alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. P68/18.

protest 65/7333 (New York).

#### Intercontinental Fibres, Inc. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of nylon mono-filament yam similar in all material respects'to those the subject of *Chester Tricot*Mills, *Inc.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 532, C.D. 2695), 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: Mineralresources of proposed additions to the Salmon-Trinity Alps Primitive Area,California**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:1514
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000959976
 
August 13, 2018
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I,
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Smart & Final Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 19, 2005 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      
|----------------------
|                      
|/s/ Etienne Snollaerts
|Etienne Snollaerts    
|July 20, 2005
alpn-ex41_205.htm



Exhibit 4.1

 


	
Number CS-
	
* * Shares

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Common Stock




 

ALPINE IMMUNE SCIENCES, INC

a Delaware Corporation

Incorporated on July 21, 2012

Common Stock

Par Value: $0.001

THIS CERTIFIES THAT  is the record holder of   ( ) shares of Common Stock of Alpine Immune Sciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder, in person, or by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed or assigned.

This certificate and the shares represented hereby are issued and shall be held subject to all the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation and the Bylaws of the Corporation and any amendments thereto, all of which the holder of this certificate, by acceptance hereof, assents.

A statement of all of the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions granted to or imposed upon the respective classes or series of stock of the Corporation and upon the holders thereof may be obtained by any stockholder without charge upon request delivered to the secretary of the Corporation at the principal office of the Corporation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers this day of, 2015.

 


	
 
	
 
	
 

	
President
	
 
	
Secretary




 

 



FOR VALUE RECEIVED HEREBY SELLS, ASSIGNS AND TRANSFERS UNTO SHARES REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE AND DOES HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT ATTORNEY TO TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES ON THE SHARE REGISTER OF THE WITHIN NAMED CORPORATION WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES.

 


	
DATED
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
(Signature)




 

NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 39

To provide for the convening of the second session of the One Hundred

Fifth Congress

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 13, 1997

Mr. LOTT introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice,

considered, read the third time and passed

JOINT RESOLUTION

To provide for the convening of the second session of the

One Hundred Fifth Congress

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the second regular session of the One Hundred Fifth

4 Congress shall begin at noon on Tuesday, January 27,

5 1998.

6 SEC. 2. Prior to the convening of the second regular

7 session of the One Hundred Fifth Congress on January

8 27, 1998, as provided in the first section of this joint reso9 lution, Congress shall reassemble at noon on the second
2

SJ 39 CPS

1 day after its Members are notified in accordance with sec2 tion 3 of this joint resolution.

3 SEC. 3. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

4 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

5 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead6 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

7 and Senate, respectively, to assemble whenever, in their

8 opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of EARTH DRAGON RESOURCES INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas Herdman, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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







Date: September 13, 2011
By:
/s/ Thomas HerdmanName: Thomas HerdmanTitle: President, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Anoka Air, Inc., et al 

Complainant, 

v. FAA Docket No. 16~11·12 

Metropolitan Airports Commission 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR, Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to March 15, 20 16 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in 

this case. 

-Byron K. Hu an, A irector 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

~ 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on .>o.......<:c-t'-"'...LJ<..looo'""'4-'t-+....:.. '2-1_. 016, I caused to be placed in the United 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Steven M. Taber, Esq. 

Taber Law Group 

13 Atlanta 

Irvine, CA 92620 

Facsimile: (714) 707-4282 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Thomas W. Anderson, Esq. 

General Counsel 

Metropolitan Airports Commission 

6040 28th A venue South 

Minneapolis, MN 55450 

Facsimile: (612) 726-5306 

Pablo 0. Ntiesch, Esq. 

Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 

1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Facsimile: (202) 393-2866 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

ue copy of the Notice of Extension of Time 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

CCJJulwiU~ Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 30 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 30

    Designating March 1, 1998 as ``United States Navy Asiatic Fleet 
                Memorial Day'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 6, 1997

Mr. Warner (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Thurmond, and Mrs. Feinstein) 
  introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Designating March 1, 1998 as ``United States Navy Asiatic Fleet 
                Memorial Day'', and for other purposes.

Whereas the United States established the Asiatic Fleet of the Navy in 1910 to 
        protect American nationals, policies, and possessions in the Far East;
Whereas the sailors and Marines of the Asiatic Fleet ensured the safety of 
        United States citizens and foreign nationals, and provided humanitarian 
        assistance, in that region during the Chinese civil war, the Yangtze 
        Flood of 1931, and the outbreak of Sino-Japanese hostilities;
Whereas in 1940, due to deteriorating political relations and increasing 
        tensions between the United States and Japan, a reinforced Asiatic Fleet 
        began concentrating on the defense of the Philippines and engaged in 
        extensive training to ensure maximum operational readiness for any 
        eventuality;
Whereas following the declaration of war against Japan, the warships, 
        submarines, and aircraft of the Asiatic Fleet singly or in task forces 
        courageously fought many naval battles against a superior Japanese 
        armada; and
Whereas the Asiatic Fleet directly suffered the loss of 22 ships, 1,826 men 
        killed or missing in action, and 518 men captured and imprisoned under 
        the worst of conditions with many of them dying while held as prisoners 
        of war: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL COMMENDATION.

    Congress--
            (1) commends the personnel who served in the Asiatic Fleet 
        of the United States Navy during the period 1910 to 1942; and
            (2) honors those who gave their lives in the line of duty 
        while serving in the Asiatic Fleet.

