alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 58725.

protest 177812-K (Detroit).

#### Pacific Customs Brokerage Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *E. Dillingham, Inc.*(41 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 555), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1805 as pickets was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000875385
<NAME>                        Access Solutions International, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                         US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Jun-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             Jul-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               Dec-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          45,127
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  733,180
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,652
<INVENTORY>                                    414,254
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,297,664
<PP&E>                                       1,325,244
<DEPRECIATION>                                 949,974
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,607,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,556,250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,652
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,637,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,607,956
<SALES>                                        549,676
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               549,676
<CGS>                                          158,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  732,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (53,796)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,922
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (290,206)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (290,206)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (290,206)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.07)
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. [] 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

             In connection with the Annual Report of American Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Joseph Kliminski, Chief Executive Officer, and Eric B.Heyer, Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

             (1)             The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

             (2)             The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statementes included in the Report.
/s/ Joseph KliminskiJoseph KliminskiChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Eric B. HeyerEric B. HeyerSenior Vice President, Treasurer andChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) Date: December 14, 2007Date: December 14, 2007**
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

WAYNE RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA CARTER, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5324FDB-KLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL

This matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), Local Magistrates Rules MJR 3 and 4, and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The case is before the Court upon plaintiff’s filing of a motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. #12). 

Plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status in this case. After reviewing the motion and the balance

of the record, the Court finds and ORDERS as follows:

There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. While the

court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma

pauperis, it may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

(9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d

1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood

of success on the merits and the ability of plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity

Case 3:06-cv-05324-FDB Document 13 Filed 10/17/06 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

of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford an attorney, has requested

and been granted in forma pauperis status, and imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate this

case. He further asserts that because this case is likely to involve conflicting testimony, appointed counsel

will be better able to present evidence and examine witnesses on his behalf. These circumstances though

are ones that affect the majority of prisoners in general. As such, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate there

are exceptional circumstances here warranting appointment of counsel. In particular, plaintiff has not

shown a likelihood of success on the merits or that, regardless of the potential for conflicting testimony,

the legal issues involved here are necessarily complex. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt.

#12) hereby is DENIED. 

The clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05324-FDB Document 13 Filed 10/17/06 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 7,671.

#### KELLY v. HUFFINGTON.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 81.] 1

Circuit Court. District of Columbia.

April Term, 1827.

Practice at Law — Slander — Special Damage not Stated in Declaration — Proof of Same — Plaintiff’s Right to Recover.

In slander, the plaintiff is not permitted to prove special damage not stated in the declaration; and the plaintiff may recover, although he shall have failed to prove the special damage laid in his declaration.

Slander, in saying of a master of a vessel that he is a drunkard, and incapable of managing a vessel. The declaration stated, as a special damage, that Captain Rose refused to take him as mate of the ship Shenandoah. The plaintiff offered evidence *267of special damage, not stated in the declaration.

Mr. Taylor, for defendant,

objected to it, and THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent) sustained the objection.

Mr. Taylor then prayed the court to instruct the jury, that if they should be of opinion that the plaintiff has not supported the averment of the special damage in the declaration, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages in this action.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Crunch, Chief Judge.]

But

THE COURT

refused.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 269 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

  2d Session
S. RES. 269

   To authorize production of Senate documents and representation by 
  Senate Legal Counsel in the case of Rose Larker, et al. v. Kevin A. 
                         Carias-Herrera, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             September 1 (legislative day, August 31), 1998

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To authorize production of Senate documents and representation by 
  Senate Legal Counsel in the case of Rose Larker, et al. v. Kevin A. 
                         Carias-Herrera, et al.

