alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 60296.

protest 220377-K (Seattle).

#### Clarence S. Holmes *v.*United States,

Donlon, Judge:

On trial, the description of the merchandise, subject of this protest, was stipulated as follows:

> * * * oats, recleaned, rolled, unhulled, and unfit for human consumption. (R. 2.)

This merchandise, described in the invoice as “recleaned #2 C. W. Oats, not further manufactured than Rolled, unfit for human consumption, for livestock feeding,” was classified by the collector under paragraph 1558 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 52739, as a nonenumerated manufactured article, duti*399able at 10 per centum ad valorem. The merchandise had been entered under paragraph 726, with claim that duty should be charged at 4 cents per bushel of 32 pounds. There is nothing in the record or the briefs that illuminates the point, but it seems evident that the entry claim, as well as the claim on protest, is that this merchandise ought to be classified under the first clause of paragraph 726, “Oats, hulled or unhulled,” duty on which was reduced from 16 cents to 4 cents per bushel of 32 pounds by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802.

The official papers were not put into evidence. No evidence was adduced by either party. Both parties requested, and were granted, 60 days for the filing of briefs, and briefs were filed. Plaintiff’s brief cites, in a single paragraph of argument, only one case on which plaintiff relies to support his contention. That case is cited also by the defendant as authority for its position.

We are of opinion that plaintiff has not borne its burden of proof. The authority cited, *J. A. Forrest*v. *United States,*8 Cust. Ct. 321, C. D. 629, does not support plaintiff’s claim. The merchandise there in issue was differently described. Here, the record, as stipulated, shows that these oats were rolled. There is nothing to indicate that the oats in the *Forrest*case, *supra,*were.

The three clauses in paragraph 726 seem intended to describe oats in three different phases of processing or manufacture: First, oats that are hulled or unhulled, but nothing more; second, oats that, although unhulled, have been ground; and, third, various oat products, including oatmeal, rolled oats, oat grits, etc.

The merchandise before us was cleaned and recleaned; it was also rolled.

In *F. A. Forrest*v. *United States,*2 Cust. Ct. 425, C. D. 169, we held that oats which had been “rolled” and which were not fit for human consumption were properly classified, not under paragraph 726, as plaintiff here claims, but under paragraph 1558. Nothing in the second *Forrest*case, C. D. 629, indicates that the court intended to overrule its earlier decision. Nothing has been presented to us now, either by way of record or argument, that either distinguishes the first *Forrest*decision or persuades us that it was in error.

The protest is overruled. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 59880.

#### Cortez Trading Corporation *v.*United States,

protests 246157-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of reptile skins the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Fleming-Joffe, Ltd.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1263), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 99.1

 

Section 906 Certification

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

(1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of InLand Capital Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

(2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(3) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of InLand Capital Fund, L.P.

 

 

By: Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation

       General Partner

 

/S/ Brenda G. Gujral_________________________________

Name: Brenda G. Gujral

Title: President of the General Partner and

          Principal Executive Officer of InLand Capital Fund, L.P

Date: November 12, 2002
Exhibit 10.11

[Essential Innovations Technology Corp. letterhead]

                                  April 1, 2003

                              Letter of Commitment

Re:      Between Mr. Steve Wuschke and Essential Innovations Technology Corp.

Mr. Wuschke and Essential Innovations Corporation have come to a mutual
agreement regarding a proposed two-party transaction. This letter will serve as
final for purposes of the agreement upon execution of this letter by both
parties.

Mr. Steve Wuschke agrees to loan $45,000 Cdn. Funds, to Essential Innovations
Technology Corp. on or before April 1st/2003, at an interest rate of 8%
compounded monthly for a period of 12 months, the principal balloon payment
being due at the end of the 12-month period. EI Tech understands and agrees that
interest payments are to be made monthly beginning on April 27th, 2003, and
continuing for 12 months on the 27th day of every month following the initial
interest payment unless the principal and interest due on the entire balance is
paid prior to the end of the 12 month loan period.

Mr. Steve Wuschke will receive the following Option Package to accompany his
loan agreement:

25,000 options @ $0.25 USD/share
25,000 options @ $0.50 USD/share            (Options exercisable until 2012)

It will be the responsibility of EI Tech to make all the required monthly
interest payments on the loan in a timely manner and without delay, with EI Tech
being responsible for a balloon payment on the principal at the end of the
12-month term.

 This is to be a legally binding document.




