alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6514

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JACKIE MCGEORGE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CR-97-109, CA-99-1578-AM)

Submitted: September 29, 2000 Decided: October 23, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jackie McGeorge, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jackie McGeorge seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. McGeorge, Nos. CR-97-109; CA-99-

1578-AM (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 28, 2000; entered Mar. 29, 2000). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.1

                          CERTIFICATIONS

I, Scott Emerson Lybbert, certify that:

        1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TGFIN
Holdings, Inc.;

        2.   Based upon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain
any untrue statements 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 quarterly report;

        3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly represent 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
quarterly report;

        4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

               a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures toensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly 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 quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

        5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the
audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

               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.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated
in this annual report whether 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/ Scott Emerson Lybbert       Chief Executive Officer
    --------------------------
         Scott Emerson Lybbert        November 2, 2005
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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

KHALID O. RAHMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PIERCE COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5262 BHS/KLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The motion to dismiss and for summary judgment of Defendants State of

Washington, Harold Clarke, D. Ang, A. Wedvic, T. Panek, M. Bollinger and Allen

Hayter (Dkt. # 47) is GRANTED;

(3) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants State of Washington, Harold Clarke, D. Ang,

A. Wedvic, T. Panek, M. Bollinger and Allen Hayter are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; and 

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

and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 13th day of March, 2008.

A 

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05262-BHS Document 58 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                       768
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,652
<PP&E>                                           9,692
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,935
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,580
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,935
<SALES>                                          7,985
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,985
<CGS>                                            8,419
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,419
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 190
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,688)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,688)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,688)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.13)


</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 11065)

#### Panation Trade Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 52609, etc.

(Decided September 27, 1965)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Judge:

The following appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court as follows:

> 1. That the involved merchandise consists of cigarette lighters exported from Japan after the effective date of the Customs Simplifieaton Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165) ; that the involved merchandise is not identified on the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant thereto (T.D. 54521) and that appraisement was accordingly made under Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the said Customs Simplification Act.

> 2. That the merchandise, the facts, and the issues herein are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Panation Trade Co.*v. *United States,*A.R.D 181, and that the record in the said cited case may be incorporated herein.

> 3. That on or about the date of exportation of the involved merchandise, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets in the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses, incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were as follows:

> a. With regard to reappraisements R61/6407 and R61/6408, the invoice unit ex-factory prices plus packing as invoiced.

> *600b. With regard to reappraisement *R62/2242*and R62/11159, the invoice unit ex-factory prices, net, packed.

> 4. That the appeals enumerated in Schedule “A” annexed may be submitted for decision upon this stipulation and upon the incorporated record, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts and following the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and hold that such statutory values for the involved merchandise are the invoice unit ex-factory prices, plus packing, as invoiced, with respect to reappraisement Nos. R61/6407 and R61/6408, and the invoice unit ex-factory prices, net, packed, with respect to reappraisement Nos. R62/2242 and R62/11159.

As to all other merchandise included on the invoices covered by the entries involved herein, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# Official Journal C 129A/27 M

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 129A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5127 May 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 129A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5127 May 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 129A/01 | DG Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN) — Publication of a vacancy for a Director (Grade AD14) — ECFIN.L ‘Financial operations, programme management and liaison with the EIB group’ (Luxembourg) (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2008/10072 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Commission

2008/C 129A/01

DG Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN) — Publication of a vacancy for a Director (Grade AD14) — ECFIN.L ‘Financial operations, programme management and liaison with the EIB group’ (Luxembourg) (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2008/10072

1

---

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

EN
Before the First Division,

January 26, 1954

No. 57787.

protest 165085-K (New York).

#### Schneider Bros. & Co., Inc., a/c James A. Merkel *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskins plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained. . .

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
No. 55675.

protests 744834-G, etc. (Des Moines).

#### Frye Mfg. Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 54416.

#### Amdu Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 149074-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400

the court dismissed the protests.
No. 66081.

#### Frank Kraus and F. C. Gerlach *&*Co. *v.*United States,

protests 60/5702, 60/6976, and 60/7188 (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of paper needle holders the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 63099, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 23.1Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-132206) pertaining to the 2005 Stock Award Plan and 1999 Stock Plan of Vocus, Inc. of ourreports dated March 1, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule ofVocus, Inc. and subsidiaries, Vocus, Inc.'s management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of Vocus, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2006./s/Ernst & Young LLPBaltimore,Maryland
No. 60270.

protests 252832-K, etc. (New York).

