alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 53409.

protests 116655-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Schenley Distilleries, Inc. *v.*United States,

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 plaintiff was sustained.
#### Joseph G. Mudgett *vs.*Seldon Morton.

*Intoxicating liquors sold by one not licensed*— money *paid for not recoverable back.*

Neither by the common law, nor by any statute in this State, can a person who has purchased intoxicating liquors of one not licensed to sell them, and who has paid for and received them, recover back the money paid therefor, when no element of oppression or deceit enters into the case.

Barrows, J.

The plaintiff claims that he bought a barrel of whiskey of the defendant, and that as defendant violated the law *261in selling it to him, he can recover, in this suit, the cash and the value of the other articles which he delivered to defendant in payment for it. Assuming that such were the facts, we think the plaintiff cannot prevail.

Although he incurred no penalty under this statute, yet he was privy to and aided in the commission of the defendant’s offense, which could not have been completed without his aid. The law will not lend its aid to one thus implicated in a traffic prohibited by statute, so. as to enable him to recover the consideration which he voluntarily parted with to induce his neighbor to violate the law.

‘ By the common law,’ remarks Shepley, C. J., in *Ellsworth*v. *Mitchell,*31 Maine, 251, ‘ a person who has purchased intoxicating liquors of one not licensed to sell them, and who had received and paid for such liquors, could not recover back the money so paid.’

Some of the earlier statutes of this State, designed to restrict the sale of intoxicating liquors, expressly authorized such a recovery. But those provisions were abrogated many years since, were not renewed in the prohibitory law of 1858, or in any subsequent enactment, and the case is left to be settled by common-law principles.

Observing the distinction between executed and executory contracts, and between acts made unlawful by statute to protect the ignorant and unwary from oppression and extortion, and those which are prohibited because they are against public policy, we find, that while the illegality of the consideration may be set up in defense to a contract so long as it is executory, it will in general afford no ground for recovering back that consideration after it has passed, when no element of oppression or deceit enters into the case, and the act is prohibited as against public policy, as it is here. *Lowry*v. *Bordieu,*Doug. 468; *Smith*v. *Bromley,*Doug. 697 in notes; *Worcester*v. *Eaton,*11 Mass. 368.

The evidence here shows nothing like extortion or imposition. Apparently one rumseller bought a barrel of whiskey of another rumseller and paid him for it. As between those two men, the *262law and the court will leave the transaction where the acts of the parties. left it. *Judgment for Defendant.*

*T. W. Vose,*for the plaintiff.

*N. H. Hubbard,*for the defendant.

Appleton, C. J.; Cutting, Kent, and Walton, JJ., concurred.
Frank Brett, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mayor Fenty et aI., 

Defendants. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) Civil Action No. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

DEC 23 2009 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis 

application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading 

requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 

656 F. Supp. 237,239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 

complaints to contain" (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction 

[and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 

F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair 

notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate 

defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 

3 
Plaintiff, a resident of Baltimore, Maryland, sues District of Columbia Mayor Adrian 

Fenty, the Library of Congress and a librarian there who he claims "gave [him] the run around" 

when he requested her assistance. Plaintiff alleges that Mayor Fenty "slandered" him and "tried 

to steal [his] civil rights" but in what way is unknown because plaintiff has not stated any 

supporting facts. The complaint is mostly incomprehensible and, thus, fails to provide any notice 

of a claim or the basis for federal court jurisdiction. 

order accompanies this Memorandum Opinio 

~ .......... -....,",,' I be dismissed. A separate 

Date: Decembef-1-, 2009 

United States District Judge 

2
PLAINTIFF

VS.

DEFENDANT

CIVIL ACTION NO.

DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 2:04-cv-00955-LS Document 219 Filed 07/29/2009 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            2581
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            7167
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 10425
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           21847
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             22054
<LOANS>                                         193158
<ALLOWANCE>                                        873
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  252329
<DEPOSITS>                                      219230
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               3045
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       30054
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  252329
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   3874
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  638
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  4512
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                3118
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3118
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             1394
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    588
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    854
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         854
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       524
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.31
<LOANS-NON>                                        824
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   585
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   1874
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   874
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  873
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               873
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
No. 67724.

