alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 60594.

#### Isaac B. Cohen & Sons Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 256630-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dime savings banks the same in all material respects as those the subject of *M. Pressner & Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 262, C. D. 1784), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

BERNARD O. HUFF,

Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5105RJB

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS.

This matter is before the court on petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. After

reviewing the record, the court orders as follows.

Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. Petitioner’s application to proceed as a pauper is therefore

moot. Accordingly, the clerk is directed to strike petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis from

the court’s motion calendar. The Clerk is further directed to mail a copy of this Order to petitioner.

DATED this 23rd day of March, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. Kelley Arnold

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05105-RJB Document 5 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 1
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 11

A resolution making minority party appointments to Senate committees for

the 105th Congress.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 9 (legislative day, JANUARY 7), 1997

Mr. DASCHLE submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

A resolution making minority party appointments to Senate

committees for the 105th Congress.

1 Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of rule

2 XXV, the following shall constitute the minority party’s

3 membership on the standing committees for the 105th

4 Congress, or until their successors are chosen:

5 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND

6 FORESTRY: Mr. Harkin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Conrad, Mr.

7 Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kerrey, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr.

8 Johnson.
2

SRES 11 ATS

1 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. Byrd, Mr.

2 Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Lau3 tenberg, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kohl,

4 Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan, and Mrs. Boxer.

5 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Levin, Mr.

6 Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Robb,

7 Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Cleland.

8 COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN

9 AFFAIRS: Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bryan,

10 Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Johnson, and Mr.

11 Reed.

12 COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANS13 PORTATION: Mr. Hollings, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Ford, Mr.

14 Rockefeller, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Dor15 gan, and Mr. Wyden.

16 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES:

17 Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Ford, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Akaka, Mr.

18 Dorgan, Mr. Graham, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Johnson, and Ms.

19 Landrieu.

20 COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS:

21 Mr. Baucus, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Reid,

22 Mr. Graham, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr.

23 Wyden.
3

SRES 11 ATS

1 COMMITTEE ON FINANCE: Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Bau2 cus, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Gra3 ham, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Bryan, and Mr. Kerrey.

4 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Mr. Biden,

5 Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Robb, Mr.

6 Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Wellstone.

7 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS: Mr.

8 Glenn, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Dur9 bin, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Cleland.

10 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Mr. Leahy, Mr.

11 Kennedy, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.

12 Feingold, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Torricelli.

13 COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES:

14 Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.

15 Bingaman, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Reed.

Æ
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 552 Filed 06/20/12 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 552 Filed 06/20/12 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 552 Filed 06/20/12 Page 3 of 7
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 552 Filed 06/20/12 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 552 Filed 06/20/12 Page 5 of 7
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 552 Filed 06/20/12 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 552 Filed 06/20/12 Page 7 of 7
Bayer Crop Science 

December 12, 2014 

Document Processing Desk 

Office of Pesticide Programs (7504P) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

One Potomac Yard 

2777 S. Crystal Drive 

Arlington, VA 22202 

Attention: Richard Gebken, Product Manager (10) 

Bayer CropScience 

2 T.W. Alexander Drive 

P. 0. Box 12014 

RTP, NC 27709 

Phone: (919) 549-2000 

Subject: Voluntary Cancellation of the Registration of Synapse WG Insecticide, EPA Reg. No. 

264-1026 

Dear Mr. Gebken: 

Bayer CropScience is requesting to voluntarily cancel without prejudice the registrations of 

Synapse WG Insecticide, EPA Reg. No. 264-1026. HHRA 17 dated October 2012 instructed as a 

condition of the waiver of the subchronic inhalation toxicity study registration requirement, dry 

flowable formulations of flubendiamide (Synapse WG, EPA Reg. No. 264-1026) must be 

canceled. 

BCS no longer has stocks of Synapse WG Insecticide to sell. We would request that for 18 

months from the date of this letter (June 12, 2016) persons other than the registrants will be 

allowed to sell or distribute existing stocks of Synapse until supplies are exhausted, provided 

that such sale and distribution is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling 

on or that accompanied the canceled products. We would also like to request to have the 30 

day comment period for this action waived. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me by phone a: (919) 

600-4794 or by e-mail at amy.mccaskill@bayer.com. 

