alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 FOR SERVICE AND RETURN, 2254 PETITION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ROBERT BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD MORGAN,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5280FDB

 ORDER CHANGING CASE

CAPTION, CLOSING SECOND 

CASE OPENED AND DIRECTING

SERVICE AND RETURN,

§ 2254 PETITION

The petitioner in this action is seeking federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. This case 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 3 and MJR 4.

There has been some confusion with regard to this action. The petitioner in this case is

Robert Brown, not Richard Brown. The clerks office is directed to correct the case caption. Mr.

Brown paid the filing fee and this action is ready to proceed. Mr. Brown also filed an identical

petition under cause number 05-CV- 5314RJB. This case will proceed under the first filing number,

05-CV-5280FDB. The clerks office is directed to administratively close 05-CV- 5314RJB.

(1). The clerk shall arrange for service by certified mail upon respondent, a copy of the

petition, of all documents in support thereof, and of this Order. All costs of service shall be

Case 3:05-cv-05280-FDB Document 4 Filed 08/17/05 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

27

28 ORDER FOR SERVICE AND RETURN, 2254 PETITION - 2

advanced by the United States. The Clerk shall assemble the necessary documents to effect service. 

The Clerk shall send petitioner a copy of this Order, the General Order.

(2) Within forty-five (45) days after such service, respondent shall file and serve an

 answer in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District

Courts. As part of such answer, respondents should state whether petitioner has exhausted available

state remedies, whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, and whether there is any issue of abuse

of delay under Rule 9. Respondent shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without

first showing cause as to why an answer is inadequate. Respondent shall file the answer with the

Clerk of Court and serve a copy of the answer upon petitioner.

(3) The answer will be treated in accordance with Local Rule CR 7. Accordingly, upon

 receipt of the Answer the Clerk will note the matter for consideration on the fourth Friday after the

answer is filed, petitioner may file and serve a response not later than on the Monday immediately

preceding the Friday appointed for consideration of the matter, and respondent may file and serve a

reply brief not later than on the Thursday immediately preceding the Friday designated for

consideration of the matter.

DATED this 17th day of August, 2005.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05280-FDB Document 4 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 2
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: f f ^> 

135) ll-K- (B) -' 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:52 AM Sheet 135 of 325 
'm Pi 

"•(0) 

P.2_ 

II-K-(B)-H3 

COAL PRICE CHANGES FOR INDUSTRIAL NSPS ANALYSES 

Letter from C. Ebert, ICF to J. Greenwald, EPA:OPA 

June 1, 1983 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-109
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS114957 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
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        May 11, 2006
Case 3:06-cv-05268-RBL   Document 25   Filed 08/31/06   Page 1 of 3

Case 3:06-cv-05268-RBL   Document 25   Filed 08/31/06   Page 2 of 3

Case 3:06-cv-05268-RBL   Document 25   Filed 08/31/06   Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.26a

                       ADDENDUM TO DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT

                                    BETWEEN

                  LA TIMES, A DIVISION OF TIMES MIRROR COMPANY

                                      AND

                      INTELLIGENT INFORMATION INCORPORATED

                              DATED JULY 19, 1997

This Addendum to the Distribution Agreement between LA Times, a division of
Times Mirror Company ("Provider") and Intelligent Information Incorporated
("Distributor") dated July 29, 1997 (the "Agreement") is made and entered into
as of the 23rd day of August, 1999.


The Agreement is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6.a. of the Agreement is amended by adding the following sentence:
"Thereafter, the Agreement shall automatically renew for successive one (1)
year Renewal Terms unless either party notifies the other party in writing of
its election not to renew, at least ninety (90) days before the end of the
Initial Term or any Renewal Term."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereto hereby execute this Addendum as of
the date set forth above.



LA TIMES                             INTELLIGENT INFORMATION INCORPORATED



----------------------------         --------------------------------
Authorized Signature                 Authorized III Signature


----------------------------         --------------------------------
Name                                 Name


----------------------------         --------------------------------
Title                                Title


----------------------------         --------------------------------
Date                                 Date
Exhibit 32.2
  CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Northern Technologies International Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew C. Wolsfeld, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
  (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Matthew C. Wolsfeld, CPA

Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary (principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)
 
 Circle Pines, Minnesota
 April 13, 2011
(Reap. Dec. 10790)

#### Blaser & Mericle, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1594, etc.

(Decided July 8, 1964)

*Robert B. Krupcmslcy*for the plaintiff.

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

Laweence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule A, attached to and made a part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain parts of automobile trucks and of agricultural implements, identified on the invoices with the letter “A” or “B” and examiner’s initials “JRH.”

A written stipulation of fact has been entered into by the parties wherein it has been agreed as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, defendant, that the items on the invoices covered by reappraisement appeals listed in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are marked with A or B and Examiner’s initials JRH, consist of the following identified articles which are not specified in the final list as set forth in T.D. 54521.

