alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 13,545a.

#### STRONG et al. v. WIGGINS.

[See 13 Fed. 418.]
Before the First Division,

March 9, 1959

No. 62814.

#### Robinson Import Export Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 289536-K, etc. (New York).

*299Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” and “B” consist 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 items marked *“A”*were held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 412, as modified by T.D. 51802, and the items marked “B” at 19 percent under said paragraph, as modified by T.D. 54108.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to lst Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 02-2140

WANDA ROLDAN,

Administratrix of the Estate of Rene M. Roldan,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Morris E. Lasker, Senior U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

Michael James Kelly on brief for appellant.

George B. Henderson, II, Assistant United States Attorney,

Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, and Michael E. Kerpan,

Jr., Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel,

Region I, Social Security Administration on brief for appellee.

April 29, 2003
-2-

Per Curiam. After carefully reviewing the briefs and

record on appeal, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by

the district court. 

The appellant argues that the administrative law judge

ignored material evidence and substituted his judgment for expert

medical opinion. However, substantial evidence supported the

determination that the claimant would not have been disabled if he

had not been drinking. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1535(b). The record

contains ample evidence linking the claimant's symptoms to ongoing

alcohol abuse, in addition to liver disease. Ortiz v. Secretary of

Health and Human Services, 955 F.2d 765, 769 (1st Cir. 1991). 

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee will meet on Thursday, November 16, 2023. This meeting will be held virtually from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST.

The Committee presents advice and makes recommendations to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on technical aspects of data collection and the formulation of economic measures and makes recommendations on areas of research. The BLS presents issues and then draws on the expertise of Committee members representing specialized fields within the academic disciplines of economics, statistics, data science, and survey design. The schedule and agenda for the meeting are as follows:

10:00 a.m. Acting Commissioner's Welcome and Review of Agency Developments

10:30 a.m. Using record linkage techniques to improve data import rates into the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses

1:00 p.m. Development of Small Domain Estimation Models for Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS)

2:30 p.m. Productivity Dispersion Statistics for Retail Trade

4:00 p.m. Approximate Conclusion

                    The meeting is open to the public. Any questions concerning the meeting                           ( print page 71029)                        should be directed to Michael Giandrea, Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee, at                     *BLSTAC@bls.gov.*                     Individuals planning to attend the meeting should register at                     *https://blstac.eventbrite.com.*                     Individuals who require special accommodations should contact Mr. Giandrea at least two days prior to the meeting date.                

Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of October 2023.

Leslie Bennett,

Chief, Division of Management Systems.

[FR Doc. 2023-22541 Filed 10-12-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
Case 3:06-cr-05123-KLS Document 38 Filed 10/19/06 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:06-cr-05123-KLS Document 38 Filed 10/19/06 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:06-cr-05123-KLS Document 38 Filed 10/19/06 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:06-cr-05123-KLS Document 38 Filed 10/19/06 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:06-cr-05123-KLS Document 38 Filed 10/19/06 Page 5 of 5
Before the Third Division,

February 5, 1953

No. 57060.

petition 6894-R (New York).

#### Winsor & Newton, Inc. *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

This is a petition filed under authority of section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1930 for remission of additional duties accruing by reason of undervaluation on entry of certain books and pamphlets imported from England.

The vice president of the petitioning corporation, who had been an officer thereof for about 28 years, testified that he superintended the making of this entry and of sending the necessary documents to the customhouse broker, and had been engaged in that type of work for about 26 or 27 years. His testimony in substance was as follows: At the time the goods arrived in this country, the proper appraisal of such merchandise had been in question between the Government appraiser and the witness, which situation had lasted about 5 or 6 years. Prior to the arrival of these goods, he had furnished the appraiser’s office with information secured from the shipper with a view to helping said appraiser in arriving at a conclusion as to the proper value. At the time the goods arrived, the appraiser had reached no conclusion of the problem. Subsequently, said appraiser informed the witness that certain advances in value should be made, whereupon the witness’ corporation consulted with its customhouse broker and also consulted counsel. In order that a test ease might be made, it was arranged that the appraiser should advance the values in a certain number of entries, including that here involved. From such values, a number of appeals for reappraisement were filed by the customhouse broker at the request of the witness. Among this number the instant entry should have been included, but as to this particular entry no appeal was filed.

The witness, prior to arrival of this merchandise, had been in frequent contact with the appraiser’s office regarding the appraisal of these goods and, before taking any action, he had consulted with other officers of his corporation. He stated that in entering the merchandise as he did he had no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value and, where it was possible, he at all times complied with any request of the appraiser for information.

Counsel for the Government stated at the conclusion of the testimony of this witness:

> The Government rests also except that for the record I should like to say that we had the case investigated and we are satisfied that our findings are substantially in conformity with the testimony heard this morning.