#### Elmay Importing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/7085, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of brass pole rings similar in all material respects to those *304the subject of *Kroder Reubel Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 274, C.D. 2186), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 107-1 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 107-1 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 107-1 Filed 11/14/05 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 107-1 Filed 11/14/05 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 107-1 Filed 11/14/05 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 107-1 Filed 11/14/05 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 107-1 Filed 11/14/05 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 107-1 Filed 11/14/05 Page 8 of 8
101.03.20 08:17 B C:\permftpx\lps4551\99pamphlet.pdf --> permanent.access.gpo.gov /diska/netsite-docs/lps4551 99pamphlet.pdf
101.03.20 08:17 B C:\permftpx\lps4551\TESTDIR.TMP --> permanent.access.gpo.gov /diska/netsite-docs/lps4551 TESTDIR.TMP
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICARDO MENDOZA-AYALA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-73082

Agency No. A200-097-381

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

November 18, 2015** 

Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Ricardo Mendoza-Ayala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision pretermitting Mendoza-Ayala’s application for

cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

FILED

NOV 23 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).
for substantial evidence factual determinations, and we review de novo questions

of law. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the

petition for review.

The agency did not err in determining that Mendoza-Ayala was statutorily

barred from establishing good moral character in order to qualify for cancellation

of removal, where substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that he

engaged in affirmative acts in support of a smuggling attempt. See 8 U.S.C. 

§§ 1101(f)(3), 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), 1229b(b)(1)(B); Urzua Covarrubias v. Gonzales,

487 F.3d 742, 747-49 (9th Cir. 2007) (alien smuggling finding was supported by

substantial evidence where the record reflected that the petitioner provided “an

affirmative act of help, assistance, or encouragement” (citation and quotation

marks omitted)). Mendoza-Ayala’s contention that the agency failed to properly

apply this court’s precedent in making the smuggling determination is without

merit. 

Mendoza-Ayala’s contention that the BIA did not sufficiently address issues

he raised on appeal is not supported by the record. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at

990 (the BIA need not “write an exegesis on every contention” raised by a

petitioner, so long as it “consider[s] the issues raised and announce[s] its decision

2 13-73082
in terms sufficient [for] a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought

and not merely reacted” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 13-73082
#### MARTIN v. THE AMIGA MIA et al.

Nos. 154-78, 154-93, 154-132.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

March 18, 1948.

*51William L. Standard, of New York City, for libellant.

Hagen & Eidenbach, of New York City, for respondent Minneford Yacht Yard, Inc.

KNOX, District Judge.

The report of the Special Commissioner in the above entitled suits is an admirable document and it, together with the testimony taken before him, has had my close attention. The result is that I am in full accord with the Commissioner’s findings of fact. I am also, with one exception, in agreement with his conclusions. I mean by this that, in my judgment, the costs of these proceedings should not be equally divided between the litigants, but that they, in their entirety, should be borne by Minneford Yacht Yard, Inc. Its course of procedure with respect to making overcharges on the work that was done for Rose L. Martin is little less than reprehensible. Such conduct should find no encouragement here.

For the above reason, I shall sustain Miss Martin’s exception No. 23. All others, along with each of the exceptions filed oi? behalf of the Yacht Yard, will be overruled.
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Luz Villanueva, hereby 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alternet Systems Inc.
      for the year ended December 31, 2010 (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 Alternet Systems Inc..                                                              

Dated: March 29, 2011

| | /s/
      Luz Villanueva                  
| | ------------------------------------------
| | Luz Villanueva                            
| | Secretary, Treasurer,                     
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
| | Accounting Officer)                       
| | Alternet Systems Inc.                     

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Alternet Systems
Inc. and will be retained by Alternet Systems Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Before the First Division,

March 26, 1968

No. P68/175.

protest 61/8917 (Los Angeles).