#### Astra Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-15,158-40
IN RE LAWRENCE EDWARD THOMP SON, Relator
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 1703989 IN THE 228T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus under this Court’s orig inal jurisdiction. He contends, among other things, that he filed a motion to rec use Respondent, the J udg e of the 2 2 8 t h Di s trict Court, and that Respondent has not responde d to his motion. Rule of Civil Procedur e 18a applies to habea s proce eding s before t ri al judge s. Ex parte Sinegar, 324 S.W .3d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Reg ardle ss of whethe r a motion complies with Rule 18a, within thre e business day s afte r a motion to rec use is f iled, a trial judg e must either sig n and file an order of rec usal or si g n and file an order refer ring the m otion t o t h e reg ional presiding judge
. T E X . R. C I V . P. 18a(f )(1)
. Respondent shall file a response stating whether Relator has filed2

a motion to rec use in the trial court and, if so, whether Respondent has complied with Rule 18a(f )(1)
. This motion for leave to file will be held. Respondent shall comply with this order within thirty day s from the da te of this order
.

Filed: Nove mber 17, 2021 Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                   1,018
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                            3,847
<ALLOWANCES>                             714
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         1,027
<PP&E>                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           10,397
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    9
<BONDS>                                  2,421
<COMMON>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<OTHER-SE>                               7,555
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             10,397
<SALES>                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         992
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          123
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      123
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                             123
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            3.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                            3.18


</TABLE>
H. Res. 579 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 30, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

2831) to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other 

purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill 

are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 

XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now 

printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, 

as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 

as amended, to final passage without intervening motion ex-
2 

•HRES 579 EH 

cept: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 

on Education and Labor; and (2) one motion to recommit 

with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2831 pursuant to 

this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
S. Con. Res. 87 Agreed to April 1, 1998

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (S. 419) to provide surveillance, research, and services aimed at prevention of birth defects,

and for other purposes, the Secretary of the Senate shall make

the following corrections:

(1) In section 1 of the bill, strike ‘‘1997’’ and insert ‘‘1998’’.

(2) In section 2 of the bill:

(A) In subsection (d) of section 317C of the Public

Health Service Act (as proposed to be amended by such

section 2) strike ‘‘1998’’ and insert ‘‘1999’’.

(B) In subsection (f) of section 317C of the Public

Health Service Act (as proposed to be amended by such

section 2) strike ‘‘1998’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2001’’

and insert ‘‘1999, $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, and

such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal

years 2001 and 2002’’.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
#### Leigh A. BOTTING Plaintiff-Appellant v. TACO BELL CORPORATION Defendant-Appellee

No. 99-5864.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 11, 2001.

Before RALPH B. GUY, JR., NORRIS, GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

This cause having come on to be heard upon the record, the briefs and the oral argument of the parties, and upon due consideration thereof,

The court finds that no prejudicial error intervened in the judgment and proceedings in the district court. It is ORDERED that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, affirmed upon its opinion.
No. 64626.

#### Blumenthal Import Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 59/24211 (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sheepskins the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Nawi Noonoo & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 57, C.D. 1904), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 61082.

protests 286624-K, etc. (New York).

#### Bloomingdale Bros. (a Div. of Fed. Dept. Stores, Inc.) et al. *v.*United States,

*381Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

October 23, 1967

No. P67/356.

#### Viking Importrade, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 66/16576 (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of electric soup tureens with cords similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Silvine Importers, Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 362, C.D. 2821), the protest was dismissed and the matter remanded to a single judge to determine the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law. (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d).)
P.1 

OAR Box 1878 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

125) ll-E-8 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 11/28/2008 1:21:26 PM Sheet 125 of 145 
P.2 

CORPORAT I 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

01ncomtng ca n 

Ooutgolng Call 

Peison Calling 

Person CaLLed 

(?.a IsfftWO lKtKi\! cj2_ 

Project Na. 

2^-ot ? -27 - 2 I 

A-90-19 

ll-E-8 

Project Nan* 

Lm-S. I 

Date 

<//?* A / 

Tim 

H'.oo fi-fTy 

Activity 

Activity 

(ri*oo«k £>><. W r 7 / S - 9'ji -yg ^ / 

B <f 6> Xn /<'"ouCL'/cc £<?J; Con-\pan<-/ . Lnc 

mu() iVV,ii;y_ l<_-&•#- /W ' l_C 

A/-L Hor'j-tj iyu^-6 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

General Subject 

bette r B\%iim~J\\- ria+a 

7 7$ 11 

Mr. W»vnSa^ «\fokd V^e, «?oJd <eroX o W>r Jr W <;fe_UC -tes-f. 

•TV -fa-yf ovp-kft^ A k r t £L. ; txrt Kton £Qr) (^hasl I -I 

y, CO 

^7 h- Ifl 

IHo'mh,t*_ 

cn. rtcy 

—*J 

TA- c A tri-n^d fo 

hip. 4.r 

-.JV.CM fcVP. W M\J frrA <*. I.e fly 

ii ifcnatur