Sincerely, 

Amy McCaskill 

Registration Manager 

cc: Deborah McCall, EPA, OPP, RD
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Greg THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-60763.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Curtis Ivy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Greg Thomas, Federal Correctional Institution Talladega, Talladega, AL, pro se.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Greg Thomas appeals from a guilty plea conviction for distribution of over 50 grams of cocaine base. *See*21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A).

*321For the first time on appeal, Thomas argues that the district court erred in imposing a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme, in violation of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756-57, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We review for plain error. *See United States v. Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir.2005). Thomas makes no showing, as required by *Martinez-Lugo,*that the district court would likely have sentenced him differently under an advisory sentencing scheme. Similarly, there is no indication from the district court’s remarks at sentencing that the district court would have reached a different conclusion. Thomas has failed to meet his burden to show that the district court’s imposition of a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme was plain error. *See Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d at 601.

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.
Before the Third Division,

April 30, 1964

No. 68504.

protest 63/3876 (New York).

#### Stamoolis Bros. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the proper basis for converting the weight in pounds to gallons is 6.5 pounds per gallon, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained, and the collector was directed to reliquidate the entry accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 10806)

#### Aut Customs Brokers, Inc., a/c Fadex Commercial Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 971579.

(Decided on rehearing [not published] August 24, 1964)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Rao, Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement listed above has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> *390IT 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 automobiles imported after the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54105), which are identified on the Pinal List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant thereto (T.D. 54521), andaré accordingly subject to appraisement under Section 402a of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

> 2. That on or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the country of exportation for home consumption or for exportation to the United States.

> 3. That on or about the said dates of exportation, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the United States.

> 4. That the cost of production as defined in Section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended of the automobiles involved herein is as follows:

> Matador Hi-Loader: appraised value less 12.83%, net packed

> Matador Panel Van extra large: appraised value less 12.58%, net packed

> Matador Panel Van standard: appraised value less 12.58%, net packed

> 5. That this appeal may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

Upon the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by said appeal for reappraisement and that such values are as follows:

> For the Matador Hi-Loader, the appraised value, less 12.83%, net packed; for the Matador Panel Van extra large, the appraised value, less 12.58%, net packed; for the Matador Panel Van standard, the appraised value, less 12.58%, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Copyrighted page(s) removed. Copyrighted 

material is not available in Regulations.gov since 

it may not be reproduced without consent of the 

copyright holder. 

Removed pages can be viewed at the USEPA 

Docket Center, Public Reading Room. 

Address: 1301 Constitution Ave, NW 

Room 3334 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: 202-566-1744 

Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov
Before the First Division,

May 11, 1964

No. 68527.

protests 63/4069, etc. (New York).

#### Cantarini Accordion Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chord organs and parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Excelsior Accordions, Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 148, C.D. 2328), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

GUY BECKET, Personal Representative of the

Estate of Lois Beckett, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,,

Plaintiff,

v.

MELLON INVESTOR SERVICES, LLC, a

New Jersey limited liability company,,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5245 FDB

ORDER SETTING NEW

DEADLINES FOR SERVING AND

FILING INITIAL DISCLOSURES

AND JOINT STATUS REPORT

This matter comes before the Court on motion of Plaintiff to establish new deadlines for

serving and filing initial disclosures and joint status report. The Defendant does not object to the

setting of new deadlines. The parties have conducted a Rule 26(f) conference and Plaintiff has

decided to file a motion for remand to the state court. Plaintiff proposes that such motion be filed on

October 9, 2006, for consideration on October 27, 2006, with Defendant to file its opposition by

October 23, 2006 and Plaintiff a reply by October 27, 2006. The Plaintiff seeks to have the initial

disclosures and joint status report filed subsequent to the determination on the motion for remand.

The Court is in agreement that the initial disclosure and joint status report shall be due

subsequent to the determination of the motion to remand. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Case 3:06-cv-05245-RJB Document 8 Filed 10/03/06 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 ORDER - 2

(1) Plaintiff is to file the motion for remand no later than October 9, 2006, and noted for

Friday, October 27, 2006. The opposition shall be filed no later than October 23,

2006 and any reply, October 27,2 006;

(2) Initial Disclosures shall be served no later than 10 days after determination of the

motion to remand, if denied;

(3) Joint Status Report shall be filed 7 days after service of initial disclosures.

