alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BRANDON MICHAEL JACOBS
, ) ) Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 20

- 1780 (UNA) ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the
application and dismisses the complaint.
Plaintiff alleg edly maintains a “classified information database” that no one other than

the Chief Justice of the United States may access. Compl. at 1. According to plaintiff, “ T here is
money” in the database and he needs that money. Id . at 2. In an apparent attempt to access the
money, plaintiff appoints himself to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the

United States. See id . He de ems himself “HIRED for the position, because [he] tested and
received one hundred percent on the test.” Id . at 1.

Unf ortunately for plaintiff, the Constitution of the United States authorizes the President
to nominate “Judges of the supreme Court” who assume the ir role s only with the “Advice and

Consent of the Senate.” U.S. Const. art. II
, § 2
, cl. 2

. To the extent that plaintiff asks this Court

to take any action to acknowledge or support his purported status as Chief Justice of the United2

States, the request is denied , and the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction

. An Or der is issued separately.

DATE: July 1, 2020 /s/ JAMES E. BOASBERG United States District Judge
No. 60807.

#### Foreign Products Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 268046-K and 268047-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of actumus humus soil builder the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Foreign Products Corporation*v. *United States*(34 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 1679), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1685 was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                     DAIN RAUSCHER CORPORATION
                COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE
            (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                         YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                              ---------------------------------------------
                                                                1998              1997             1996
                                                              ----------        ----------       ----------
<S>                                                        <C>               <C>              <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:
   Net income.............................................    $   7,990         $ 49,275         $  56,811
                                                              =========         ========         =========

   Weighted average common shares outstanding.............       12,404           12,277            12,132
                                                              =========         ========         =========

Basic earnings per share..................................    $    0.64         $   4.01         $    4.68
                                                              =========         ========         =========


EARNINGS PER SHARE ASSUMING DILUTION:
   Net income.............................................    $   7,990         $ 49,275         $  56,811
                                                              =========         ========         =========

Weighted average number of common and dilutive 
      potential common shares outstanding:

      Weighted average common shares outstanding..........       12,404           12,277            12,132
      Dilutive effect of stock options (net of tax 
         benefits)........................................          463              579               435
      Shares credited to deferred compensation
         plan participants................................          304              204                98
                                                              ---------         --------         ---------
Weighted average number of common and
      dilutive potential common shares outstanding........       13,171           13,060            12,665
                                                              =========         ========         =========

Diluted earnings per share................................    $    0.61         $   3.77         $    4.49
                                                              =========         ========         =========

</TABLE>

                                      50
No. 07-15-00222-CR

Don Eric Wolters

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 181st District Court

of Randall County

November 20, 2015

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated November 20, 2015

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the appeal is abated and the cause is remanded to the

181st District Court of Randall County, Texas for further proceedings in accordance with

this Court’s opinion entered this day.

o O o
# Data

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2020-21	&"Arial,Bold"VII VSR - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BAugust 2020
(Reap. Dec. 8645)

Entry No. 975265.

#### Barnett International Forwarders, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided September 14, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise the subject of the instant appeal for reappraisement consists of Civet exported from France.

> That on or about the date of exportation the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of France, in the usual wholesale quantities for home consumption and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of packing, was the net appraised value less 25%.

> That on or about the date of exportation the export value, as defined in Sec. 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, of such or similar merchandise was no higher.