#### Ungar Electric Tools, Inc. *v.*United States,

Maletz, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of *James G. Wiley Co., a/c Ungar Electric*Tools, *Inc.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 199, Abstract 66961), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officers of Vertical Branding, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge and belief, that:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Form 10-KSB") of the Company 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: April 15, 2008



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ Nancy Duitch       
| | Nancy Duitch           
| | Chief Executive Officer



Date:  April 15, 2008



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ Victor Brodsky     
| | Victor Brodsky         
| | Chief Financial Officer



This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

WILSON : 02-3878

RETES : 02-3888

LUX, et al. : 02-3904

JACKSON, et al. : 02-3921

GUZZETTA, et al. : 02-3960

FAGAN, et al. : 02-3965

GREEN : 02-3989

NELSON, et al. : 02-4120

ASHTON, et al. : 02-4155

MCNALLY, et al : 02-4159

EVERETT, et al. : 02-4191

CASTELAZ, et al. : 02-4192

PERRY : 02-4249

NAPIER, et al. : 02-4256

POWERS, et al. : 02-4260

SANTOS, et al. : 02-4272

PRICE : 02-4299

SHULDA : 02-4307

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04120-HH Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota.

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Herbert J. Hutton, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04120-HH Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

June 15, 1964

No. 68637.

protests 61/4914, etc. (San Francisco).

#### E. Fomil & Sons and Joseph A. Paredes & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91 765-41 78 

(909) 396-2000 • www.aqmd.gov 

Mr. James Goldstene 

Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

1001 I Street 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

February 6, 2013 

Office of the Executive Officer 

Barry R. Wallerstein, D. Env . 

909.396.2100, fax 909.396.3340 

Submittal of Control Measure IND-O 1 in the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan 

Dear Mr. Goldstene, 

At its December 7, 2012 meeting, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 

Governing Board adopted the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP or Plan) with a motion 

to delay approval of Control Measure IND-O 1 (Backstop Measure for Indirect Sources of 

Emissions from Ports and Port-Related Facilities) until the February 1, 2013 Governing Board 

meeting. The adopted Final2012 AQMP was forwarded to the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) on December 20, 2012 with subsequent approval at its January 25, 2013 Board meeting. 

On February 1, 2013, the SCAQMD Governing Board approved Control Measure IND-01 for 

inclusion in the Final2012 AQMP. 

This letter is the formal submission of Control Measure IND-O 1 to CARB for its approval and 

subsequent submittal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part ofthe PM2.5 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). See attachment for the control measure text, which will be 

included in Appendix IV-A of the Final2012 Plan. Further, the approval of Control Measure 

IND-01, as originally proposed, does not change the analysis in the Final2012 Plan. 

In order to assist in your review and approval process, the following documents are being 

submitted in hardcopy. 

• Control Measure IND-O 1 (Backstop Measure for Indirect Sources of Emissions from Ports 

and Port-Related Facilities) 
Mr. James Goldstene Page 2 February 6, 2013 

• Governing Board Adoption Resolution 13-1 approving Control Measure IND-O 1 (Backstop 

Measure for Indirect Sources of Emissions from Ports and Port-Related Facilities) for 

submittal into the 2012 AQMP SIP. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at (909) 396-2100 or Dr. Elaine Chang, Deputy 

Executive Officer, at (909) 396-3186. 

Attachments 

cc: Deborah Jordan, U.S.EPA, Region IX 

Wienke Tax, U.S.EPA, Region IX 

Elaine Chang, SCAQMD 

Hasan Ikhrata, SCAG (w/o Attachments) 

Barbara Baird, SCAQMD 

Laki Tisopulos, SCAQMD 

Philip Fine, SCAQMD 

EC: PMF:MK 

Sincerely,
EXHIBIT 99.5

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

We
hereby consent to the use of our name in the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the "Annual Report") of Enerplus Resources Fund (the "Registrant"). We hereby
further consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report of the Registrant's Annual Information Form dated March 13, 2009 for the year ended December 31, 2008, which document makes
reference to our firm and our report entitled "Evaluation of the P&NG Reserves in Canada of Enerplus Resources Fund (As of December 31, 2008)", dated February 12, 2009, evaluating
the Registrant's oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids interests effective December 31, 2008.

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

SPROULE ASSOCIATES LIMITEDMarch 13, 2009/s/ R. KEITH MACLEOD R. Keith MacLeod, P. Eng. President


---



QuickLinks