alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bufford MCDONALD, Appellant, v. Jay WINTERS, Sheriff, Pope County Sheriff's Department; John Does, Employees of the Pope County Sheriff's Department, Appellees.

No. 01-1351.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 18, 2001.

Decided June 20, 2001.

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Bufford McDonald appeals from the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we agree that summary judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Liebe v. Norton,*157 F.3d 574, 578 (8th Cir.1998) (de novo review). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
No. 66122.

#### Max Eckardt & Sons Ornament Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 61/3368 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER FOR SERVICE AND RETURN, 2254/2241 PETITION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

HENRY B. GARNIER,

Petitioner,

v.

MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5285RBL

 ORDER DIRECTING

SERVICE AND RETURN,

§ 2254/2241 PETITION

The petitioner in this action is seeking federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to both 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636 (b) (1) (A) and 636 (b) (1) (B) and Local Magistrates’ Rules

MJR 3 and MJR 4. Petitioner challenges his sentence and the conditions of his confinement claiming

he is housed in a prison with “bad air.” Petitioner alleges he has cancer as a result of the air. (Dkt. #

1). 

The court will not consider petitioner’s request for monetary damages as monetary damages

are not available in a habeas action. Any claim for damages is premature. Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477 (1994). 

(1). The clerk shall arrange for service by certified mail upon respondent, a copy of the

Case 3:06-cv-05285-RBL Document 7 Filed 07/14/06 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 FOR SERVICE AND RETURN, 2254/2241 PETITION - 2

petition, of all documents in support thereof, and of this Order. All costs of service shall be

advanced by the United States. The Clerk shall assemble the necessary documents to effect service. 

The Clerk shall send petitioner’s counsel a copy of this Order, the General Order. The clerk will

also sen a courtesy copy of the petition to the Washington State Attorney General’s Office Criminal

Justice Division. 

(2) Within forty-five (45) days after such service, respondent shall file and serve an

 answer in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District

Courts. As part of such answer, respondents should state whether petitioner has exhausted available

state remedies, whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, and whether there is any issue of abuse

of delay under Rule 9. Respondent shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without

first showing cause as to why an answer is inadequate. Respondent shall file the answer with the

Clerk of Court and serve a copy of the answer upon petitioner.

(3) The answer will be treated in accordance with Local Rule CR 7. Accordingly, upon

 receipt of the Answer the Clerk will note the matter for consideration on the fourth Friday after the

answer is filed, petitioner, through counsel, may file and serve a response not later than on the

Monday immediately preceding the Friday appointed for consideration of the matter, and respondent

may file and serve a reply brief not later than on the Thursday immediately preceding the Friday

designated for consideration of the matter.

DATED this 14th day of July, 2006. 

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05285-RBL Document 7 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10804)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 7905.

(Decided August 20, 1964)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

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

Rao, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, T.D. 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (See. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> *3893. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3. ■

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping- Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921, for the merchandise described in said schedule A, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act, to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market value and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
ORDER CONTINUING SENTENCINGS - 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) CASE NO. CR06-5267FDB 

 Plaintiff, ) CR06-5268FDB 

 ) 

 v. ) ORDER CONTINUING 

 ) SENTENCINGS 

GEORGE WILLIAMS, JR., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ____________________________________) 

 Upon motion of the defendant and without opposition from the Office of the United 

States Attorney, it is hereby ORDERED that the sentencings in the above-entitled matter be 

and are hereby continued to 10:30 a.m. Friday, June 29, 2007. 

 Signed this 17th day of April 2007. 

 ___/s/ Franklin D Burgess _________ 

 FRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Presented by: 

/s/_________________________________ 

ANTHONY SAVAGE, WSBA No. 2208 

Attorney for Defendant George Williams, Jr. 

615 Second Avenue, Suite 340 

Seattle, Washington 98104-2200 

Telephone: (206) 682-1882 

Facsimile: (206) 682-1885 

E-mail: loophole@integraonline.com

Case 3:06-cr-05267-BHS Document 36 Filed 04/17/07 Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

May 12, 1964

No. 68531.

protests 63/9264, 63/9265, and 63/12061 (Galveston).

#### Leslie B. Canion *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of novelty figures, not chiefly used for the amusement of children, composed in chief value of metal, and having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
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 Quality Alliance Group, Inc. (the
“Company”), on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) pursuant to
the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.§ 1350),
Adam Wimmer, the President, principal executive officer and principal financial
officer of the Company, hereby certifies that, to the best of my
knowledge:




1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and




2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period
covered by the Periodic Report.