DATED this 2nd day of October, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05245-RJB Document 8 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

April 12, 1956

No. 59840.

#### Flah & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 238784-K (A), etc, (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
- 399 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. MALONE

Cite as 309 Neb. 399

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Kevin W. Malone, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed June 4, 2021. Nos. S-20-118, S-20-460. 

supplemental opinion

Appeals from the District Court for Douglas County: Shelly 

R. Stratman, Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for 

rehearing overruled.

Richard L. Boucher and Bradley H. Supernaw, of Boucher 

Law Firm, for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Melissa R. 

Vincent for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the 

appellant, Kevin W. Malone, concerning our opinion in State 

v. Malone, 308 Neb. 929, 957 N.W.2d 892 (2021). We find 

no substantive merit to Malone’s motion and overrule it, but 

modify the opinion as follows:

In the analysis section, under the heading “2. Postconvic

tion Relief” and the subheading “(b) Claim of Prosecutorial 

Misconduct,” id. at 962, 957 N.W.2d at 920, we withdraw the 

second paragraph and substitute the following:

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

08/06/2021 08:10 AM CDT
- 400 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

309 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. MALONE

Cite as 309 Neb. 399

The district court first rejected this argument as procedurally barred. However, Malone had amended his 

motion to add an allegation that his appellate counsel had 

been ineffective for failing to raise the claims of prosecutorial misconduct on direct appeal. The district court 

alternatively rejected Malone’s claim, reasoning that even 

if not procedurally barred, the claim failed to “set forth 

the facts and applicable law to establish an objection 

based on any of these prosecutorial [misconduct] claims 

would . . . have been successful.” We agree.

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

Former opinion modified.

Motion for rehearing overruled.
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 161

To amend Senate Resolution 48.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 13, 1997

Mr. LOTT submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To amend Senate Resolution 48.

1 Resolved, That Senate Resolution 48, 105th Con2 gress, agreed to February 4, 1997, is amended—

3 (1) in section 1(e), by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ and

4 inserting ‘‘$10,000’’; and

5 (2) in sections 1(e) and 1(g), by striking ‘‘Sep6 tember 30, 1997’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30,

7 1998’’.

Æ
Before the First Division,

November 14, 1962

No. 67190.

protests 59/4360, etc. (Mobile).

#### Birmingham Woodenware Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 809 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      November 9, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3996) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, 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 Ways and Means 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, and on 
any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, if offered by Representative McCrery of Louisiana or his 
designee, which shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable 
for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; 
and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 3996 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.
```
#### WESTFORK, a Nevada Corporation; Calneva Cattle Company, a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America; Right Away Foods Corporation, Defendants-Appellees

No. 00-15333.

D.C. No. CV-97-01360-WBS/JFM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2001 *.

Decided July 17, 2001.

Discretionary Review Granted by Supreme Court Aug. 15, 2001.

*715Before SNEED, WARDLAW and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Westfork Corp. and Calneva Cattle Co. (collectively, ‘Westfork”) appeal the district court’s order of costs requiring them to pay certain expenses incurred by defendants in Westfork’s unsuccessful tort action. We affirm. Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.

1. The district court was within its discretion to consider Right Away Foods Corp.’s bill of costs, notwithstanding the timing of Right Awajfs submission of supporting documentation. *Harris v. Marhoefer,*24 F.3d 16, 20 n. 4 (9th Cir.1994).

2. We review the district court’s award of costs for abuse of discretion. *Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc.,*914 F.2d 175, 176 (9th Cir.1990). The district court addressed Westfork’s objections in detail, and provided a reasoned basis for rejecting them. We cannot say that the court abused its discretion.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            Jan-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               Feb-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 Oct-31-1999
<CASH>                                         3,839,377
<SECURITIES>                                   1,090,163
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,172,894
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,642,879
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  91,847
<PP&E>                                         3,749,844
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,589,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                11,383,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,419,842
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           4,891
<OTHER-SE>                                    11,414,479
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  11,383,418
<SALES>                                        4,781,979
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,781,979
<CGS>                                          1,611,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,611,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,377,348
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 3,207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (212,284)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (225,250)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               12,966
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                           0
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.00


</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 130651 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130651 COA: 254802 Wayne CC: 03-014144-01 TANIA MARIA SWAIZEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 2, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0724 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 31, 2006

Clerk