SEC. 2. UNITED STATES NAVY ASIATIC FLEET MEMORIAL DAY.

    (a) Designation.--March 1, 1998 is designated as ``United States 
Navy Asiatic Fleet Memorial Day''.
    (b) Proclamation.--The President is authorized and requested to 
issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to 
observe United States Navy Asiatic Fleet Memorial Day with appropriate 
programs, ceremonies, and activities.
                                 <all>
```
Case lío. 6,551.

#### HOBBS v. MAGRUDER.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 429.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March Term, 1834.

SLAVERT — PETITION FOR FREEDOM.

The sale, in "the District of Columbia, of a Maryland slave brought here by 'her owner, ■does not give the slave a title to freedom under the Maryland statute of 1817, c. 112, which prohibits the sale to a non-resident of the state, of any slave having a contingent right to freedom.

[This was a petition for freedom by Rebecca Hobbs, a negress, against Thomas Ma-.gruder and Washington Robey.]

W. L. Brent, for petitioner.

Messrs. Swann and C. Cox, for respondents.

CRANCH, Chief Judge

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent).

The facts of this case appear to be as follows: Margaret Stock-•ett, being the owner of the petitioner as a slave for life, by her will made the following bequest to her daughter Eliza Ann Stockett: “After all my just debts are paid I give and bequeathe to my daughter Eliza Ann, all my property, both real and personal; and in case the said Eliza Ann should die without having an heir lawfully begotten of her body, it is then my wish and will that my negroes are to be free, and all the residue’ of the property to go to my nephew, George Henry McGill, to him and his heirs forever.” Eliza Ann intermarried with Thomas Jones, a resident of the District of Columbia, and came to reside in this district with her husband, who brought the petitioner here and sold her to the defendant, Magruder; the said Eliza Arm, at the time of the sale, having had no issue of her body; but having since the sale, had issue of her body lawfully begotten, and now living. The petitioner claims freedom under the act of Maryland of 1817, e. 212. The first section of the act provides that no person shall knowingly sell or dispose of, to a non-resident of the state, any servant or slave who may be entitled to freedom upon any contingency, nor for a longer term than he is bound to serve, under the pain of penitentiary punishment, upon conviction on indictment in the county where the seller resides. The second section punishes the nonresident purchaser of such a servant or slave. The third section provides that no sale of such a servant or slave shall be valid unless ■ in writing under the hands and seals of the seller and purchaser, &c.; and if the sale •should be made without a compliance with the prescribed forms, the slave shall be free, unless the court or jury should be of opinion, that no fraud was intended by the omission of any one of the requisites. The sale was made in the District of Columbia, without a compliance with the requisites of the law of Maryland. Without deciding whether the petitioner had or had not a contingent right to freedom at the time of the sale, the court is of opinion that as the act of Maryland is of no force in this district, the sale here cannot be considered such a violation of the law of Maryland, as can give the petitioner a right to freedom.
No. 63838.

protests 58/12756, etc. (New York).

#### John Stuart, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 39, C.A.D. 669), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF THE

CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Each of John W. Bordelon, President and Chief Executive Officer and Joseph B. Zanco,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Home Bancorp, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sections 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 15, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ John W. Bordelon                 
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | John W. Bordelon                     
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                     
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 15, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Joseph B. Zanco                                 
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Joseph B. Zanco                                     
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



|Note: | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to Home Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|----- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Third Division,

December 19, 1950

No. 55007.

#### S. A. Haram & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 159683-K (New York).

*308Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *S. A. Haram et al.*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 37, C. D. 1016). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damon CAUSEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-30823.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 26, 2005.

Michael Edward McMahon, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, William P. Gibbens, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Damon Causey, White Deer, PA, pro se.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Damon Causey, federal prisoner #24328-034, appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that Amendment 591 to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, coupled with principles set forth in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), demonstrate that his sentence should be reduced.

Amendment 591 made no downward modification to the guideline under which Causey was sentenced in 1996. *See*Amendment 591, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Supp. to Appendix C, p. 30 (2002); U.S.S.G. § 2H1.1 (1995); U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1 (1995). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Amendment 591 provided no bases for modification of Causey’s sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). *See United States v. Pardue,*36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir.1994).

*397Moreover, to the *extent*that Causey seeks to challenge his sentence based on *Apprendi*and *Blakely*by filing a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, he has failed to make the requisite prima facie showing either that his claim is based on newly discovered evidence or that he relies on a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2255; *In re Elwood,*408 F.3d 211, 212 (5th Cir.2005). He therefore does not meet the standard for filing a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. *Elwood,*408 F.3d at 212. The district court also did not err when it declined to address Causey’s *Apprendi*claims, because Causey did not have permission of this court to proceed on a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district court. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Cy MANN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6185.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.

*176Robert Cy Mann, Appellant pro se. Darryl James Mitchell, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Robert Cy Mann seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The order, which derives from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *see Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mann has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we have determined that Mann’s self-styled motion under Rule 59(e) is, in substance, a successive motion attacking his conviction and sentence under § 2255. *See United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 206-07 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*540 U.S. 995, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003). We therefore treat Mann’s notice of appeal and appellate brief as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, and deny such authorization. *See id.*at 208; 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (2000).

Finally, 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*