Date:
      October 11, 2010
                      By:
                      /s/ Adam
      WimmerAdam
      WimmerPresident
      (Principal Executive Officer
                        and
      Principal Financial
Officer)




* This
certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before
or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.
No. 56180.

protests 174059-K (A) and 167825-K (New York).

#### William Brand & Co. and National Wine & Liquors, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 10.16  November 13, 2008  Maninder Hora [***] [***]  Dear Maninder:  On behalf of Facet Biotech Corporation, I am pleased to extend to you
an employment offer for the position of VP,
Product Operations & Quality, reporting to Faheem Hasnain, President and CEO effective December 1, 2008.  The bi-weekly base salary for this position will be $11,313.46 ($294,150
on an annualized basis) which will be paid in accordance with Facet Biotechs
payroll procedures.   We offer our
employees an attractive benefits package, including comprehensive medical and
dental plans, and life insurance coverage, in addition to a competitive bonus
program, all of which you will be eligible for in accordance with the terms of
those plans and programs.  For purposes of federal immigration law, you are required to provide to
Facet Biotech documentary evidence of your identity and eligibility for
employment in the United States. 
Information related to what type of documentation qualifies is included
in your information packet. You must provide such documentation to us within
three business days of your date of hire.  Your employment with Facet Biotech will not be for a set term and you
will at all times be employed as an at-will employee. As an at-will employee
you will be free to resign at any time, just as Facet Biotech will be free to
terminate your employment at any time, with or without cause.  There will be no express or implied
agreements to the contrary.  Our offer of employment to you is contingent upon the successful completion
of our background check.  If Facet does
not already have a background check for you, we will perform one.  To indicate your acceptance of this offer, please sign and date this
letter in the space provided below and return it to the Human Resources Department,
along with the other required paperwork you received in your information
packet.  This offer letter supersedes any
prior representations or agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to
our offer of employment to you.  This
letter may not be modified or amended except by a written agreement, signed by
Facet Biotech and you.


We are very excited at the prospect of your joining Facet Biotech as a
key contributor. This offer will remain open until December 1, 2008, at
which time it will expire if not previously accepted.  Sincerely,  Facet Biotech   /s/ Gwen Carscadden
  
  I accept all of the terms above.Gwen
  CarscaddenDirector of Human Resources
  
  /s/ Maninder HoraManinder HoraNovember 14, 2008Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.D. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         410,227
<SECURITIES>                                   118,192
<RECEIVABLES>                                  304,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,561
<INVENTORY>                                    145,210
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,146,860
<PP&E>                                         511,330
<DEPRECIATION>                                 258,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,617,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          360,770
<BONDS>                                        109,995
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,989
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,144,654
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,617,408
<SALES>                                      1,550,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,550,084
<CGS>                                          795,022
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  795,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               196,813
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (143,334)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,670
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (167,004)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (167,004)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.87)
        

</TABLE>
[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: Criteriafor outlining areas favorable for uranium deposits in parts of Colorado andUtah**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:1009-J
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000962433
 
August 27, 2018
No. 53312.

protest 122968-K (Galveston).

#### Collin & Gissel *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the -court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Quarterly Report of PharmChem, Inc. (the "Company") on
   Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
   and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David A.
   Lattanzio, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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) or
   15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

   (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
   material respects, the financial condition and results of
   operations of the Company.

Dated: May 14, 2003

                                           /s/ David A. Lattanzio
                                           ---------------------------------
                                           David A. Lattanzio
                                           Chief Executive Officer
U

.S

. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 

## DEC 112014
Mr. Franyois Duclos Airbus SAS D2202 1 rond-point Maurice Bellonte 31707 Blagnac Cedex FRANCE Dear Mr. Duclos: Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W

. Renton, Washington 98057-3356

We have received your petition letter dated December 8, 2014, requesting a time limited exemption from§§ 25.981(a)(3) Amendment 25-125, and 25.901(c) Amendment 25-126 of Title 14, Code ofFederal Regulations. This exemption, ifgranted, would allow time for Airbus to incorporate necessary design changes ofthe center wing tank fuel system wiring and fuel pump ground fault protection to reach full compliance with these requirements, and allow on-schedule delivery to its US launch customer. This request was submitted to the Department ofTransportation's Federal Docket Management System (at Regulations.gov) on December 9, 2014 , and has been assigned Docket No. FAA-2014-1021. We are in the process ofreviewing your request. We will contact you ifwe need additional information. A summary ofyour petition will be published in the Federal Register for public comment, in accordance with the requirements of§ 11.85. You will be advised ofthe agency's decision on your petition as soon as possible. Ifyou have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process , please contact Mr. Doug Bryant at (425) 227-2384, or by e-mail at Douglas.N.Bryant@faa.gov. Sincerely, 

