alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 68533.

protests 62/12689, etc. (New York).

#### Sponholz et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic paperweight snow scenes similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the First Division,

May 10, 1965

No. 69297.

#### S. H. Kress & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/1187 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass' paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64185, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologyand ore deposits of the Bullfrog district, Nevada**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:407
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000958772
 
July 31, 2018
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

CELERINO CARRASCO JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

 v.

 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al CASE NUMBER: C06-5104RJB

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury

has rendered its verdict.

 X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or

heard and a decision has been rendered.

The Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, Dkt #18, is ADOPTED. This case is

DISMISSED. The clerk is directed to file any documents received from plaintiff after judgment is entered, but the

court will not consider them. The clerk is further directed to file the following documents as a Notice of Appeal in

this case: the document captioned "Supersiding [sic] Objections and Appeal Against Order Dismissed," Dkt #20;

and "Supersiding Objections of Appeal and Against Order of Dismissal," Dkt #21. 

 March 13, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

/s/ Dara L. Kaleel_______________________ 

By Dara L. Kaleel, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05104-RJB Document 23 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 11068)

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

Entry No. 2014, etc.

(Decided September 27, 1965)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

*John*TV. *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 Simplification Aot of 1956 (T.D. 54165) ; that the involved merchandise is not identified on the Pinal 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.

> *6032. 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 the invoice unit ex-factory prices.

> 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) of the 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.

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.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22357]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice:12207]


Notice of Determinations; Additional Culturally Significant 
Object Being Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Scripture and 
Science: Our Universe, Ourselves, and Our Place'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: On January 3, 2023, notice was published on page 125 of the 
Federal Register (volume 88, number 1) of determinations pertaining to 
certain objects to be included in an exhibition entitled ``Scripture 
and Science: Our Universe, Ourselves, and Our Place.'' On April 4, 
2023, notice was published on page 20015 of the Federal Register 
(volume 88, number 64) of determinations pertaining to certain 
additional objects to be included in the aforesaid exhibition. Notice 
is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine 
that a certain additional object being imported from abroad pursuant to 
an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display 
in the aforesaid exhibition at the Museum of the Bible, Washington, 
District of Columbia, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues 
yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that 
its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as 
aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4d7c1c7d0cdcbca9690919de4d7d0c5d0c18ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e2918781968b8d8cd0d6d7dba29196839687cc858d94">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 
2021.

Nicole L. Elkon,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2023-22357 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
These data are released whenever there are code changes.
- Complete file (2 MB PDF)  Cover page and table of contents (500 KB PDF)Summary tables (205 KB PDF)
- Flows tables (550 KB PDF)  Level tables (525 KB PDF)Balance sheet tables (70 KB PDF)
- Supplementary tables (130 KB PDF)  Integrated macroeconomic accounts table (290 KB PDF)These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DIRECTING

RETURN OF SUMMONS

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

BARRY TRASK,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0473-MAT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND DIRECTING

RETURN OF SUMMONS

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff does

not appear to have funds available to afford the $250.00 filing fee.

(1) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff’s counsel, and to issue

summonses to plaintiff’s counsel to enable proper service of the complaint on the appropriate

parties. Plaintiff shall note that it is his and his attorney’s responsibility to properly serve

copies of the complaint along with appropriate summonses as required by Rule 4 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-00473-JLR Document 3 Filed 04/07/06 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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DIRECTING

RETURN OF SUMMONS

PAGE -2

(2) The Clerk is directed to send to plaintiff’s counsel a copy of the Notice of Initial

Assignment and Consent to Proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.

DATED this 7th day of April, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00473-JLR Document 3 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure 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
report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Richard RudmanRichard RudmanChairman, Chief Executive Officer andPresident
**Exhibit        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT**

**TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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                  SafeStitch                  Medical, Inc. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|        |                                                                                                                                         |                                        |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|   | By:                                                                                                                                | /s/ Jeffrey                G. Spragens |
|   | Jeffrey                  G. SpragensChief                  Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)November                  12, 2008 |

----
Case No. 8,245.

#### LENOX v. GEORGETOWN.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 608.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1809.

License — For Hacks — Compensation for Service.

The corporation of Georgetown could not impose a penalty on hack-owners residing out of Georgetown, for bringing passengers into Georgetown from the city of Washington, if they take only the city price for driving to the verge of the city.

Appeal from a conviction before a justice of the peace of Georgetown on the by-law of Georgetown, being a supplement to the act for licensing hacks, for conveying a passenger into Georgetown in a city hack without taking out a license from the corporation of Georgetown.

Mr. Jones, for Lenox.

The streets of Georgetown are common highways. If the hack-owner be not a resident of Georgetown, and if he charges nothing for carrying the passenger into Georgetown; if he only cbar-.ges for carrying him to the western limits of the city; he does not violate the by-law.

F. S. Key, contra.

The contract was to take the passenger from the Capitol to the Union Tavern, in Georgetown. It is true he took no more than the price limited by the by-law of the city of Washington, for carrying him to the western limits of the city; but it was part of the contract to carry him to the Union Tavern.

*314There is no fixed price in the city; the bylaw of -the city is only that the price shall not exceed certain rates.

