alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul J. GRIMES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4053.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted April 25, 2001.

Decided June 15, 2001.

Before FLAUM, POSNER, and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

When last this case was before us, we affirmed the judgment in all respects except that we vacated the order of restitution and remanded with directions that the district court ascertain the identity of the victims of the defendant’s fraudulent scheme and limit the order of restitution to the amount necessary to compensate those identified victims. 173 F.3d 634, 640 (7th Cir.1999). The district court complied with these directions and entered a new restitution order from which the defendant appeals, also challenging an unrelated civil contempt order arising from his effort to avoid payment of the fine imposed by the court.

The appeal has no merit. The principal issue presented by the appeal is whether restitution was proper for victims who suffered losses from the defendant’s scheme after the period covered in the indictment; that issue is outside the scope of the remand. The challenge to the finding of contempt has no possible merit.

Affirmed.
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 67

Expressing the sense of Congress that the museum entitled ‘‘The Women’s

Museum: An Institute for the Future’’, in Dallas, Texas, be designated

as a millennium project for the United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 9, 1997

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. SNOWE, Mrs. FEINSTEIN,

Ms. BOXER, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, and Ms. COLLINS

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the museum entitled

‘‘The Women’s Museum: An Institute for the Future’’,

in Dallas, Texas, be designated as a millennium project

for the United States.

Whereas knowledge of our heritage is critical to understanding and meeting the challenges of today and developing

a vision for our future;

Whereas the recognition of historic contributions of women to

civilization is woefully lacking and such contributions are

misunderstood in our Nation’s cultural and historical

landscape;

Whereas the Foundation for Women’s Resources has announced the creation of The Women’s Museum: An Insti-
2

SC 67 ATS

tute for the Future (in this resolution referred to as the

‘‘Museum’’), a state-of-the-art, interactive museum that

will—

(1) profile the specific achievements of individual

women throughout history;

(2) explore the experiences of women in our civilization; and

(3) celebrate the role of women in culture, commerce, politics, art, music, and the sciences;

Whereas the Museum will both honor the past contributions

of women in history as well as the future role of women

in our society;

Whereas the Museum will be housed in the restored State

Fair Coliseum in Dallas, Texas, and designed by architect Wendy Evans Joseph, senior designer for the United

States Holocaust Memorial Museum;

Whereas the Museum has been widely supported by numerous

women’s organizations, local governments, corporations,

and individuals;

Whereas the Museum is scheduled to open in the year 2000,

the first time as a Nation we have witnessed the turn of

a millennium; and

Whereas the turn of the millennium will be commemorated by

government institutions and agencies with special

projects and events all over our country: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress—
3

SC 67 ATS

1 (1) that the past, present, and future contribu2 tions of women to culture, commerce, politics, art,

3 music, and the sciences should be recognized and

4 celebrated;

5 (2) that The Women’s Museum: An Institute

6 for the Future, in Dallas, Texas, should be des7 ignated as a millennium project for the United

8 States; and

9 (3) that Federal agencies and other Federal in10 stitutions should support the establishment and op11 eration of The Women’s Museum: An Institute for

12 the Future by—

13 (A) providing construction and operational

14 support;

15 (B) supporting a ground-breaking cere16 mony for the museum; and

17 (C) supporting the museum and its objec18 tives in all other respects.

Æ
Before the Third Division,

November 14, 1962

No. 67198.

protests 60/5840 and 61/12682 (New York).

#### Royal Crown Derby *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Startech Environmental Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter J. Scanlon, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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; and                               
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   

By:/s/ Peter J. ScanlonPeter J. ScanlonChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary 
March 17, 2008

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



---
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 SEATTLE

MICHAEL JOHN JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

MUNICIPAL COURT OF MOUNT VERNON,

et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-0787C

ORDER

This matter has come before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 11) to the Report &

Recommendation (R&R) (Dkt. No. 5) issued in this matter by the Honorable Mary Alice Theiler, United

States Magistrate Judge. 

Upon a de novo review of the issues raised in Plaintiff’s objections, which merely restate the

claims enumerated in his complaint, the Court concludes that the Report & Recommendation properly

and correctly determined that Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by judicial immunity. 

For this reason, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report & Recommendation. Plaintiff’s

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and the matter is

DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to Plaintiff and to Judge Theiler.

SO ORDERED this 13th day of September, 2005.AUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00787-JCC Document 13 Filed 09/13/05 Page 1 of 1
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

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE & PTM DEADLINE 

(Dong In Seok; #06-126MJP)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

1 (206) 553-1100

 JUDGE MARSHA J. PECHMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DONG IN SEOK,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR 06-126MJP

ORDER GRANTING 

STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE

TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL

MOTIONS DEADLINE

THE COURT having considered the stipulated motion of the parties for a continuance

of the trial date and the pretrial motions date, finds that the ends of justice will be served by

ordering a continuance in this case, that a continuance is necessary to ensure adequate time

for effective case preparation, and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public

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

The Court further finds that the period of time from the current trial date of August 7,

2006 until the new trial date of September 11, 2006 shall be excludable time pursuant to the

Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. 