Upon this record, we find that the petitioner has sustained its burden of proving that the entry of the merchandise was without intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to deceive its officials or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition is therefore granted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Earl CULLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-60842.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Richard Terrell Starrett, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Willie Earl Culley, Petersburg, VA, pro se.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

On appeal from the denial of a motion for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the Federal Public Defender, appointed appellate counsel for Willie Earl Culley (federal prisoner No. 02481-043), has filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Culley has filed responses to counsel’s motion.

There is no right to appointed counsel in an appeal from the denial of relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). *United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1010-11 (5th Cir.1995). Nevertheless, as the district court *374appointed counsel to represent Culley, we apply the principles enunciated in *Anders*to determine whether counsel should be permitted to withdraw. *See Dinkins v. Alabama,*526 F.2d 1268, 1269 (5th Cir.1976).

The instant appeal is limited to the district court’s denial of the motion for modification of sentence. Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Culley’s responses, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22388]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-3636]


Food and Drug Administration Information Technology Strategy; 
Request for Comments; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is correcting 
a notice entitled ``Food and Drug Administration Information Technology 
Strategy; Request for Comments'' that appeared in the Federal Register 
of September 19, 2023. The document announced the availability of an 
information technology (IT) strategic plan entitled the ``FDA 
Information Technology Strategy'' and a request for comment on this IT 
Strategy. The document was published with an incorrect set of fiscal 
year information. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Casi Alexander, Office of Digital 
Transformation, Food and Drug Administration, FDA Library, 5630 Fishers 
Lane, Rm. 1087, Rockville, MD 20857, 240-402-5171, email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbf8dac8d295fad7dec3dad5dfdec9fbdddfda95d3d3c895dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d596b4a6bcfb94b9b0adb4bbb1b0a795b3b1b4fbbdbda6fbb2baa3">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 19, 
2023 (88 FR 64435), in FR Doc. 2023-20136, the following correction is 
made:
    On page 64436, in the third column, in the second paragraph, 
``Fiscal Years 2024-2026'' is corrected to read ``Fiscal Years 2024-
2027.''

    Dated: October 4, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-22388 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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

ROBERT SHEAFFER,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5232RJB/KLS

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

 NOTED:

 JUNE 23, 2006

This Civil Rights action been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title

28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Plaintiff filed his complaint on April 25, 2006 (Dkt.

# 1). By letter dated May 25, 2006, plaintiff advised the court that he has decided to withdraw his

civil rights complaint. (Dkt. # 4). 

 DISCUSSION

Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part:

[A]n action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (i) by

filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an

answer or of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs . . . . 

CONCLUSION

The court should dismiss this action as plaintiff has stated that he wishes to withdraw his civil

rights complaint. No answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed by defendants. A

proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

Case 3:06-cv-05232-RJB Document 5 Filed 06/07/06 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written

objections. See also Fed. R.Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those

objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time

limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on June 23,

2006, as noted in the caption.

DATED this 6th day of June, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05232-RJB Document 5 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,986
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,557
<ALLOWANCES>                                       971
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,720
<PP&E>                                          12,154
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,280
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,485
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            96
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,210
<SALES>                                         20,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,065
<CGS>                                            9,393
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,710
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   235
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  24
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,535)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (360)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,175)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,175)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.33)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 162 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 162

To authorize testimony and representation of Senate employees in United 
                           States v. Blackley

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 13, 1997

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize testimony and representation of Senate employees in United 
                           States v. Blackley

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Blackley, Criminal Case No. 97-0166, 
        pending in the United States District Court for the District of 
        Columbia, testimony has been requested from Brent Baglien, a former 
        employee on the staff of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
        Forestry;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to 
        any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their official 
        responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from 
        such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with 
        the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Brent Baglien, and any other present or former 
employee from whom testimony may be required, are authorized to testify 
in the case of United States v. Blackley, except concerning matters for 
which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Brent Baglien and any present or former employee of the Senate in 
connection with testimony in United States v. Blackley.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          18,064                  18,064
<SECURITIES>                                    19,037                  19,037
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,751                  12,751
<ALLOWANCES>                                       400                     400
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,525                  56,525
<PP&E>                                          21,011                  21,011
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,011                  21,011
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,746                  73,746
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,614                   6,614
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         2,258                   2,258
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,874                  64,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,746                  73,746
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,155                  20,224
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,857                  25,420
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,225)                 (4,037)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       387                     387
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,612)                 (4,424)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,612)                 (4,424)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.12)                   (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.12)                   (.20)


</TABLE>
#### In re James M. MILLEAGE; Bonnie I. Milleage, Petitioners.

No. 01-1367.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 20, 2001.

Decided July 5, 2001.

Stephen David Schusterman, Rock Hill, SC, for petitioners.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James M. Milleage and Bonnie I. Milleage have filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court to vacate its June 1, 2000, order granting relief to Branch Banking and Trust, Inc. (BB&T). *143Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Mandamus relief is available only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re United Steelworkers,*595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his right to such relief is clear and indisputable. *Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,*449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). The Milleages have not made such a showing.

Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*