### '\ 

# j

# J)j).ML4.

**M~** Deana M. Stedman Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service 

## COPY OF ORIGINAL
# 1 > £c\^a ^^^^^"wmt aohoF.V\.-55\A MnrV NA.sVAe?AW< 

## Match )i&,- ;20.i5 _„^ei^Vvo»jjc>_x-^:^c^V-\or\oYA\^eN/ifi.sA_ 0.tie^_JLV^_o$ALcuritJkFoucJ^^ X , fc<^ uSf

### JA\\Wai^A\CvTm\e.„uotaoA Nk_u tv^au ConWA ^»sx?._jS_UDu_Ws/e,_a<\a Q_ue.SI»n^o^r_Cca.ctcc^Aw^r_eaacd5»^Vo 

## ja*u-_-JjL\^X_P^&anJorADJSti-e.'kicnttr-yl_Rau»-^v»U- _Suocex£.l J4(&oo.ettJ*lWoE_Colbert 

# ^a^/^A^^^^mL

RECEIVED \N 

### COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ^17015 AbelAcosta, Clerk
ed?



# ,- TAA-2olb- O~cf7 With FAAh th' Ibe d' ontacts. I whom outside the 

### as IS

### orooosa en ISCUSS

Organization Person Contacted 

### Date Response National BusinCss ..

~ircraftAssociation Eli Corti 

# Zjf£),O 

# - Regional Airline Association Dave Lotterer 

## ZJq.J/O 

# - Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hacl..-man 

# zjt/,)/O 

# - ATA f!f¢§Mdri •. 

# 'bj"jID M,~ Lo1<.z. 

## c
No. P67/197.

#### Seedman International Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 66/23355, etc. (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of disc tumbler padlocks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Shriro Trading Corp.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 422, C.D. 2669), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105

- 2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

August 1 , 201 2

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Updated List of Potential Small Businesses in the Light

- duty Vehicle Market

FROM: Chris Lieske, Environmental Engineer

Assessment and Standards Division

TO: Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0 799

As with the model year ( MY ) 2012

- 2016 greenhouse gas (GHG) standards, EPA is ex empt ing

companies meeting the Small Business Administration (SBA) size definition of a small business

from the MY 2017

- 2025 GHG standards. This memo provides a list of the 2 4 companies

currently in the U

. S

. market that appear to fit the SBA company size criteria , which for vehicle

manufacturers is 1,000 employees . The companies fall into three categories ; small

manufacturers, independent commercial importers, and alternative fuel converters. This list is

E PA’s current best estimate of companies that might qualify, but should not be viewed as a final

determination of eligibility for the exemption. Also, the list of qualifying companies may change

over time as company circumstances change and entities enter or leave the market.

Vehicle Manufacturers

Vehicle Production Group

Azure Dynamics

Wheego Electric Cars

Fisker Automotive

Mosler Automotive

Independent Commercial Importers (see attachment)

US S PECS, LLC

Wallace Environmental Test Laboratories

JK Technologies , LLC

Northern California Diagnostics Laboratories , Inc.

Auto Boutique Ltd.

US Drive Right

G & K Automotive Conversions, Inc.

Right Hand Drive JapanAlternative Fuel Converters

Altech

- Eco Corporation

American Alternative Fuel

BAF Technologies

Baytech Corporation

Flex Fuel U.S.

High Pressure Group LLC

NGV Motori, USA, LLC

PARNELL USA, INC

The CNG Store, LLC; dba Auto Gas America

RGR Alternative Fuels

AMP Electric Vehicles
#### Michael Williams, as Administrator of the Estate of Magnephes Williams, Deceased, Respondent, v Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 22]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered May 25, 1994, which, *inter alia,*denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss claims of medical malpractice based on treatment rendered more than *21h*years prior to the commencement of this action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the continuous treatment doctrine is inapplicable in cases involving a failure to diagnose cancer *(see, Djordjevic v Wickham,*200 AD2d 421; *Garda-Alano v Guttman Breast Diagnostic Inst.,*188 AD2d 262). The relevant issue in such a case is not whether there has been a diagnosis, but whether the ongoing treatment is related to the cancerous condition that gave rise to the lawsuit *(see, McDermott v Torre,*56 NY2d 399, 405, quoting *Borgia v City of New York,*12 NY2d 151, 155). Such was clearly the case here. The decedent, in the three years preceding the diagnosis of throat cancer, had received treatment on many occasions for interrelated ear, nose and throat symptoms that indicated throat cancer. She had visited defendants only once during that period for an ailment that was entirely unrelated to those symptoms *(compare, Nykorchuck v Henriques,*78 NY2d 255). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.