//

Case 2:06-cr-00126-MJP Document 17 Filed 06/15/06 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

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE & PTM DEADLINE 

(Dong In Seok; #06-126MJP)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

2 (206) 553-1100

//

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date in this matter is continued until

September 11, 2006, and that pretrial motions shall be filed no later than July 13, 2006.

DONE this 15TH day of June, 2006.

/S/Marsha J. Pechman 

MARSHA J. PECHMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Peter J. Avenia

WSBA # 20794

Attorney for Dong In Seok

Federal Public Defender’s Office

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: (206) 553-1100

Fax: (206) 553-0120

Peter_Avenia@fd.org

s/ Ye-Ting Woo

Assistant United States Attorney

Per Telephonic Authorization

Case 2:06-cr-00126-MJP Document 17 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

June 20, 1950

No. 54411.

#### Artisan Products Import, Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 143479-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 154001 the court dismissed the protest.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                  5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS  FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1998  
<CASH>                             1,888
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      14,648
<ALLOWANCES>                       1,851
<INVENTORY>                        15,235
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   33,275
<PP&E>                             1,674
<DEPRECIATION>                     3,655
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     35,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              22,680
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                           115
<OTHER-SE>                         12,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       35,217
<SALES>                            140,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   140,058
<CGS>                              130,746
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      130,746
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   13,047
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 1,164
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (4,707)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (4,707)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       (4,707)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (1.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (1.02)
        

</TABLE>
Skip to main content

# IV&V Publications

## Connect with IV&V

## Related Websites

New Employee GuideRemote AccessEmployee Intranet WebsiteManagement System WebsiteVisiting UsContact Us

## Publications

To help educate NASA IV&V web site visitors, the NASA IV&V Program provides a listing of its most recent publications.

**Annual Report**NASA IV&V 2008 & 2009 - The NASA IV&V Program 2008 & 2009 Value ReportNASA IV&V 2007 - The NASA IV&V Facility's 2007 Annual ReportNASA IV&V 2006 - The NASA IV&V Facility's 2006 Annual ReportNASA IV&V 2005 - The NASA IV&V Facility's 2005 Annual ReportNASA IV&V 2004 - The NASA IV&V Facility's 2004 Annual ReportMapping Our Progress - 2003 - The NASA IV&V Facility's Activities, Processes, and Programs in 2003.

	If you have any questions regarding the above content, please submit them via our Feedback Form.

## About IV&V

**About IV&V**
                                            -  About IV&V
                                            -  Vision & Mission
                                            -  Values
                                            -  Publications
                                            -  Director's Bio

**Organization**
                                            -  IV&V Organization
                                            -  GSFC Organization
                                            -  OSMA Organization

**Visiting Us**
                                            -  Visiting Us
                                            -  Site Tour
Before the Third Division,

January 4, 1968

No. P68/5.

protests 64/18834, etc. (San Francisco).

No. P68/6.

protests 64/18836, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Friden, Inc. *v.*United States, Friden, Inc. *v.*United States,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of adding machine parts, which are manufactures of the United States, exported without drawback, and returned without having been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means and that the applicable customs regulations have been complied with, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. *Bertrand*Freres, Inc., *et al.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 155, C.D. 2296).
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 138 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 138

Authorizing expenditures for consultants by the Committee on Rules and 
                            Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 23, 1997

    Mr. Warner (for himself, and Mr. Ford) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing expenditures for consultants by the Committee on Rules and 
                            Administration.