> That the instant'appeal for reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to he the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was the net appraised value, less 25 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD M. GILMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0035 DFL KJM P

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On February 9, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis. The court concurs with the magistrate judge that the administrative grievance

Case 2:04-cv-00035-DFL -KJM Document 26 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

did not fairly give notice that he was complaining of particular actions by defendant Zhu. In

addition, plaintiff failed to seek third level review, thereby failing to exhaust administrative

remedies. Even if the grievance had already been rejected as untimely, plaintiff must still attempt

to exhaust administrative remedies because the prison may decide to waive untimeliness and

address the grievance on its merits. See Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 629 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 9, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant Zhu’s August 26, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted;

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Zhu is dismissed for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit;

4. Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed without prejudice to filing in state

court; and

5. This case is closed.

DATED: 3/17/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00035-DFL -KJM Document 26 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2
wellquest_s1a-ex1008.htm


     

    
      Please
see PDF "wellquest_s1a-ex1008.pdf" for Exhibit 10.8 - Lease
Rider
Exhibit
32.2
  CERTIFICATION
  PURSUANT
TO
  SECTION
1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
  I, Rhowena Blank, the Vice President,
Head of Accounting and Operations and principal financial officer of Man
Investments (USA) Corp., the general partner of Man-AHL Diversified I L.P. (the
“Partnership”), certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Partnership on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.
 
 
 Date:  August 14,
2008
 s/ Rhowena
Blank
 Rhowena Blank
 Vice President and Head of Accounting
and Operations
EXHIBIT 11
<TABLE>
                    DAIN RAUSCHER CORPORATION
              COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE
          (Amounts in thousands, except per share data)

<CAPTION>
                                      Year ended December 31,
                                   -----------------------------
                                     1997       1996       1995
                                   -------    -------    -------
<S>                                <C>        <C>        <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:
 Net earnings                      $49,275    $56,811    $35,873
                                    ======     ======     ======
 Weighted average common shares
  outstanding                       12,277     12,132     12,115
                                    ======     ======     ======
Basic earnings per share             $4.01      $4.68      $2.96
                                    ======     ======     ======
EARNINGS PER SHARE ASSUMING
 DILUTION:
 Net earnings                      $49,275    $56,811    $35,873
                                    ======     ======     ======
Weighted average number of common
 and dilutive potential common
 shares outstanding:

 Weighted average common shares
  outstanding                       12,277     12,132     12,115
 Dilutive effect of stock options
  (net of tax benefits)                579        435        470
 Shares credited to deferred
  compensation plan participants       204         98          -
                                    ------     ------     ------
Weighted average number of common
 and dilutive potential common
 shares outstanding                 13,060     12,665     12,585
                                    ======     ======     ======
Diluted earnings per share           $3.77      $4.49      $2.85
                                    ======     ======     ======
</TABLE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Current industrial reports. M32G, Glass containers

 
SuDoc Number: C 3.158/33:
Item Number: 0142-A-42(online)
CGP systemNumber:000506238
 
1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998
 
January 25, 2023
 
For a full run of M32G summaries ina zipped format: https://permanent.fdlp.gov/gpo191300/files.zip
 
For an archived, historicalcapture of the document (as captured by Internet Archive): https://web.archive.org/web/19990423122418/http://www.census.gov:80/cir/www/m32g.html
No. 64113.

protests 154459-K, etc. (Seattle).

#### Schenley Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

*436Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Andre WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6018.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2001.

Decided June 25, 2001.

*185Sean Andre Wilson, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Sean Andre Wilson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Wilson,*No. CR-90-135-JFM (D.Md. Dec. 8, 2000).

Wilson also asserted in the district court that he should be resentenced in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Although the district court did not specifically address this claim, we find that Wilson is not entitled to relief because the claim is “not authorized by § 3582(c), for it is unrelated to any change in the Sentencing Guidelines.” *United States v. Smith,*241 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir.2001). As a result, Wilson’s *Apprendi*argument “is instead the sort of contention usually raised by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” *Id.*We recently held, however, that *Apprendi*is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. *United States v. Sanders,*247 F.3d 139, 146 (4th Cir.2001). Thus, we reject Wilson’s *Apprendi*claim.

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.*
# Bulletin No. 2018-04

&"Arial,Bold"&12U.S. Standard General LedgerSummary of Changes	

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2018-04	&"Arial,Bold"DRAFT &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handouts 03 01 18

# Additional Information

&"Arial,Bold"&12U.S. Standard General LedgerSummary of Changes	

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2018-04	&"Arial,Bold"DRAFT &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handouts 03 01 18
No. 61829.

