alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Waiver Request Support Document

72 Attachment 1

2013 Amendments to HD OBD and OBD II Requirements That

Potentially Establish New or More Stringent Requirements

Amendments to HD OBD Requirements in Title 13, CCR section 1971.1 186

A. General Requirements 1. Section (d)(2.2.1)(D): Storage and erasure of freeze frame conditions for ISO 15765-4 protocol 2. Sections (d)(2.3.1)(B) and (d)(3.2.3)(C): Fault Code Erasure

Protocol 3. Section (d)(4.3.2)(G)/ [1968.2(d)(4.3.2)(G)]:Denominator Specifications 4. Section (d)(4.5.3): Disablement of Numerators and Denominators 5. Section (d)(7.5.3): Implementation Schedule for Alternate-fueled Engines

B. Monitoring Requirements for Diesel/Compression-Ignition Engines 1. Section (e)(1.4.2)(D): Fuel System Monitoring - Storage of freeze

frame conditions 2. Misfire Monitoring a. Sections (e)(2.2) and (e)(2.3.3)/ [1968.2(f)(3.2.2) and (f)(3.3.3)]: Malfunction Criteria and Monitoring Conditions b. Section (e)(2.4.2)(B): Storage of freeze frame conditions 3. Section (e)(8.2.4): PM Filter Monitoring - NMHC Conversion Monitoring 4. Exhaust Gas Sensor Monitoring a. Section (e)(9.2.2)(A): NOx and PM sensors Malfunction Criteria b. Section (e)(9.3.1)/ [1968.2(f)(5.3.1)(A)]: NOx and PM sensors Monitoring Conditions C. Monitoring Requirements for Gasoline/Spark-Ignited Engines - Section (f)(5.2.4): Secondary Air System Monitoring - Malfunction Criteria D. Monitoring Requirements for All Engines - Section (g)(5.1): Exceptions to Monitoring Requirements - Revision of Emission Threshold or
Malfunction Criteria E. Standardization Requirements 1. Section (h)(2): Diagnostic Connector 2. Section (h)(3.2): SAE J1939 Communication Protocol 3. Section (h)(4.1.1): Readiness Status 4. Sections (h)(4.2.2) and (h)(4.2.3)(E): Data Stream

186 Amendments to provisions of the OBD II regulation are indicated by providing the corresponding provision in section 1968.2 in brackets [ ].Waiver Request Support Document

73 F. Monitoring System Demonstration Requirements for Certification - Section (i)(3.2.1)(C): Required Testing of Components – Gasoline Fuel System
G. Certification Documentation 1. Section (j)(2.6)/ [1968.2(i)(2.5.2)]: Diesel Misfire Monitor Data 2. Section (j)(2.16): Cover Letter 3. Section (j)(2.18): In-Use Monitor Performance 4. Section (j)(2.19): Test Results 5. Section (j)(2.20): Timeline H. Production Engine/Vehicle Evaluation Testing – Section (l)(1): Verification of Standardized Requirements

Amendments to OBD II Requirements in Title 13, CCR section 1968.2

A. Monitoring Requirements for Diesel/Compression-Ignition EnginesSections 1968.2(f)(17.1.5) and (17.1.6): Exceptions to Monitoring Requirements
No. 58810.

protest 229565-K (New York).

#### Max Eckardt & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States,

Wilson, Judge:

The merchandise in this case consists of Christmas tree ornaments subject to two rates of duty, depending on value. Certain of the merchandise is dutiable under paragraph 218 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T. D. 51802 and the President’s proclamation to supplement the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51898, at the rate of 50 per centum ad valorem. Other merchandise in the involved shipment is properly dutiable under said paragraph of the act, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 52739, supplemented by Presidential proclamation, T. D. 52820, as Christmas tree ornaments, “valued $7.50 or more per gross,” at the rate of 30 per centum ad valorem.

> It appears that in allocating the various items to the applicable ad valorem rates, the collector erroneously applied at the 50 per centum ad valorem rate of duty merchandise that was properly dutiable at only 30 per centum ad valorem, resulting in a higher imposition of duty on such merchandise.