    Resolved, That section 16(b) of Senate Resolution 54, 105th 
Congress, agreed to February 13, 1997, is amended by striking 
``$300,000'' and inserting ``$400,000''.
                                 <all>
```
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

Jerry Camenish Cooper,

Authorized representative, lawful man, creditor,

injured third party intervenor Case No. MS06-5009 FDB

ORDER DENYING

RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before this Court on “Notice, in the Nature of a Motion, for a Rehearing

as to Petitioner’s Filing of Evidence for Future Case Settlement and so forth.” The Court construes

this pleading as a motion for reconsideration of its Order of Dismissal, filed June 28, 2006. As

previously held, the matter is not appropriate for filing. The motion for reconsideration does not

convince the Court otherwise. It is hereby ORDERED:

(1) The motion for reconsideration is DENIED;

(2) No further documents may be filed in this action. 

DATED this 23rd day of October, 2006.AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-mc-05009-FDB Document 7 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 95 Filed 01/17/2007 Page 1 of 3

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 95

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 95 Filed 01/17/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 95 Filed 01/17/2007 Page 3 of 3
1

MEMO to Docket

DATE: January 20 th , 2015

SUBJECT: Telephone conversation on Portland Cement Subpart LLL

In attendance: Sharon Nizich, US EPA

Chet Thompson, Crowell and Martin

Mr. Thompson asked some clarifying questions about completion of performance tests and whether the compliance date was actually 180 days after September 9, 2015. These questions were

answered and then also duplicated in the response to comment document f or the subject amendments, found in the docket, and copied here:

“Several commenters through telephone communications (as recorded in the final docket) have requested clarification on the Note for Paragraph (a) of Section 63.1348 relative to whether you mu st complete the performance test prior to or on the compliance date. Also the commenters seek clarification on the actual compliance date, since the general provisions under 63. 7 allows 180 days after the compliance date to show compliance.

RESPONSE: The source must perform Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATA) for the CPMS or CEMS before the compliance date, since according to 63.1351(c), the compliance date for existing sources for all the requirements that become effective on February 12, 2013 (exce pt for the open clinker pile requirements) will be September 9, 2015. The Note to paragraph (a) was to provide clarification that a source’s 30 day operating day performance test could start the day after the effective date, so that the rolling averages w ould begin to be developed following the first monitoring day after the compliance

date . 40 CFR 63.7 does give the source 180 days to demonstrate compliance, however existing sources are expected to be operating in compliance on the effective date of the rule. It is expected that existing sources have procured their monitoring equipment and done their RATA for each emission source and is confident that they are in compliance on the compliance date.”
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 OF DISMISSAL - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ADRIAN MITCHELL, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES SPALDING, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C06-197 MJP

 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February

8, 2006, and filed an amended complaint on April 21, 2006. (Dkt. No. 8). Magistrate Judge Benton

reviewed the amended complaint and issued a report and recommendation on November 9, 2006.

(Dkt. No. 10). The original noting date for the report and recommendation was December 1, 2006. 

The report and recommendation and accompanying documentation were inadvertently mailed to the

incorrect address. On December 14, 2006, the report and recommendation were returned as

undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 11). On December 18, 2006, the Court issued a minute order, directing the

clerk to send copies of the report and recommendation and accompanying documents to the address

currently on file for Mr. Mitchell, and re-noting the report and recommendation for January 12, 2007.

(Dkt. No. 12). That minute order was also returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 13). On February 13,

2007, the Court issued an Order requiring that Mr. Mitchell provide the Court with his current address

by March 5, 2007, or the case would be dismissed.

The Court has received no further word from Mr. Mitchell. Accordingly, the Court

DISMISSES this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Civil Rule 41(b)(2).

Case 2:06-cv-00197-MJP Document 15 Filed 03/07/07 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 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2

 The clerk is directed to send copies of this order to (a) the two known addresses for Plaintiff

— 3706 S. Yakima, Tacoma, WA, 98418 and 3817 S. Yakima, and Tacoma, WA, 98418, and (b)

Magistrate Judge Benton.

Dated: March 7, 2007. AMarsha J. Pechman

 United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00197-MJP Document 15 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

March 11, 1959

No. 62832.

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/838 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, the plaintiff abandoned all claims,

except as to the porcelain switch plates identified by Nos. J3010 and J3011 on the invoice. The official papers were received in evidence including the collector’s memorandum, which states that the merchandise would now be properly classified, as claimed. On the record presented, the protest was sustained as to the above numbers. Abstract 60629 followed.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-1093 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-020-AD

Helicopter Model: Brantly International, Inc. Model B-2, Model B-2A, and Model B-2B Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 76 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent loss of the main rotor blade and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter. 

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $7,500 per main rotor blade

Labor per Helicopter

(1 x $85/work-hour for the 

daily pre-flight inspection)

(4 x $85/work-hour for the 

eddy current inspection)

(3 x $85/work-hour for the 

visual & tap test inspection)

(2 x $85/work-hour for a main 

rotor blade inspection)

$85 per inspection cycle

$340 per inspection cycle

$255 per inspection cycle

$170

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $85 for the daily pre-flight inspection per inspection 

cycle

$340 for the eddy current inspection per inspection 

cycle

$255 for the visual & tape test inspection per 

inspection cycle

$7,670 to replace a main rotor blade

Total US Fleet Cost $6,460 for the daily pre-flight inspection per 

inspection cycle

$25,840 for the eddy current inspection per inspection 

cycle

$19,380 for the visual & tape test inspection per 

inspection cycle

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Marc Belhumeur