs Enforcement.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5167FDB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE

OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

Owing to the limited time he has available to spend in the law library, Plaintiff requests a tenday extension of time to file his objections to the Report and Recommendation presently noted for

consideration October 13, 2006. Plaintiff states that he received the R&R (which was entered on the

docket on September 14, 2006) on September 19, 2006. Finding good cause shown, Plaintiff’s

motion will be granted. 

IT IS ORDERED: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections [Dkt. #

21] is GRANTED; objections to the Report and Recommendation entered On September 14, 2006

[Dkt. # 17] are due Friday, October 20, 2006; 

(2) Reply from Defendants is due Friday, October 27, 2006; and 

(3) The Clerk shall STRIKE the current noting date of October 13, 2006 and Re-Note this

matter for October 27, 2006. 

DATED this 6th day of October, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05167-FDB Document 23 Filed 10/06/06 Page 1 of 1