In a collector’s memorandum accompanying the official papers, the following statement appears:

> A review of the liquidation indicates that the protest claim is well-taken. The correct figures, respectively at 30% and at 50% are as follows:

> 30% 50%

> $108. 30 $1, 336. 50

> 658. 69 270. 60

> 167. 80

> 766. 99 1, 774. 90

> $767. 00 $1, 775. 00

> and the defendant at the hearing so stipulated (R. 3).

For the aforesaid reasons, the protest claim herein is sustained. In all other respects and as to all other merchandise, the claims are overruled. Judgment will issue accordingly.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WESLEY I. NUNN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MELISSA A. LE BLANC, AKA Melissa

Fenswick,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-15770

D.C. No. 4:14-cv-00905-PJH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 9, 2015** 

Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. 

Wesley I. Nunn appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging federal and state law claims for the rescission of a contract and

return of real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

FILED

DEC 16 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v.

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We may affirm on any

ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th

Cir. 2008). We affirm. 

Dismissal of Nunn’s action was proper because it involves the same causes

of action as the prior state and federal court cases where Nunn was a party, and

because the issue of whether his state law rescission claim was barred by the

statute of limitations was litigated and decided in prior state court actions. See

White v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that 

California’s issue preclusion doctrine “precludes relitigation of issues argued and

decided in prior proceedings” and setting forth six criteria to determine whether an

issue is precluded (citation and internal quotation marks omited)); Brodheim v.

Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that California’s doctrine of

claim preclusion is based on a primary rights theory and defining “primary right”);

Sidhu v. Flecto Co., 279 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining federal claim

preclusion doctrine); MIB, Inc. v. Superior Court, 164 Cal. Rptr. 828, 832 (Ct.

App. 1980) (explaining that prior dismissals on procedural grounds have preclusive

effect as to the procedural issue decided). 

2 14-15770
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nunn’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) because Nunn did not demonstrate that he was

unable to pay the court’s filing fee due to poverty or indigency. See Escobedo v.

Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth standard of review

and explaining that an affidavit is sufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) if it states

that “the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life”). 

Because we affirm on the basis of California’s preclusion doctrines, we do

not address Nunn’s other arguments regarding the dismissal of his federal and state

law claims. 

AFFIRMED.

3 14-15770
No. 63975.

protests 59/25907 and 59/26481 (New York).

#### Almar Bristles & Hair Processing Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 63482.

protest 59/220 (New York).

#### Universal Industries *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

An examination of the protest disclosing that it was untimely filed under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1514), the motion to dismiss was granted.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
The Board of Directors
America West Airlines, Inc.:
 
We consent to the use of our reports incorporated herein by reference and to the
references to our firm under the headings "Selected Financial Data" and
"Experts" in the prospectus.
 
KPMG LLP
 
Phoenix, AZ
   
March 25, 1999
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

CORRECTED

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30146

Summary Calendar

JULES DUPERON

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DARRYL MIZELL, Lieutenant; DAVID EDWARDS, Sergeant; JOSHUA MILEY,

Sergeant; SERGEANT RONNIE SPEARS

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:06-CV-3325

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jules Duperon appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging

that several correctional officers at Washington Correctional Institute violated

his civil rights by beating him. Specifically, he argues that the magistrate judge

erred in dismissing his suit for failure to prosecute. The Government counters

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 14, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30146

2

that we need not consider whether the dismissal for failure to prosecute was

proper because Duperon has failed to challenge the dismissal on the independent

ground that he failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Because Duperon has failed to make an argument pursuant to FED. R. APP.

P. 28(a)(9)(A) challenging the dismissal of his suit for failure to state a claim, he

is deemed to have abandoned the issue. See Royal Ins. Co. of Amer. v. Caliber

One Indem. Co., 465 F.3d 614, 621 n.34 (5th Cir. 2006); Geiger v. Jowers, 404

F.3d 371, 373 n.6 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.
Before the Third Division,

June 20, 1945

No. 50279.

#### Protests 987818-G, etc., of Visla Traders Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the cheese in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Wheeler*(32 C. C. P. A. 22, C. A. D. 280), the protests were sustained as claimed.
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 
 
 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 Atlas America Public #15-2005 (A) L.P. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the MGP, 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,
and
 2)
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.
 
