alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 66101.

#### Ferri Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/28795(0) (New York).

*323Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From a review of the record in this case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector. The protest was, therefore, overruled.
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

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER, a/k/a Vincent

Daniel Hopper Marks, a/k/a Antolin Andrew

Marks, a/k/a Wayne Rudder,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEIL CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5282 RBL/KLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom, plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. #’s 53 and 55] and the

remaining record, does here find and ORDER:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #46) will be considered as an objection to

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. #42) and, as such, is DENIED;

(2) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(3) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 30) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s

Complaint (Dkt. # 5) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendants De Guia,

Hawkins, Thomas, Riley, Hansen and Singleton; and

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendants and to

the Honorable Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 23rd f July, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05282-RBL Document 57 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 1
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 252

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding a resolution to the Kashmir

dispute.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 19, 1998

Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, and Mr. TORRICELLI) submitted

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign

Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding a resolution

to the Kashmir dispute.

Whereas the detonation of nuclear explosive devices by India

and Pakistan in May of 1998 has underscored the need

to reexamine relations between India and Pakistan;

Whereas a spiraling nuclear arms race in South Asia would

threaten the national security of the United States, and

international peace and security;

Whereas for more than half a century, Pakistan and India

have had a dispute involving the Jammu and Kashmir region and tensions remain high;

Whereas three times in the past 50 years, the two nations

fought wars against each other, two of these wars directly

involving Jammu and Kashmir;
2

•SRES 252 IS

Whereas it is in the interest of United States security and

world peace for Pakistan and India to arrive at a peaceful and just settlement of the dispute through talks between the two nations, which takes into account the wishes of the affected population;

Whereas the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir

continues to deteriorate despite repeated efforts by international human rights groups;

Whereas a resolution to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute

would foster economic and social development in the region;

Whereas the United States has a long and important history

with both India and Pakistan, and bears a responsibility

as a world leader to help facilitate a peaceful resolution

to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute; and

Whereas the United States and the United Nations can both

play a critical role in helping to resolve the dispute over

Jammu and Kashmir and in fostering better relations between Pakistan and India: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—

(1) the United States should make a high priority

the promotion of peace and stability in South Asia, as

well as normalization of relations between India and

Pakistan;

(2) it is critical for the United States and the world

community to give a greater priority to resolving the

long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan over

the Jammu and Kashmir region;

Æ
Before the First Division,

June 22, 1949

No. 53314.

protest 119022-K (New York).

#### Meyer Hecht, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise, issues, and facts involved are the same in all material respects as those presented in *Perry, Ryer & Company*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 28, C. A. D. 367). The undisputed facts established that certain percentages of the merchandise consisted of skins of hybrid goats of common and Angora origin, dutiable at 32 cents per pound on a clean content of 25 percent, as assessed, the dutiable weights being the percentages as set forth in the stipulation. The remaining merchandise, consisting of skins of the common goat of the Argentine, was held free of duty under paragraph 1765 as raw skins, not specially provided for, as claimed.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37033

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

AARON MORALES ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 609

Filed: August 25, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State o f Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn , District Judge.

Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified six

- year sentence with three

- year determinate term for aggravated battery

, affirmed

.
Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GRATTON, Judge

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Aaron Morales was convicted of aggravated battery , Idaho Code § § 18

- 903, 18

- 907(1)(a) . The district court imposed a unified six

- year sentence with a three

- year determinate

term, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the senten ce and placed Morales on probation. Subsequently, Morales admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the
district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence.

Mor ales appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in failing to sua sponte
reduce his sentences upon revoking probation. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be consi dered in evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well established and2

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct . App.
1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007).

When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution following a period of
probation, we will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original
judgment. State v. Hanington , 148 Idaho 26, 29, 218 P.3d 5, 8 (Ct. App. 2009). We base our
review upon the facts existing when the sentence was imposed as well as events occurring
between the original sentencing and the revocation of probation. Id.
Applying the foregoing standard s, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in ordering execution of Morales’s original
sentences without modification. Therefore, the order directing execution of Morales’s
previously suspen ded sentence is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 129 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 129

Referring S. 1168 entitled ``A bill for the relief of retired Sergeant 
 First Class James D. Benoit, Wan Sook Benoit, and the estate of David 
  Benoit, and for other purposes'', to the chief judge of the United 
          States Court of Federal Claims for a report on bill.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 1997

    Mr. Abraham (for himself and Mr. Levin) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Referring S. 1168 entitled ``A bill for the relief of retired Sergeant 
 First Class James D. Benoit, Wan Sook Benoit, and the estate of David 
  Benoit, and for other purposes'', to the chief judge of the United 
          States Court of Federal Claims for a report on bill.

    Resolved, That the bill S. 1168 entitled ``A bill for the relief of 
retired Sergeant First Class James D. Benoit, Wan Sook Benoit, and the 
estate of David Benoit, and for other purposes'', is referred, with all 
accompanying papers, to the chief judge of the United States Court of 
Federal Claims for a report in accordance with sections 1492 and 2509 
of title 28, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6647

LEVI SPRINGER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TRACY RAY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:10—cv-00415-LO-TRJ)

Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Levi Springer, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Levi Springer seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as 

untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Springer has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 126

[Report No. 105–87]

Authorizing supplemental expenditures by the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1997

Mr. SPECTER, from the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, reported the

following original resolution; which was placed on the calendar

SEPTEMBER 26, 1997

Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

RESOLUTION

Authorizing supplemental expenditures by the Committee on

Veterans’ Affairs.