#### Shell Oil Co. and A. W. Salter & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 132196-K, etc. (New York).

*521Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of teepol the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Shell Oil Co., Inc., et al.*(44 C. C. P. A. 54, C. A. D. 637), the items marked “A” were held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1558, and the items marked “B” were held dutiable at 10 percent under said paragraph, as modified, *supra.*
No. 60043.

#### Pistorino & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 175975-K, etc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Angora rabbit hair similar in all material respects to that the subject of *W. N. Proctor Company*v. *United States*(35 Cust. Ct. 89, C. D. 1727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 2:04-cv-00809-GEB-PAN   Document 33    Filed 10/03/05   Page 1 of 8

Case 2:04-cv-00809-GEB-PAN   Document 33    Filed 10/03/05   Page 2 of 8

Case 2:04-cv-00809-GEB-PAN   Document 33    Filed 10/03/05   Page 3 of 8

Case 2:04-cv-00809-GEB-PAN   Document 33    Filed 10/03/05   Page 4 of 8

Case 2:04-cv-00809-GEB-PAN   Document 33    Filed 10/03/05   Page 5 of 8

Case 2:04-cv-00809-GEB-PAN   Document 33    Filed 10/03/05   Page 6 of 8

Case 2:04-cv-00809-GEB-PAN   Document 33    Filed 10/03/05   Page 7 of 8

Case 2:04-cv-00809-GEB-PAN   Document 33    Filed 10/03/05   Page 8 of 8

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-20T20:47:56-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Before the Third Division,

April 9, 1953

No. 57255.

protest 196892-K (New York).

#### Fishery Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was-stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were in fact not landed. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is m t assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-60031

_____________________

LAMAR ISHEE and ANGELA N. ISHEE,

individually and on behalf of

CAITLIN S. ISHEE, a minor,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendants,

McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

GRUMMAN AIRCRAFT COMPANY, ET AL.,

Defendants,

 versus

GRUMMAN TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellants.

*******************************************************************

ANGELA N. ISHEE, Individually and on

behalf of Caitlin S. Ishee, a Minor and

as Administratrix of the Estate of

Lamar Ishee,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendants,
 

*Pursuant to Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

-2-

McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

GRUMMAN AIRCRAFT COMPANY, ET AL.,

versus

JERRY KEUCHMAN, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

(3:93-CV-474-BrN)

_________________________________________________________________

April 12, 1996

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JOLLY, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In an earlier unpublished opinion, we remanded this case to

the district court for further proceedings on the narrow question

whether McDonnell Douglas properly removed the case based on the

Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (the "FORS").

The district court, in an unpublished opinion dated March 27, 1996,

determined that McDonnell Douglas was not entitled to remove this

case under the FORS. It thus held that it did not have subject
 

1The district court also relied on its earlier opinion and

order dated December 15, 1994, in which it determined that no other

party had properly removed the case to federal court.

-3-

matter jurisdiction over the case1 and remanded it to state court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Because the district court remanded the case to state court

under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

we do not have appellate jurisdiction to review this order. Hook

v. Morrison Milling Co., 38 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 1994). The

appeal is therefore

D I S M I S S E D.
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 quarterly report of Vicuron Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dov A. Goldstein, M.D., Executive Vice President and Chief 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), as applicable, 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |                                                     
|----------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 6, 2005 |  | /s/ DOV A. GOLDSTEIN, M.D.                          
|                  |  | Dov A. Goldstein, M.D.                              
|                  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



This certification
accompanies this quarterly report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



---

|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Vicuron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and will be retained by Vicuron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT &"Arial,Regular"	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2019 ReportingSection VII&"Arial,Regular"

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2020-08	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 12/5/19