/s/ Jason McDiarmid                                  /s/ Steve Wuschke
---------------------------------------            -----------------------------
Authorized Signatory                                 Authorized Signatory
Essential Innovations Technology Corp.               Mr. Steve Wuschke
Page 1 of 2 

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20551 

DIVISION OF SUPERVISION AND 

REGULATION 

SR 22-2 

January 13, 2022 

TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF SUPERVISION AND APPROPRIATE 

SUPERVISORY AND EXAMINATION STAFF AT EACH FEDERAL RESERVE BANK 

AND BANKING ORGANIZATIONS SUPERVISED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE

SUBJECT: Status of Covered Savings Associations and Holding Companies of Covered

Savings Associations Under Statutes and Regulations Administered by the 

Federal Reserve

Applicability: This letter applies to federal savings associations that have elected to operate as a 

covered savings association under section 5A of the Home Owners’ Loan Act and to companies 

that control such federal savings associations.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is issuing this letter to 

make the financial institutions aware of recently issued Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

regarding the laws and regulations applicable to Covered Savings Associations (CSAs) and 

companies controlling CSAs. 1 The FAQs are published on the Board’s public website.2 

The FAQs are intended to assist CSAs and companies that control a CSA in complying 

with statutes and regulations administered by the Board. The Board may periodically update the 

FAQs. Accordingly, institutions are encouraged to check the Board’s public website for 

revisions to previously issued FAQs. 

Reserve Banks should distribute this SR letter to supervised institutions in their districts 

and to appropriate supervisory staff. Questions regarding this SR letter may be sent via the 

Board’s public website. 3

1

 Section 5A of the Home Owners’ Loan Act permits certain federal savings associations (FSAs) to elect to operate 

as a CSA, which has the same rights, privileges, duties, restrictions, penalties, liabilities, conditions, and limitations 

as a national bank that has its main office in the same location as the home office of the CSA, with some exceptions. 

12 U.S.C. § 1464a. 

2

 See https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/legalinterpretations/covered-savings-associations-frequentlyasked-questions.htm. 3

 See https://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/contactus/feedback.aspx. 
Page 2 of 2 

Michael S. Gibson

Director 

Division of Supervision and Regulation 

Attachments: 

• Frequently Asked Questions about Covered Savings Associations Pursuant to Section 5A

of the Home Owners’ Loan Act
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3
 
                    CONSENT OF THE COIN LAUNDRY ASSOCIATION
 
   
     The Coin Laundry Association hereby consents to all references made to it
and to all facts and figures in the 1997 survey conducted on behalf of and
published by the Coin Laundry Association in Amendment No. 2 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-1 of SpinCycle, Inc. (Registration No. 333-57989), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 1998.
    
 
                                          Coin Laundry Association
 
                                          By /s/ GEORGE PISTONA
 
                                            ------------------------------------
                                          Name George Pistona
                                          Title   Deputy Executive Director
 
Coin Laundry Association
Downers Grove, Illinois
   
October 20, 1998
    
 
                                        2
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, DC 20551

March 6, 2017

Edward J. Drenttel, Esq.

Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A.

225 South Sixth Street

Suite 3500

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4629

Dear Mr. Drenttel:

This letter responds to your request dated November 7, 2016, on
behalf of Citizens Bank Group, Inc. (“Citizens”), Saint James, Minnesota.
The General Counsel, acting pursuant to delegated authority, and after
consultation with the Director of the Division of Supervision and
Regulation, has approved your request pursuant to section 19 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act! for
director of Citizens, and fo: to own up to 35 percent of the
voting shares of Citizens infindividual capacity and up to 100 percent of
the voting shares of Citizens as part of a group acting in concert.

Approval of this request with respect oT <0-s not

constitute action on any other application or notice concerning Citizens.

112 U.S.C. § 1829.

www.federalreserve.gov


2

This action is based on all the facts of record and representations
made by you and i the Board in connection with the
request. Any change in the facts presented could result in a different
conclusion and should be reported immediately to Board staff. These
representations constitute conditions imposed in writing in connection with
the findings and decisions herein and, as such, may be enforced in
proceedings under applicable law.

Sincerely,

Margarét McCloskey Shanks
Deputy Secretary of the Board
### / /f\ 

### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DIALLOBE A. McDOUGALD, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.


### MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# ,FILED SEP 2 3**~OfO** Clerk. U.S. District &8ankru 

### t Courts for the District of

### COIU~~ra


# 10 

# 1614

This matter comes before the court onreview ofplaintiffs application to proceed 

### in formapauperis and 

### pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed. The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by 

### pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. 

### See Haines v. 

### Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Evenpro 

### se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. 

### Jarrell v. 

### Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement ofthe grounds upon which the court'sjurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand forjudgment for the reliefthe pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose ofthe minimum standard ofRule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants ofthe claimbeing asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the

1doctrine ofresjudicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiffstates that he has "evidents [sic] to show that [he] was the subject to the Department ofJustice in reguards [sic] to criminal matters." Compl. at 1. He demands "demages [sic] byway offederal civil awards and claims for social security claims [sic] offraud, and civil rights and amendments, for incide [sic] offederal rules andregulations laws," as well as "demages [sic] ofcost to [him] in all matters by way ofJudges who reads [sic] [the] complaint." Id. at 2. Missing from the complaint are a short and plain statement ofthe grounds upon which the Court'sjurisdiction depends and a claim that plaintiffis entitled to the reliefhe seeks. For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed without prejUdice for its failure to comply with Rule 8(a). An Order consistent withthis Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

2
#### Diana C. DE LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY; Fremont Municipal Court, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-16665.