> Items marked Notices of articles

> A Parts of automobile trucks, other

> B Parts of agricultural implements

> It is further stipulated and agreed that at the time of exportation, said items marked A or B had “export value” as defined in § 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and that said “export value” were the appraised unit values as indicated in red on the invoices, or attachments thereto, less 50%, less ocean freight and insurance, and plus export packing as specified on the invoices.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 943), and that such statutory *374value for the merchandise is the appraised unit values as indicated in red on the invoices, or attachments thereto, less 50%, less ocean freight and insurance, and plus export packing as specified in the invoices.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a (b)), is the proper basis of value for the parts of automobile trucks and agricultural implements, marked on the invoices accompanying the entries with the letters “A” or “B” and the examiner’s initials as aforesaid, and that said value is the appraised unit values as indicated in red on the invoices or attachments thereto, less 50 per centum, less ocean freight and insurance, and plus export packing as specified in the invoices.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,566
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,566
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 235,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          560,581
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,351,342
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,361,377)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   235,044
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,082
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  138,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (68,497)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (68,497)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (68,497)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### Grace Olufunmilola AKINGBALA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-2094.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 25, 2005.

Decided Aug. 8, 2005.

Randall L. Johnson, Johnson & Associates, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, Tax Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Grace Olufunmilola Atíngbala, a native and citizen of Nigeria, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider the Board’s denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Akingbala’s motion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (2005).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
(Reap. Dec. 10550)

#### William H. Masson, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 27; 6207.

(Decided June 27,1963).

*Eugene B. Pickrell*for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement is directed

to the merchandise, represented by the invoice items marked “A” and initialed “EMM,” which consists of sodium perborate, exported from West Germany during the period from January 1, 1957, through October 13, 1958. Appraisement thereof was made on the basis of foreign value, as such value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (74 Treas. Dec. 17, T.D. 49646).

Counsel for the respective parties have agreed that the merchandise in question and the issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those which were the subject of decision in *United States*v. *Philipp Brothers*Chemicals, *Inc.,*46 Cust. Ct. 803, A.R.D. 134, the record in which was incorporated herein by consent.

Following the cited decision, I find that the proper basis for ap-praisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor, as shown in counsels’ stipulation of submission, is $13.60 per 100 pounds, less ocean freight and insurance.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 141

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding National Concern About Young

People and Gun Violence Day.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 29, 1997

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. AKAKA,

Mr. CRAIG, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. BRYAN,

Ms. COLLINS, Mr. FORD, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. ROTH, Mr. KOHL, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr.

ABRAHAM, Mr. WARNER, Mr. FRIST, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. SPECTER, and

Mr. ROBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding National

Concern About Young People and Gun Violence Day.

Whereas every day in America, 15 children under the age of

19 are killed with guns;

Whereas in 1994, approximately 70 percent of murder victims aged 15 to 17 were killed with a handgun;

Whereas in 1995, nearly 8 percent of high school students reported having carried a gun in the past 30 days;

Whereas young people are our Nation’s most important resource, and we, as a society, have a vested interest in
2

•SRES 141 IS

helping children grow from a childhood free from fear

and violence into healthy adulthood;

Whereas young people can, by taking responsibility for their

own decisions and actions, and by positively influencing

the decisions and actions of others, help chart a new and

less violent direction for the entire Nation;

Whereas students in every school district in the Nation will

be invited to take part in a day of nationwide observance

involving millions of their fellow students, and will thereby be empowered to see themselves as significant agents

in a wave of positive social change; and

Whereas the observance of this day will give the students the

opportunity to make an earnest decision about their future by voluntarily signing the ‘‘Student Pledge Against

Gun Violence’’, and sincerely promise that the students

will never take a gun to school, will never use a gun to

settle a dispute, and will use their influence to keep

friends from using guns to settle disputes: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—

2 (1) November 6, 1997, should be designated as

3 ‘‘National Concern About Young People and Gun

4 Violence Day’’; and

5 (2) the President should be authorized and re6 quested to issue a proclamation calling upon the

7 school children of the United States to observe such

8 day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
Case No. 10,280.

#### NIXDORFF v. WELLS.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 350.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term. 1833.

Landlord and Tenant — Double Rent fob Holding Over-^Spbcific Term of Lease.

1. To enable a landlord to recover double rent for holding over, the lease must be for a specific term.

2. A renting at §60 a year, payable monthly, is not for a specific term, and will not authorize a judgment for double rent.

[This was a suit by Barbara Nixdorff against Richard Wells.]

Appeal from a justice of the peace, who gave judgment for §10, being double rent for a month, the tenant having held over after the first year, under a demise at §60 a year, payable monthly.

Mr. Marbury, for appellee.

No time for notice to quit is mentioned when the lease will expire by its own limitation. Woodf. Landl. & Ten. 163. A renting at §60 a year, payable monthly, is a renting for one year and no more.

Mr. Redin, contra.

It was a general hiring at §60 a year, not for any limited period. The Case of Gordon in this court, at the last term [unreported], was a specific lease for one year only, and notice to quit was not necessary to recover double rent.

THE COURT (nem. con.) was of opinion that the renting was not clearly shown to be for a specific term, but only at the rate of §60 a year, leaving the term uncertain; and that double rent could not be recovered. Judgment reversed, with costs.