 By:
              /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
              Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
              Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
              March
      28, 2008
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**AMERICAN
      TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.**




**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 Quarterly Report of American Technologies Group, Inc. (the
      Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas
      E.
      Durkin, III, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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;
                and




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




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






Date:
      December 21, 2007




/s/
                Thomas E. Durkin, IIIPresident
(Reap. Dec. 10872)

#### Keuffel & Esser *v.*United States

Entry No. 478445.

(Decided December 22, 1964)

*JoJm D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject to the approval of the Court:

> That the merchandise involved in this appeal consists of Diazo Salts exported from West Germany; that said merchandise was entered after February 27, 1958, and is not included in the Final List of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521 as provided for in Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, required to be valued in accordance with Section 402a of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended ; that said merchandise is a coal tar product dutiable on the basis of the American Selling Price, Section 402(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

> That at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States the price at which such merchandise produced in the United States was freely sold for domestic consumption in the principal markets of the United States, in the ordinary course of trade and in the usual wholesale quantities including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the article in condition, packed, ready for delivery, was $14.69 per pound net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal for re-appraisement may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis *520for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value was $14.69 per pound, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOR GE GUER

R A-ESPARZA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-10470

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-01947-R OS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R osly n O. Silve r, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2014 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, SILVER M AN, a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Jorge Gue rra -Espa

rz a a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 120-m onth se nte nc e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for c o nspira c y

to posse ss with intent to distribute c oc a ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . § 846; a n d posse ssion with inte

nt to distribute

c o c a ine and a iding a

nd a be tting, in 

# FIL ED JAN 24 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a )(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), a nd 18 U.S.C . § 2. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . Gue rra -Espa

rz a c o nte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt c om

m itte d le ga l e rror whe n it de nie d him

sa fe ty -va lve re lie f unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3553(f). Notwithsta nding the c ourt’ s a l le ge d m issta

te m e nts re ga

rding there quire m e nts for obta ining sa fe ty va lve re lie f, the re c ord re fle c t s tha t the c ourt a gre e d with thegove rnm e nt’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Gue rra -Espa

rz a ha d not truthfully

an d fully provide d the gove rnm e nt with a ll of theinform ation heha d c onc e rning theoffe nse . B e c a use the re c o rd supports this de

te rm ination, thedistric t c ourt did not c le a rly e rr in de ny ing re lie f. Se e18 U.S.C . § 3553(f)(5); Unite d Me jia-Pime ntal , 477 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th C ir. 2007). B e c a use the distric t c ourt la c ke d disc re t ion to se nte nc e Gue rra -Espa rz a be low the sta

tutory m andatory

m inim um , we do not re a c h his re m a ining c onte ntions of sente nc i ng e rror. Gue rra -Espa

rz a ’ s stipula

te d m otion to supple

m e nt the re c o rd is gra

nte d. AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 0 4 7 0 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6670 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY GERALD WHITE, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(1:03-cr-00375-WDQ)

Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 6, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Gerald White, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John

Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Gerald White, Sr., appeals the district court’s

order denying his motion for production of grand jury transcripts

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. United States v. White, No. 1:03-cr00375-WDQ (D. Md. Mar. 22, 2006). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Before the Second Division,

November 4, 1959

No. 63481.

protest 58/22331 (New York).

#### Croton Watch Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 63961.

protests 58/25331 and 59/9040 (Honolulu).

#### S. H. Kress & Company *v.*United States,

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.
Before the Third Division,

March 10, 1955

No. 58816.

protest 143897-K (New York).

#### The May Department Stores Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorated porcelain articles, not tableware or kitchenware, composed of a vitrified nonabsorbent body which, when broken, shows a vitrified or vitreous fracture, containing more than 25 percent of calcined bone, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 446 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 446

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           December 15 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the sine die adjournment of the second session of the One 
                        Hundred Sixth Congress.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, December 
15, 2000, Saturday, December 16, 2000, or Sunday, December 17, 2000, on 
a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its

Majority Leader or his designee, it shall stand adjourned sine die, or 
until noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution; and that when the 
Senate adjourns on Friday, December 15, 2000, Saturday, December 16, 
2000, or Sunday, December 17, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to 
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 
shall stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second day after 
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 15, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
*No.*67705.

#### Fred Roberts Co. et al. *v.*United States,

*protests*58/8019, *etc.*(San Francisco).

Opinion by

Bao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of vacuum brushes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bruce Duncan Company, a/c Sims-Worms*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 85, C.D. 2202), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.