D.C. No. CV-00-00121-SBA.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001 *.

Decided June 21, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Diana De Leon (“De Leon”) appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment *537in favor of the County of Alameda (“County”) and the Superior Court of the State of California (erroneously named “Fremont Municipal Court”) in her action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging race discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review the district court’s entry of summary judgment de novo. *DeGrassi v. City of Glendora,*207 F.3d 636, 641 (9th Cir.2000). The district court properly granted summary judgment on De Leon’s claims because De Leon did not provide specific and substantial evidence that her employer’s proffered reason for her termination — poor work performance and attitude — was a pretext for firing her. *See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co.,*26 F.3d 885, 892 (9th Cir.1994) (affirming summary judgment because plaintiff failed to present evidence to refute legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharge). De Leon’s statistical evidence was insufficient to overcome her burden. *See Mayor v. Educ. Equality League,*415 U.S. 605, 621, 94 S.Ct. 1323, 39 L.Ed.2d 630 (1974) (deeming sample size of 13 to be statistically insignificant for purposes of proving discrimination).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying De Leon’s request for further discovery because De Leon never moved the court under Rule 56(f) for additional time to obtain the documents necessary to substantiate her claims and did not demonstrate that allowing additional discovery would have assisted her in opposing summary judgment. *See Weinberg v. Whatcom County,*241 F.3d 746, 7551 (9th Cir.2001); *Terrell v. Brewer,*935 F.2d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.1991).

The district court’s denial of De Leon’s motion for sanctions was not abuse of discretion. *See Cooter & Gell,*496 U.S. at 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447; *Larez v. Holcomb,*16 F.3d 1513, 1521-22 (9th Cir.1994).

Finally, we deny De Leon’s request that we allow her to amend her original complaint because she failed to seek leave to amend her complaint with the district court. *See Alaska v. United States,*201 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *537courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSEPH H. CAMBURN III,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 297 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of October, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS

OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20551

ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD

June 21, 2017

Dea a:

The General Counsel, acting pursuant to delegated authority, and after consultation with
the Director of the Division of Supervision and Regulation, has approved your request pursuant to
section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act! to become an institution-affiliated party of State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), Bloomington, Illinois, a savings and loan
holding company (“SLHC”), through employment with an independently owned agency that sells State
Farm insurance products and banking products from State Farm’s wholly owned subsidiary federal
savings bank, State Farm Bank, f.s.b. (“State Farm Bank”), Bloomington, Illinois. This approval is
limited to your holding a position with an independently owned agency that sells State Farm and State
Farm Bank products. If you seek to work directly for State Farm or an independently owned agency
that sells products for another SLHC or bank holding company (“BHC”), you must obtain the Board’s
approval to do so.

This action is based on all the facts of record and representations made by you to the
Board in connection with your request. Any change in the facts presented could result in a different
conclusion and should be reported immediately to Board staff. These representations constitute
conditions imposed in writing in connection with the findings and decisions herein and, as such, may
be enforced in proceedings under applicable law. Additionally, if you are convicted of, or enter into a
pretrial diversion program for, a crime involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering in
the future, you must again seek approval to work for any SLHC, BHC, or independently owned agency
that sells products for an SLHC or BHC, including agencies that sell State Farm and State Farm Bank
products,

Sincerely,
\\ vant Mw

Margaret McCloskey Shanks
Deputy Secretary of the Board

112 U.S.C. § 1829.
No. 53860.

#### Federal Wine & Liquor Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 147327-K, 147076-K, and 147005-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co.,*Inc. v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, Leonhard Dreimann, hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Salton, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Salton, Inc.


                                        By: /s/ Leonhard Dreimann
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Leonhard Dreimann
                                            Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2006

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. (the Exchange Act). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Salton, Inc. and will be retained by Salton, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       35
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.                  

###### Commission of Fine Arts

Per 45 CFR chapter XXI 2102.3, the next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for October 19, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. and will be held via online videoconference. Items of discussion may include buildings, infrastructure, parks, memorials, and public art.

                    Draft agendas, the link to register for the online public meeting, and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our website:                     *www.cfa.gov.*                     Inquiries regarding the agenda, as well as any public testimony, should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address; by emailing                     *cfastaff@cfa.gov;*                     or by calling 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.                

Dated: October 10, 2023 in Washington, DC.

Susan M. Raposa,

Technical Information Specialist.

[FR Doc. 2023-23009 Filed 10-18-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330-01-P
**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 SemiLEDs Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Trung Tri Doan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

(1)                     the Amendment No. 1 to 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 results of operations of the Registrant.

 
| Dated:   December 30, 2013 | /s/ Trung Tri   Doan                        |
|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                            | Name: Trung Tri   Doan                      |
|                            | Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----