alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 G. CISCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-5330KLS

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff does not

appear to have funds available to afford the $350.00 filing fee.

The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel of record and to issue the Summonses.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05330-RBL Document 2 Filed 06/22/06 Page 1 of 1
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

APPLICATION AND DISMISSING CASE

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DIANA ZOE ELLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary, Dept.

of Veteran Affairs, et al.

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0923-RSM

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND

DISMISSING CASE

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in this

matter, plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order directing that a signed written consent for payment

of costs and a complaint be filed, the Report and Recommendation of Mary Alice Theiler, United

States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Plaintiff’s IFP application is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED, without

prejudice; and,

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-00923-RSM Document 6 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

APPLICATION AND DISMISSING CASE

PAGE -2

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for

respondent, and to Judge Theiler.

DATED this 13th day of September, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00923-RSM Document 6 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 14,894.

#### UNITED STATES v. CROSS.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 603.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1833.

Indictment por Beating Slave.

It is an indictable offence to cruelly beat the slave of another, in the public highway and leave her there, exposed to public view.

UNITED STATES (CROSS v.). See Case No. 3,434.

The first count of the indictment was for a common assault and battery on “one negro Hilly.” The second count charged the' defendant [George Cross] with an assault upon one negro Hilly, “in a public road and highway in the county aforesaid,” and cruelly beating her, “to the great damage of the said Hilly and to the terror and disturbance and annoyance of the good citizens of the United States then and there passing and repassing on and near the said public road and highway, and there and thereabouts living and abiding, and against the peace and government of the United States.” It appeared in evidence that Hilly was the slave of Hr. Z. Walker; and at the prayer of the attorney of the United States—

1

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

THE COURT

instructed the jury that if they should be of opinion, from the evidence, that the defendant cruelly beat the slave in the public highway, and left her there, exposed to public view, it was an indictable offence.

THRUSTON, Circuit Judge,

however, was of opinion that it was not an indictable of-fence unless the beating was in the public view.
# Official Journal L 408I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 408I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 634 December 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 408I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 634 December 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2020/1832 of 23 November 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on cooperation on, and protection of, geographical indications | 1 |
| | * | Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on cooperation on, and protection of, geographical indications | 3 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Council Decision (EU) 2020/1832 of 23 November 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on cooperation on, and protection of, geographical indications

1

*

Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on cooperation on, and protection of, geographical indications

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
(Reap. Dec. 10835)

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

Entry No. 6515, etc.

(Decided October 29, 1964)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiffs.

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

Eao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, have 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, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> *4572. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. 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 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in said schedule A, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values 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.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 20

- 00091

- CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

Trial Court No. CV

- 18

- 1003

Before Bassel

, Kerr , an d W allach , JJ

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### M.K. , Relator2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion

for emergency relief and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly,

relator’s petition f or writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief are denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered : March 13, 2020
Case No. 13,603.

#### The SULTANA.

[1 Brown, Adm. 35.] 1

District Court, D. Michigan.

March, 1858.

Maritime Lien — Repaibs—Aüthobitt of Mab-shal to Order Repairs.

The marshal has no authority, as such, to direct repairs to a vessel beyond what are necessary to her preservation while in his custody; but if repairs are furnished upon the order of the master, the fact that he was, without the knowledge of the libellant, holding the vessel as custodian for the marshal, will not prevent a lien attaching.

[Cited in The Young America, 30 Fed. 790.]

Libel for dockage and repairs. It appeared that the Sultana was brought to the dock about the 5th of December, A. D. 1856, and was taken in on the 8th under a contract between the master and the libellant.

Wm. Gray, for libellant.

J. S. Newberry, for claimant.

WILKINS, District Judge.

There is no doubt that the contract in this case was within the scope of the master's authority, and that the dockage was necessary, within the meaning of the law. The vessel had been seized under process of attachment on December 1st, and at the time she entered the dock was in custody of the marshal, who had constituted Captain Appleby ship-keeper, to hold possession of the vessel while awaiting the further action of the court. Appleby was known to libellant as master of the vessel; he was not known to him as the deputy of the marshal. He evidently made the contract with libellant as master, and not as ship-keeper, as he had no right to do so in the latter capacity. Tyler, the deputy marshal, who had made Appleby ship-keeper at his own request, took possession of the vessel himself on the 15th of January, while she was still in libellant’s dock.

At the time the contract was made and the vessel entered the dock, libellant had neither actual nor constructive notice that Captain Appleby had any authority from the marshal to hold possession of the vessel for him. Such being the case, the court will hold the vessel liable for the dockage and repairs furnished up to the 15th of January, when Tyler, the known deputy of the marshal, took possession of her. From this time libellant had notice that the vessel was in the custody of the law, and the subsequent repairs furnished by him constituted no lien. It is not within the power of the marshal to contract for repairs that are not absolutely necessary to the preservation of the vessel while in his custody. It is his duty simply to keep the vessel as he receives her, and he has no authority to expend money for alterations or repairs for the purpose of completing her equipment for navigation.

