alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 56189.

protests 153871-K and 153872-K (El Paso).

#### L. W. Hoffecker *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
**BB** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0 019 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SACRAMENTO JUAN DOMINGUEZ, J.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including May 3 , 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court March 27 2024

03/27/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0019
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 308

Commending the crew members of the United States Navy destroyers of

DesRon 61 for their heroism, intrepidity, and skill in action in the

only naval surface engagement occurring inside Tokyo Bay during World

War II.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 15 (legislative day, OCTOBER 2), 1998

Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. INOUYE, and Mr. LEVIN) submitted the following

concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Commending the crew members of the United States Navy

destroyers of DesRon 61 for their heroism, intrepidity,

and skill in action in the only naval surface engagement

occurring inside Tokyo Bay during World War II.

Whereas, DesRon 61, a group of nine United States destroyers composed of the U.S.S. DeHaven (DD 727), U.S.S.

Mansfield (DD 728), U.S.S. Swenson (DD 729), U.S.S.

Collett (DD 730), U.S.S. Maddox (DD 731), U.S.S. Blue

(DD 744), U.S.S. Brush (DD 745), U.S.S. Taussig (DD

746), and U.S.S. Moore (DD 747), and commanded by

Captain T.H. Hederman, penetrated Tokyo Bay, Japan,

on rough seas and at night;

Whereas, although surrounded in darkness, the vigilant and

intrepid members of the crews of the United States de-
2

•SRES 308 ATS

stroyers were able to detect a Japanese convoy attempting to sneak out of Tokyo Bay along the coastline, engage and defeat the heavily-armed warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy escorting the convoy, and subdue the

convoy; and

Whereas the victory was gained without the loss of a single

sailor or ship: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate, on behalf of the people

2 of the United States commends the members of the crews

3 of the United States Navy destroyers of DesRon 61 who

4 participated in the July 22, 1945, surface naval engage5 ment in Tokyo Bay for their heroism, intrepidity, and skill

6 in battle that contributed to the defeat of Japanese forces

7 in World War II.

Æ
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 264

To designate October 8, 1998, as the Day of National Concern About Young

People and Gun Violence.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1998

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. SMITH

of Oregon, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. ROBB, Mr.

AKAKA, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. FAIRCLOTH,

Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. GORTON, Mr. REID, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. DASCHLE,

Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. KERREY, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr.

ABRAHAM, Mr. CRAIG, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. COCHRAN,

Mr. GRAMS, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. BOXER, Mrs. HUTCHISON,

Mr. LEVIN, Mr. GLENN, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. DODD, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. TORRICELLI,

Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. WARNER, Mr. FRIST, Mr. INOUYE, Ms.

LANDRIEU, Mr. BURNS, Mr. KOHL, Mr. KERRY, Mr. WYDEN, Mr.

CONRAD, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. BENNETT,

and Mr. BUMPERS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

OCTOBER 12 (legislative day, OCTOBER 2), 1998

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To designate October 8, 1998, as the Day of National

Concern About Young People and Gun Violence.

Whereas every day in America, 15 children under the age of

19 are killed with guns;
2

SRES 264 ATS

Whereas in 1994, approximately 70 percent of murder victims aged 15 to 17 were killed with a handgun;

Whereas in 1995, nearly 8 percent of high school students

reported having carried a gun in the past 30 days;

Whereas young people are our Nation’s most important

source, and we, as a society, have a vested interest in

helping children grow from a childhood free from fear

and violence into healthy adulthood;

Whereas young people can, by taking responsibility for their

own decisions and actions, and by positively influencing

the decisions and actions of others, help chart a new and

less violent direction for the entire Nation;

Whereas students in every school district in the Nation will

be invited to take part in a day of nationwide observance

involving millions of their fellow students, and will thereby be empowered to see themselves as significant agents

in a wave of positive social change; and

Whereas the observance of this day will give American students the opportunity to make an earnest decision about

their future by voluntarily signing the ‘‘Student Pledge

Against Gun Violence’’, and sincerely promise that they

will never take a gun to school, will never use a gun to

settle a dispute, and will use their influence to prevent

friends from using guns to settle disputes: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That—

2 (1) the Senate designates October 8, 1998, as

3 ‘‘the Day of National Concern About Young People

4 and Gun Violence’’; and
3

SRES 264 ATS

1 (2) the President should be authorized and

2 requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the

3 school children of the United States to observe that

4 day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
----

(2004/C 88 E/0422)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2543/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 July 2003)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Armenia

Given that:

In view of the fact that:

The European Union has an excellent economic and commercial cooperation relationship with Armenia.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of the facts outlined above?

What measures, in the context of cooperation relations, might constitute a serious and effective means of inducing Armenia to respect religious freedom?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2486/03, E-2487/03 and E-2543/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Commission is concerned about the problem of increased violations of religious freedom in Southern Caucasus and in Central Asia. It is fully aware of the situation of Adventists and members of the Asia Protestant Church of Muslim and Russian Orthodox communities in Turkmenistan and of Jehovah's Witnesses in Armenia.

As Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Georgia have Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (PCA) with the Union, the Commission raises at each meeting in PCA framework the points concerning violations of freedom of religion and more generally violations of basic human rights. Despite the fact that the PCA with Turkmenistan is not yet ratified, the Commission raises also these points at each bilateral meeting with the Turkmen authorities.

The Commission would like to reiterate that it attaches great importance to the rights of freedom of religion, belief and expression. The Union has repeatedly affirmed that human rights and democratisation must form an integral part of political dialogue with third countries. In its May 2001 Communication on the Union's role in the promotion of Democracy and Human Rights with third countries (1), the Commission is committed to mainstreaming human rights and democratisation issues in all Community assistance programme.

In addition to its Tacis assistance, the Commission, under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), funds a number of activities to support freedom of religion and democratisation process in Southern Caucasus and in Central Asia.

----

(1)  COM(2001) 252 final.

----
No. 58765.

protest 237932-K (New York).

#### D. C. Andrews & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose any evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
No. 56810.

#### W. R. Grace *&*Co. *v.*United States,

protest 172182-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issue involved are similar to those passed upon in *W. R. Grace & Co.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 148, C. D. 1402), the claim for allowance of the full amount of duties paid, less 1 percent thereof, was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Chaegon KIM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6590.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided July 5, 2001.

Robert Chaegon Kim, pro se. Robert Clifford Chesnut, Assistant United States Attorney, Randy I. Bellows, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Chaegon Kim appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of *151the district court. *United States v. Kim,*Nos. CR-97-117-A; CA-00-1645-AM (E.D.Va. Feb. 7, 2001; filed Mar. 9, 2001, entered Mar. 13, 2001). 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.*
October 4, 1961

No. 66126.

#### Linden Equipment Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 60/2043.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Agustin URRABAZO-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50101.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Agustín Urrabazo-Rodriguez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523*U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41451

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE M. NAVARRETTE, also known as Jose Manuel Navarrete, also known 

as Jose Navarrete, also known as Jose Navarrette-Amaya, also known as Jose 

M. Navarrete,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-10-1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose M. Navarrette

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Navarrette has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

 

* 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 Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41451 Document: 00513556604 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
No. 15-41451

2

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

 Case: 15-41451 Document: 00513556604 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
----

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation as of and for the period covered by the Report. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | March 23, 2011 | By:    |  /s/  Aaron L. Groff, Jr. |
|--------|----------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   |           |   | Aaron L. Groff, Jr.                      |
|   |           |   | Chairman of the Board,                   |
|   |           |   | President and CEO                        |

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2009 

d1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

139305 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139305 

 COA: 291668 

Berrien CC: 2008-402766-FC 

HARRY LONZO-BOLTON ERVIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 29, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 KELLY, C.J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her opinion in 

People v Idziak, 484 Mich 549 (2009).
No. 61109.

#### S. E. Laszlo *v.*United States,

protest 297463-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 12198]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary exhibition or display at The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, Maryland, 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:                         *section2459@state.gov*). 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. 2023-22253 Filed 10-5-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
JUAN AQUINO

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 3067

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 20, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Kevin J. Carroll , Judge

.

Juan Aquino, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jillian H. Reding, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, C.J., MARSTILLER

, and MAKAR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
No. 67599.

#### Brauner & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 61/21796, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, for interoffice communication use only, and not telephones, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 57783.

protests 174998-K, etc. (New York).

#### Felix Kramarsky Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of scrap metal in ingot form of which ferrous or nonferrous metal is the component material in chief value and that said ingots are made from metal waste and obsolete metal materials and are fit only for remanufacture. Upon the agreed *378statement of facts, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*and is properly entitled to free entry.
DENY; Opinion Filed January 22, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-01509-CV

IN RE SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Relator

Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-15848

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Evans

Opinion by Justice Reichek

 Before the Court is relator Security Systems, Inc.’s December 9, 2019 petition for writ of 

mandamus seeking relief from the trial court’s November 13, 2019 sanction order. Among other 

things, the trial court ordered (1) a show cause hearing at which a corporate representative of SSI

was to appear, (2) a forensic examination of SSI’s electronic devices to be paid for by SSI, and (3) 

SSI to produce its corporate president and two other employees, who all reside out of state, for 

depositions in Dallas.

1

 In addition, the trial court struck all SSI’s objections to respondent Global 

Alarm Protection, Inc.’s First and Second Requests for Production.

 

1 Although not briefed by the parties, the trial court’s order requiring the appearance of out-of-state witnesses who 

are not parties, corporate officers, or representatives to appear for depositions in Texas could potentially present a 

jurisdictional issue with respect to enforcement. This issue is not ripe for determination at this point. Nevertheless, 

we do not question the trial court’s jurisdiction to use alternative means, including requiring SSI to pay relator’s 

expenses to travel for the depositions as opposed to having the witnesses travel to Texas.
–2–

To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must show both that the trial court has clearly 

abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. 

of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the petition, the 

mandamus record, real party’s response, and relator’s reply, we conclude relator has not shown it

is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not 

entitled to the relief sought).

We lift the stay issued by this Court on December 10, 2019.

191509F.P05

/Amanda L. Reichek/

AMANDA L. REICHEK

JUSTICE