alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 25, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.113 Credit Unions** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 57805.

protests 174262-K and 182802-K (New York).

#### Cosmos Shipping Co., Inc., and Halperin Shipping Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson', J.

It was stipulated that the issue and merchandise herein are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Axel Stokby et al.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358), except that in the liquidation of the entries covered by the involved protests, an allowance was made for gelatinous substance equal to 10 percent of the content of the tins, whereas there should have been a larger percentage allowed for the gelatinous substance. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, the merchandise was held dutiable at 3)4 cents per pound under paragraph 703, Tariff Act of 1930, upon the basis of the net weight of the contents of the cans, less such percentage allowance for the gelatinous substance contained in the respective tins, as set forth in the decision.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MICHAEL A. BURNHART,

Plaintiff,

v.

REED HOLTGEERTS, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0870-JLR-MAT

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY

This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has submitted to the

Court three motions for discovery. (Dkt. 12) Each of these motions contains a request by plaintiff

that defendants produce specified records pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s motions are improper. The Court does not act as a conduit for

discovery requests. If plaintiff wishes to obtain documents relevant to this action from defendants,

he must do so by directing appropriate requests to defendants. Discovery motions are appropriate

only if discovery disputes arise, and then only after the parties have fully complied with the

provisions of Local Rule CR 37. 

Based upon the foregoing, this Court does hereby ORDER as follows:

Case 2:06-cv-00870-JLR Document 16 Filed 10/25/06 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 STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY

PAGE -2

(1) Plaintiff’s discovery motions (Dkt. No. 12) are STRICKEN. 

(2) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendants, and

to the Honorable James L. Robart.

DATED this 25th day of October, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00870-JLR Document 16 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 10(b)

                            FLEET BOSTON CORPORATION

          Revised Schedule of Executive Officers Who Have Entered into
                      Certain Change in Control Agreements

A.       Benefit -- 3x Base Plus Bonus:

         Terrence Murray
         Robert J. Higgins
         David L. Eyles
         Eugene M. McQuade
         H. Jay Sarles
         Brian T. Moynihan
         William C. Mutterperl
         M. Anne Szostak

B.       Benefit -- 2x Base Plus Bonus:

         Robert C. Lamb, Jr.
Case No. 10,263.

#### Ex parte NIGHTINGALE.

[1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 8.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

Sept. 4, 1842.

Assignment fob Benefit of Crbditoks — Injunction to Restrain Assignees from Acting Under Assignment.

1. An injunction will not be granted to restrain assignees of the estate and effects of the debtor against whom an adverse decree is sought to restrain them from acting under the assignment, although it is alleged that such assignment is fraudulent and void under the act of congress; it is only in -cases of actual danger to the property of the bankrupt, and not against its possible waste or misapplication, that the court will interfere by injunction.

2. But the court will protect the assets of a bankrupt when his individual assignee is irresponsible, .or where he is charged with wasting them.

In this case an application for an adverse decree in bankruptcy against Peter Booth had been made by John Nightingale, and it appeared that on or about the 31st day of May last, Booth, being in insolvent circumstances, had made an assignment of his estate and effects to one Henry I. Ennis and Duncan M’Ewing, and it was alleged that under such assignment certain creditors of said Booth had been preferred, and that such assignment was in other respects fraudulent and void under the act of congress establishing a uniform system of bankruptcy; it also appeared, that the petitioning creditor was apprehensive that the assignees between the time of filing the petition for a decree, and the time for showing cause, would proceed to sell the property and effects of Booth, and distribute the proceeds among the creditors preferred.

Mr. Fessenden this day moved for an injunction against the assignees of Booth, to restrain their acting under the assignment, upon an affidavit detailing the above circumstances.

BETTS, District Judge.

This application cannot be sustained; the court will award an injunction to protect the assets of a bankrupt when his individual assignee is charged with wasting them, or it appearing that such as-signee is wholly irresponsible; so where there are facts to show the probability of the assets being withdrawn or concealed when the decree of bankruptcy should be rendered; it does not however appear in this case that there is any danger of loss or misapplication *239of the effects, and It is not the course of the court to allow an injunction, merely on the apprehension of a creditor that the property might be dissipated or put out of the general assignment. The court interferes with this high process only in the case of actual and imminent danger to the property of the bankrupt, and not as a mere preventive against its possible waste or misapplication. Injunction refused.
No. 51491.