The third and fourth items of libellant’s account, amounting to $1,756, are disallowed, and a decree granted for the residue. Decree for libellant.
No. 57791.

protests 187519-K, etc. (New York).

#### American Express Co. and The P. McGraw Wool Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker*Company, *Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this ease.
# Official Journal C 285/28 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 285 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6328 August 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 285

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6328 August 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 285/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 July 2020 to 31 July 2020(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |
| 2020/C 285/02 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 July 2020 to 31 July 2020(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC) | 11 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 285/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 July 2020 to 31 July 2020(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

2020/C 285/02

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 July 2020 to 31 July 2020(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

11

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at                     *Secretary@fmc.gov,*                     or by mail, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, Washington, DC 20573. Comments will be most helpful to the Commission if received within 12 days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register**                    , and the Commission requests that comments be submitted within 7 days on agreements that request expedited review. Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's website (                    *www.fmc.gov*) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or                     *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov.*

*Agreement No.:*                     201409.                

*Agreement Name:*                     Seven Seals Co., Ltd. and Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. Space Charter Agreement.                

*Parties:*                     Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Seven Seals Co., Ltd.                

*Filing Party:*                     Neal Mayer; Hoppel, Mayer & Coleman.                

*Synopsis:*                     The Agreement authorizes Seven Seals to charter space for the carriage of cars to K-Line on an “as needed/as available basis” in the Trade between ports in Japan and the U.S. West Coast.                

*Proposed Effective Date:*                     10/3/2023.                

*Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/​FMC.Agreements.Web/​Public/​AgreementHistory/​84522.*

Dated: October 6, 2023.

Carl Savoy,

Federal Register Alternate Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2023-22562 Filed 10-12-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      72,546,000
<SECURITIES>                                40,949,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,981,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,943,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           121,947,000
<PP&E>                                      23,007,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,326,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             168,840,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,874,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        5,950,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  54,317,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               168,840,000
<SALES>                                     10,445,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,351,000
<CGS>                                        5,138,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            36,760,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (36,369,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (35,745,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (35,745,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

PATRICK DRUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5360 RBL/KLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

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

Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Plaintiff’s Motions for Distribution of Declaration Forms and to Attach Affidavits to

Declarations Forms (Dkt. # 50, 56) are DENIED; and 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendant

and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05360-RBL Document 114 Filed 04/19/07 Page 1 of 1
# Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY Chapter 19 Volatile Organic Compo unds from Specific Processes Authority: Environment Article, §§1-101, 1-404, 2-101—2-103, 2-301—2-303, 10- 102, and 10-103, Annotated Code of Maryland

26.11.19.13 

## .13 Drum and Pail Coating. A. Definitions. In this regulation, the following terms have the meanings indicated: (1) “Drum” means any cylindrical metal container with a capacity of greater than 12 gallons and up to 110 gallons (45 to 416 liters). (2) “Pail” means any cylindrical metal container of 5 to 12 gallons (19 to 45 liters) capacity and constructed of 29 gauge or heavier material. (3) “Reconditioned Drums or Pails” means any metal drum or pail which is reused, recycled or remanufactured. B. Applicability and Exemptions. (1) This regulation applies to any drum or pail coating operations at a premises where the total VOC emissions exceed 15 pounds (6.8 kilograms) per day. (2) This regulation does not apply to coatings app lied using a hand-held, pressurized, non-refillable container which expels coatings from the container in a finely divided spray when a valve on the container is depressed: (a) To recoat portions of a previously coated product which has sustained mechanical damage to the coating following normal painting operation; or (b) To cover minor coating imperfections appearing after the main coating operation. C. Emission Standards. A person subject to this regulation may not exceed the applicable VOC emission standards of the following table:

Coating Types Pounds Per Gallon Kilograms Per Literof Coating Applied (Minus Water) of Coating Applied (Minus Water) Drum or Pail Coating, New, Exterior 2.8 0.34 Drum or Pail Coating, New, Interior 3.5 0.42 Drum or Pail Coating, Reconditioned, Exterior 3.5 0.42 Drum or Pail Coating, Reconditioned, Interior 4.2 0.50 D. Application Methods. (1) Except as provided in §D(2), a person subject to the requirements of this regulation shall use the following application methods: (a) Electrostatic application; (b) HVLP spray; (c) Flow coat; (d) Roller coat; (e) Dip coat including electrodeposition; (f) Brush coat; or (g) A coating application method capable of achieving a transfer efficiency equivalent or better than that achieved by HVLP spraying. (2) The application requirements of §D(1) do not apply to the following drum or pail coating operations: (a) Coatings applied in order to recoat portions of a previously coated product which has sustained mechanical damage to the coating following normal painting operation; or (b) Coatings applied in order to cover minor coating imperfections appearing after the main coating operation.