THE COURT

was of the opinion that the corporation of Georgetown could not lawfully pass such an ordinance, imposing a penalty on hack owners residing out of the town of Georgetown for bringing into Georgetown from elsewhere passengers, under the circumstances in the case stated, namely, taking only the city price for driving to the verge of the city. Judgment reversed.
No. 63887.

protest 59/19142 (New York).

#### Inter-American Minerals Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this-court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
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

NATHANIEL OLSON and CHRISTOPHER W.

HESSE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. and SPRINT

NEXTEL CORPORATION,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-592JCC

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 PLAINTIFFS NATHANIEL OLSON and CHRISTOPHER W.

HESSE , and on behalf of DEFENDANT SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. in the amount of $6,189.45 and

against PLAINTIFFS NATHANIEL OLSON and CHRISTOPHER W. HESSE, and on behalf of

DEFENDANT SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION in the amount of $1,113.00 as follows:

Requested Disallowed Allowed

I. PRO HOC VICE FEES $875.00 $875.00 0

Pro Hoc Vice fees are not taxable costs.

II. DEPOSITION COSTS $5,997.45 0 $5,997.45

All deposition costs requested by defendants were allowed.

III. COPY COSTS $4,775.36 $3,820.36 $955.00

Case 2:06-cv-00592-JLR Document 204 Filed 04/17/08 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

Requested Disallowed Allowed

TAXATION OF COSTS -- 2

Costs for copying of materials was requested by defendant Sprint Spectrum L.P. Only cost for copying

of materials directly related to motions leading to dismissal are allowed. Clerk determined that 20% of

the total request reasonable represents copying directly associated with the dismissal.

IV. FILING FEE $350.00 0 $350.00

Dated this 17th day of APRIL, 2008 .

A

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Case 2:06-cv-00592-JLR Document 204 Filed 04/17/08 Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2 (1)

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Michael Schradle, the chief financial officer of Micro Linear
Corporation (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of
chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my
knowledge,

(i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 30, 2003, (the Report), complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|                   |  |                                            
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2003 |  | /s/      Michael W. Schradle               
|                   |  |                                            
|                   |  | Michael W. Schradle
Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. §1350 has
been provided to Micro Linear Corporation and will be retained by Micro Linear
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

---

(1)   The material contained in this Exhibit 99.2 is not deemed filed with the
SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company
under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
No. 69320.

#### National Carloading Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 59/5689, 59/9255(B), and 59/9341 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *G. Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) (Mod. 10/93) Judgment in a Civil Case "

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

MAJOR MARGARET WITT,

v.

CASE NUMBER CV06-5195 RBL

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE

AIR FORCE; et al,

[ % ] Decision by Court. This action came to trial before the Court. The issues have been presented and

a decision has been rendered.

BASED ON ORAL AND WRITTEN MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINDINGS OF FACT

AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THE COURT HAS ORDERED THAT 

The application of “Dont’s Ask Don’t Tell” to Major Margaret Witt does not significantly further

the government’s interest in promoting military readiness, unit morale and cohesion. Her discharge from

the Air Force Reserves violated her substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the

United States Constitution. She should be restored to her position as a Flight Nurse with the 446th AES

as soon as is practicable, subject to meeting applicable regulations touching upon qualifications

necessary for continued service.

WILLIAM M. McCOOL 

Dated: September 24, 2010 Clerk

s/Jean Boring 

(By) Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05195-RBL Document 166 Filed 09/24/10 Page 1 of 1
No. 54997.

#### Heller Hope Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 159423-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
Exhibit 21
 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC.
 STATE/COUNTRYOFINCORPORATION/NAME OF SUBSIDIARY
    
    ORGANIZATION
    
    PARENTRoadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc.Roadrunner Truckload Agent Investment, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc.Group Transportation Services Holdings,
Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc.International Transportation Holdings, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc.Sargent Transportation, LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc.Bullet Transportation Services, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.Morgan Southern, Inc.
    
    Georgia
    
    Roadrunner Transportation Services, Inc.Dilorco Incorporated
    
    Georgia
    
    Morgan Southern, Inc.GTS Acquisition Sub, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    Group Transportation Services Holdings,
Inc.Group Transportation Services, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    GTS Acquisition Sub, Inc.Great Northern Transportation Services,
Inc.
    
    New Hampshire
    
    GTS Acquisition Sub, Inc.MESCA Freight Services, LLC
    
    Maine
    
    GTS Acquisition Sub, Inc.Alpha Freight Systems, Inc.
    
    Ohio
    
    GTS Acquisition Sub, Inc.GTS Direct, LLC
    
    Ohio
    
    GTS Acquisition Sub, Inc.World Transport Services, Inc.
    
    Maine
    
    MESCA Freight Services, LLCBeech Hill Enterprises, LLC
    
    New Hampshire
    
    MESCA Freight Services, LLCMidwest Transit, Inc.
    
    Canada
    
    International Transportation Holdings, Inc.Sargent Trucking, Inc.
    
    Maine
    
    Sargent Transportation, LLCB&J Transportation, Inc.
    
    Maine
    
    Sargent Transportation, LLCMidwest Carriers, Inc.
    
    Indiana
    
    Sargent Transportation, LLCSmith Truck Brokers, Inc.
    
    Maine
    
    Sargent Transportation, LLCBig Rock Transportation, Inc.
    
    Indiana
    
    Sargent Transportation, LLC