#### Protests 119195-K, etc., of Standard Wine & Liquor Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to *13810 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination, because of breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gaugers’ returns as verified by the affidavits of the importers. The protests were sustained to this extent.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MICHAEL RIDEAUX,

Plaintiff,

v.

REED HOLTGEERTS, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-2100-RSL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND

DISMISSING ACTION

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s civil rights complaint, plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment, defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, the Report and

Recommendation of the Honorable James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge, and the

remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 17) is DENIED.

(3) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 27) is GRANTED.

(4) Plaintiff’s complaint and this action are DISMISSED with prejudice.

(5) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for

Case 2:05-cv-02100-RSL Document 43 Filed 08/03/07 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

PAGE -2

defendants, and to the Honorable James P. Donohue.

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02100-RSL Document 43 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RAPHAEL HENSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J.R. CASMIRO,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-1006-RSL

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who has submitted an amended civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. #8). In the amended complaint, plaintiff appears to allege that in

April 2005, a “Community Corrections Officer,” named J. R. Casmiro, improperly issued a

warrant for plaintiff’s arrest, which led to plaintiff spending 23 days in confinement without legal

justification. (Doc. #8 at 3). Plaintiff asserts that during his confinement, he never had a hearing

and that afterwards, his term of probation was not credited with this 23-day period. (Id.)

The Supreme Court recently commented that “[f]ederal law opens two main avenues to

relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and

a complaint under . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or to

Case 2:06-cv-01006-RSL Document 9 Filed 08/22/06 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

1

 By so recommending, the court means to imply nothing regarding the merits of such a

petition.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -2

particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.” Hill v. McDonough ,

__U.S.__, 126 S. Ct. 2096, 2100 (2006), quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)

(per curiam). “An inmate’s challenge to the circumstances of his confinement, however, may be

brought under § 1983.” Id. (some citations omitted).

Here, plaintiff’s complaint, while directed at Officer Casmiro, is founded upon his

contention that he spent 23 days in confinement without legal justification. Thus, plaintiff’s

complaint is more a challenge to the lawfulness of his former confinement rather than to the

conditions of that confinement. Accordingly, the proper vehicle for plaintiff to proceed with this

challenge is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1

 Petitioner’s complaint and this action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 should therefore be dismissed without prejudice. A proposed Order is attached.

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01006-RSL Document 9 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 56185.

protests 174050-K and 174051-K (New York).

#### J. & H. Baer, Inc., and Leo Wolleman, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
Page 1 - ORDER FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT SALUS SURGICAL

GROUP

C:\Documents and Settings\jboring\Local Settings\Temp\notesC7A056\LH6110.wpd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Christopher Velto, a Washington

citizen,

Plaintiff,

v.

Draeger Medical, Inc., a

Pennsylvania Corporation, and

Salus Surgical Group, LLC a

Delaware Limited Liability

Company,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. C06-5190RBL

ORDER FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

AGAINST DEFENDANT SALUS

SURGICAL GROUP

It appearing from the records in the above-entitled action

that Summons has been served upon the defendant named below, and it

further appearing from the Affidavit of counsel for Plaintiff and

other evidence required by F.R.C.P. 55(a) that the defendant named

below has failed to plead or otherwise defend in this action as

directed in said Summons and as provided in the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure; 

Now, therefore, on request of counsel, the court hereby

orders the entry of DEFAULT of the following named defendant: Salus

Surgical Group, LLC. 

Dated this 26TH day of January, 2007.