Whereas, in the case of Rose Larker, et al. v. Kevin A. Carias-Herrera, et al., 
        Civil No. 97CA06257, pending in the Superior Court for the District of 
        Columbia, a subpoena has been issued for the production of documents of 
        the Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its 
        counsel to represent Members, officers, and employees of the Senate with 
        respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony or document 
        production 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 or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession 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 the Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate is 
authorized to produce documents relevant to the case of Rose Larker, et 
al. v. Kevin A. Carias-Herrera, et al.
    Sec. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
the Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate in connection with 
the production of documents in this case.
                                 <all>
```
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologyand mineral resources of the Quakertown-Doylestown district, Pennsylvania andNew Jersey**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:828
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000961330
 
August 21, 2018
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 218

To authorize testimony, production of Senate documents, and representation

by Senate Legal Counsel in civil case.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 27, 1998

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize testimony, production of Senate documents,

and representation by Senate Legal Counsel in civil case.

Whereas, in the case of Buroojy, et al. v. Walsh, et al., Civil

Case No. 97–91407, pending in the Superior Court of

the State of Arizona, documents have been subpoened

from the offices of Senator John McCain and Senator

Jon Kyl;

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 by permission of the Senate;

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to rep-
2

SRES 218 ATS

resent Members, officers, or employees of the Senate with

respect to any subpoena, order, or request for evidence

relating to their official responsibilities;

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or

in the possession of the Senate May promote the administration of justice, the Senate shall take such action as

will promote the ends of justice consistently with the

privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That employees of the offices of Senator

2 McCain and Senator Kyl are authorized to testify and

3 produce documents in the case of Buroojy, et al. v. Walsh,

4 et al., except concerning matters for which a privilege or

5 objection should be asserted

6 SEC. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized

7 to represent Senator McCain and Senator Kyl and their

8 employees in connection with the testimony and document

9 production authorized in section one of this resolution.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
     FROM FORM 10-QSB FOR QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1996 AND IS
     QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
     STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                                   
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    OCT-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                              173,517
<SECURITIES>                      3,942,949
<RECEIVABLES>                         4,995
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                         125,394
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  4,388,688
<PP&E>                              446,453
<DEPRECIATION>                      306,857
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    6,450,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                79,680
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                         12,749,876
<OTHER-SE>                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      6,450,852
<SALES>                               4,995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      4,995
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       423,812
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    418,820
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (664,995)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (664,995)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (664,995)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.14)
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

10-K Exhibit 32.2: Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of iShares Silver Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Michael A. Latham, Chief Financial Officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Trust.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: February 27, 2008      
|                             
|/S/    MICHAEL A. LATHAM     
|Michael A. Latham *          
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal executive officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Latham is signing in his capacity as an officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE MARCH 31, 2000 REPORT FILED ON
FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       5,628,149
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,453,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                   652,475
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,330,766
<PP&E>                                      16,703,795
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,199,856
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,739,203
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       24,579,198
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       41,180,512
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,099
<OTHER-SE>                                (12,573,083)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,739,203
<SALES>                                     16,160,437
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,274,279
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,793,603
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             645,450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,164,774)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.82


</TABLE>
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 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MIKE KREIDLER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DANNY L. PIXLER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0697RSL

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s April 15, 2010 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion in

Limine (Dkt. #265). Plaintiff contends that the Court erred by denying his request to

exclude his complaint against Harold Anderson. In the alternative, plaintiff argues that

the complaint should be admitted only after it is substantially redacted, which is an

argument he has not previously made. Because that argument was new, the Court

requested a response from defendants to permit them to address the issue. They have

done so, and the matter is now ready for the Court’s review.

“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The Court will ordinarily deny such

motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 306 Filed 05/03/10 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 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with

reasonable diligence.” Local Rule 7(h).

In this case, plaintiff has not shown that the Court erred in denying his request to

exclude his complaint against Anderson in its entirety. As the Court noted, the complaint

represents an admission that at least at one point, plaintiff believed that Anderson was

aware of the facts that defendants allegedly misrepresented or failed to disclose. (Dkt.

#265). Because plaintiff has not shown that the Court erred, the Court will not exclude

the portion of the complaint that includes that allegation.

As for plaintiff’s new contention that all of the other allegations in the complaint

should be redacted, the Court finds that such significant redaction is unnecessary and

would confuse the jury by removing the factual allegations that provide background and

context to the relevant allegation. However, the remaining allegations, including those

regarding jurisdiction and venue, the prayer for relief, and the contentions in paragraphs

3.9 - 5.4, are irrelevant, potentially prejudicial, and potentially confusing to the jury. 

Accordingly, the complaint is admissible but paragraphs 2.1 - 2.4, 3.9 - 5.4, and the

prayer for relief must be redacted from any version shown to the jury.

As set forth above, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #270) is

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

DATED this 30th day of April, 2010.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 306 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 2