1 Resolved, That section 18(b) of Senate Resolution 54,

2 105th Congress, agreed to February 13, 1997, is amended

3 by striking out ‘‘$1,123,430’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

4 ‘‘$1,698,430’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                         592,917
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,883,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                   311,286
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,250,558
<PP&E>                                       1,546,172
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,270,016
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,060,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,369,550
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,952
<OTHER-SE>                                    (317,452)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,060,049
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,688,583
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,686,020
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,426,603
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                26,592
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,758
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (474,798)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (474,798)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (474,798)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.60)
        

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

October 19, 1966

No. P66/274. —

#### The Buhler Corp. et al. *v.*United States, protests 65/17876, etc. (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of parts of food preparing machines, which are dedicated to use therewith, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Standard Milling Co.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 53, C.D. 2388), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**-  Pacific West  
-  Parlier, CA 
-  Crop Diseases, Pests and Genetics 
Printable VersionE-mail this pageThis site onlyAll ARS Advanced Search UBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">	You are here: 						Research / 								**Research Project:**Developing Transcriptional Profiles and Microarray Expression and Analysis of Grape Plant Responses to Xylella Fastidiosa
**Location: Crop Diseases, Pests and Genetics**
**2004 Annual Report**
**4.What were the most significant accomplishments this past year?**													4d.  Progress Report
This report report serves to document research conducted under a specific cooperative agreement between ARS and the University California, Davis.  Additional details of the research can be found in the report for the parent project 5302-22000-005-00D, Epidemiology and Control of Xylella Diseases and Their Insects Vectors.
Pierce's disease (PD)-related gene expression was completed with two segregated genotypes (one with highly PD susceptible and another with highly PD resistant) derived from a Vitis arizonica x V. rupestris hybrid population. 120 RNA samples were isolated from three tissues (leaf, stem and shoot) in both genotypes from ten samplings over the course of four month's of disease development experiment. 12 forward/reverse subtractive suppression cDNA libraries were constructed from these tissues and cloning of 6,000 cloned genes is underway for sequencing and sequence analyses. Using cDNA-AFLP transcription imaging, 177 PD-specific expressed (up/down regulated expressions) transcripts between tissues/treatments/genotypes were identified. 17 of these, which reflect the genes in signal recognition, signal transduction, resistant and pathogenesis responses, were selected for Taq-Man primers/probe design for quantitative gene expression analysis. These transcriptional profiles will provide molecular and biochemical details of host resistant and susceptible responses to Xylella fastidiosa infection and PD development.

    Project TeamLin, Hong  
Project Annual Reports FY 2008 FY 2007 FY 2006 FY 2005 FY 2004 
Related National Programs Plant Diseases(303) Crop Protection & Quarantine(304)  							Last Modified: 05/08/2009 		ARS Home |USDA.gov |Site Map |Policies and Links FOIA |Accessibility Statement |Privacy Policy |Nondiscrimination Statement |Information Quality |USA.gov |White House

**
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER,  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report my 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; and(c)
    
    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
 5.
    
    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (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; and(b)
    
    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.
 Date: May 29, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Frank A. KatarowFrank A. KatarowChief Executive Officer (Interim)
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ronald O. MAGES, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Diane L. Mages, Appellant.

No. 01-1163, 01-1164.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2001.

Filed June 25, 2001.

Before BOWMAN and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and KOPF,1 District Judge.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Ronald O. Mages and Diane L. Mages were convicted in the District Court,2 after trial by jury, of conspiracy to defraud, bankruptcy fraud, numerous counts of mail fraud and wire fraud, and making false statements. All the counts of conviction related to fraud perpetrated upon the *451Mageses’ bankruptcy creditors and upon the Department of Agriculture. Each of the defendants was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty-three months. They appeal.

For reversal, defendants argue that (1) prosecutorial misconduct deprived them of their Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial, (2) the evidence is legally insufficient to support the convictions, (3) the District Court abused its discretion in ruling that an exculpatory writing signed by one Alfons Ebbers was inadmissible, and (4) the reference in the judgments of conviction to a superseding indictment on which defendants never were arraigned or tried was not harmless error. Having carefully reviewed the case, we conclude that none of these arguments has merit.

At trial, the government’s evidence was extensive and entirely sufficient to show the fraud practiced by the Mageses upon their bankruptcy creditors and the Department of Agriculture. The claim of prosecutorial misconduct was rejected by the District Court when it denied defendants’ motion for a mistrial; we have conducted our own review of the prosecutor’s conduct and agree with the experienced and able trial court that, even applying the high standards to which prosecutors must adhere, the prosecutor’s conduct did not cross over the line into forbidden territory. We note that the trial court sustained objections where proper and in a few instances provided cautionary instructions to the jury. Defendants’ due process right to a fair trial was not violated. As to the exclusion of the writing signed by Alfons Ebbers, who had died and therefore was unavailable to testify, the trial court found it lacked indicia of reliability. The court’s exclusion *of*the proffered evidence was *not*an abuse of its broad discretion to make evidentiary rulings. Finally, the clerical error in the judgments of conviction had no practical impact whatsoever; defendants were convicted on the original indictment and were sentenced accordingly. Thus, the error, which may be corrected by the District Court at any time, *see*Fed.R.Crim.P. 36, is harmless.

Defendants’ convictions and sentences are affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.