BRUCE RIFKIN

Clerk

By: s/Jean Boring

DEPUTY CLERK

Case 3:06-cv-05190-RBL Document 16 Filed 01/26/07 Page 1 of 1
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

ROSALVO VILLAVICENCIO-CHAVEZ,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5106M

ORDER ON MOTION FOR DETENTION 

 REVIEW

THE COURT, having conducted a detention review at the request of the defense. The court finds that no condition or

combination of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the

safety of any other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( X ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( X ) Nature and seriousness of charges.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( x ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( x ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( x ) Illegally in the United States.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 June 28, 2006.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05351-RBL Document 75 Filed 06/28/06 Page 1 of 1
|What's New ·

What's Next ·

Site Map ·
A-Z Index ·
Careers ·

RSS ·
All Videos ·

Current FAQs |  | Search Advanced Search | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 Current Release
Release Dates
Enhanced Financial Accounts
Financial Accounts Guide
Technical Q&As
Announcements
  L.202 U.S. Deposits in Foreign Countries  
 Billions of dollars; amounts outstanding end of period, not seasonally adjusted Description
Series code
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2015   Q2
2015   Q3
2015   Q4
2016   Q1
2016   Q2
LineRest of the world; U.S. private deposits, including negotiable certificates of deposit; liability
	FL263191005
	1303.9
	1066.4
	919.5
	950.6
	827.4
	585.9
	734.2
	667.6
	585.9
	624.6
	579.7
	1Households and nonprofit organizations; private foreign deposits; asset
	FL153091003
	67.3
	57.4
	49.5
	52.1
	45.7
	31.6
	39.8
	36.1
	31.6
	32.4
	30.4
	2Nonfinancial corporate business; private foreign deposits; asset
	FL103091003
	40.6
	34.8
	35.4
	77.5
	68.7
	48.0
	57.1
	49.0
	48.0
	37.6
	48.2
	3Money market mutual funds; private foreign deposits; asset
	FL633091003
	108.0
	43.8
	44.1
	34.3
	24.5
	11.1
	22.5
	12.6
	11.1
	17.6
	12.9
	4Instrument discrepancies; private foreign deposits
	FL903091005
	1088.0
	930.4
	790.5
	786.7
	688.5
	495.2
	614.8
	570.0
	495.2
	537.0
	488.2
	5 Back to top
   Home Economic Research & Data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer Website Policies FOIA
 PDF Reader
Before the Second Division,

October 20, 1959

No. 63447.

protests 58/4657, etc. (New York).

#### Lucas Electrical Services, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*375Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ammeters similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lucas Electrical Services, Inc.,*and *Frank J. Eberle Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 209, C.D. 1776), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
August 14, 1963

Reap. Dec. 10579.

#### P. W. Drittler *v.*United States,

Reappraisement dismissed July 10, 1963.

Entered at Detroit, Mich. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiff.
# Official Journal C 78/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.078.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 78 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 521 April 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.078.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 78

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 521 April 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 078/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 078/01

Euro exchange rates

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 078/02 | Call for proposals — EACEA/05/09 — ‘Youth in Action’ Programme — Action 3.2 — ‘Youth in the world’: Cooperation with countries other than the neighbouring countries of the European Union | 2 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 078/03 | Notice for the attention of the person added to the list referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, by virtue of Commission Regulation (EC) No 265/2009 | 7 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Commission

2009/C 078/02

Call for proposals — EACEA/05/09 — ‘Youth in Action’ Programme — Action 3.2 — ‘Youth in the world’: Cooperation with countries other than the neighbouring countries of the European Union

2

OTHER ACTS

Commission

2009/C 078/03

Notice for the attention of the person added to the list referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, by virtue of Commission Regulation (EC) No 265/2009

7

---

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

EN
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

VINICIA BRIGGS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-5368RBL

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Report and Recommendation of Judge J.

Kelley Arnold, United States Magistrate Judge, and 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) The administrative decision is AFFIRMED; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff's counsel, defendant's counsel

and Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05368-RBL Document 20 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350)









In
connection with the Quarterly Report of American Nortel Communications, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
 William P. Williams, Principle Financial Officer of the Company, 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
Company.





Registrant
            American
      Nortel Communications, Inc.Date:
      July 14, 2008
            By:
      /s/ William P. WilliamsWilliam
      P. WilliamsChairman,
      President Chief Executive Officer (Principle Executive Officer, Principle
      Financial Officer)