alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN C. JENSEN, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:04-cv-0686-GEB-KJM

)

v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

)

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General )

of the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On November 7, 2005, the parties filed a “Stipulation for

Dismissal; Order of Dismissal” (“Stipulation”) which states: “The

parties hereby stipulate that the complaint in this action be

dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement

Agreement, the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of

the Settlement Agreement.”

Thus, the parties request the federal court to retain

jurisdiction over their settlement agreement, even though they have

not shown that settlement agreement to the judge and fail to show

reason for the exercise of jurisdiction over any aspect of it. “[T]he

mere fact that the parties agree that the court should exercise

Case 2:04-cv-00686-GEB -KJM Document 52 Filed 11/09/05 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

27

28

2

continuing jurisdiction [over their settlement agreement] is not

binding on the court.” Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l Inc., 96 F.3d 1265,

1269 (9th Cir. 1996). Since the parties have not provided reason

justifying the exercise of jurisdiction over any aspect of their

settlement agreement, the parties’ request is denied. 

Inasmuch as the parties represent they have settled this

action and desire it dismissed, and nothing in their stipulation

indicates the settlement is contingent upon the Court retaining

jurisdiction over any aspect of their settlement agreement, this

action is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil procedure

41(a)(1) as the parties requested in their Stipulation. See Oswalt v.

Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 194 (5th Cir. 1980) (revealing that when

the parties’ representations of settlement are tantamount to a

stipulated dismissal, a dismissal order should issue). The Clerk of

the Court is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 8, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00686-GEB -KJM Document 52 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2
Park City Group, Inc.
& Subsidiaries
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 Park City Group, Inc. (the Company) on form 10-KSB for the year ending June
30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, William Dunlavy, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
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 result of operations of the Company.
| |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: September 28, 2006

/s/ William DunlavyPrincipal Financial Officer, CFO

(REMAINDER OF PAGE
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
(Reap. Dec. 10999)

#### Hemisphere *International*Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. N-503.

(Decided June 9, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief *Judge:*

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> XT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding- of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, etseq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) -and the foreign market value (See. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of (the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> *6936. That as to all other Items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as'amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon, tbe agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of tbe Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. §164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, amiexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. §162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 10365)

Entry No. 34379, etc.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided November 7, 1962)

*Stein & Shostalc*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph*Z>. *Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

JOHNSON, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted on the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached *440Schedule of Oases, consists of artificial flowers, exported from Hong Kong; and that, at the time of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or ■the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets 'of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and covering of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for 'shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values plus f.o.h. charges set out on the invoices, but not including the buying commission to Rayman Trading Company, as stated on the invoices.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise the subject of this stipulation is not included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that said merchandise is subject to appraisement under Sec. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for reap-praisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for a decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts, I find that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1980, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule and that such values are the invoice unit values, plus f.o.b. charges set out on the invoices, but not including the buying commission to Eayman Trading Co., as stated on the invoices.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 24
                                               IONICS, INCORPORATED

                                                 POWER OF ATTORNEY

We,  the  undersigned  officers  and  directors  of  Ionics,  Incorporated  (the
"Company"),  hereby severally  constitute  Arthur L. Goldstein and Stephen Korn,
and each of them, to sign for us, and in our names in the  capacities  indicated
below,  the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002,  and any and all  amendments  to such Annual  Report,  hereby
ratifying and  confirming  our signatures as they may be signed by our attorneys
to such Annual Report and any and all amendments thereto.

Witness our hands on the respective dates set forth below.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                Signature                                         Title                                 Date
<S>                                                            <C>                                <C>
/s/Douglas R. Brown
-------------------------------------------
Douglas R. Brown                                                Director                           March 31, 2003

/s/Stephen L. Brown
-------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Brown                                                Director                           March 31, 2003

/s/Arnaud de Vitry d'Avaucourt
-------------------------------------------
Arnaud de Vitry d'Avaucourt                                     Director                           March 31, 2003

/s/Kathleen F. Feldstein
-------------------------------------------
Kathleen F. Feldstein                                           Director                           March 31, 2003

/s/Arthur L. Goldstein                             Chairman of the Board of Directors
-------------------------------------------
Arthur L. Goldstein                               Chief Executive Officer and President            March 31, 2003
                                                      (Principal Executive Officer)

/s/William E. Katz
-------------------------------------------
William E. Katz                                                 Director                           March 31, 2003

/s/William K. Reilly
-------------------------------------------
William K. Reilly                                               Director                           March 31, 2003

/s/John J. Shields
-------------------------------------------
John J. Shields                                                 Director                           March 31, 2003

/s/Daniel I. C. Wang
-------------------------------------------
Daniel I. C. Wang                                               Director                           March 31, 2003

/s/Mark S. Wrighton
-------------------------------------------
Mark S. Wrighton                                                Director                           March 31, 2003

/s/Allen S. Wyett
-------------------------------------------
Allen S. Wyett                                                  Director                           March 31, 2003
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4052 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4052

   To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, 
               unique ZIP Code for Scotland, Connecticut.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 22, 2024

  Mr. Murphy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, 
               unique ZIP Code for Scotland, Connecticut.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SINGLE, UNIQUE ZIP CODE FOR SCOTLAND, CONNECTICUT.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the United States Postal Service shall designate a single, unique ZIP 
Code, to be numbered 06264, applicable to the area encompassing solely 
Scotland, Connecticut.
                                 <all>
```
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2023 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2022-16	&"Arial,Bold"VII VSR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"September 2022
Before the Third Division,

November 6, 1957

No. 61322.

protest 320080-K (New York).

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the collector’s supplemental letter, on file with the papers, and the documents referred to therein be received in evidence and that the protest be submitted for decision. An examination of said supplemental letter showing that the certificate of exportation was subsequently filed and that had the collector been in possession of this document at the time of liquidation, free entry would have been granted, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10708)

#### Joe Markovits, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1038711, etc.

(Decided April 7, 1964)

*Barnes, Richardson*cG *Colburn*for tbe plaintiff.

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

WilsoN, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between tbe parties hereto, subject to tbe approval of tbe court, as follows:

> 1. That tbe merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A” annexed was imported on or after tbe effective date of tbe Customs Simplification Act of 1956 and is not identified on tbe Final List published by the Secretary of tbe Treasury pursuant thereto (T.D. 54521) ; and ae-*489cordingly appraisement was made under the provisions of section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by said Customs Simplification Act.

> 2. That on or about the dates of exportation of the involved merchandise, the prices- at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale-quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, such prices including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in-condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were equal to the invoice unit values less the items on the invoice marked “A” and initialed JD-(Examiner’s Initials) by Examiner John J. Dolan (Examiner’s Name).

> 3. That the appeals enumerated in the attached Schedule “A” may he submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the-issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question and that such values were the invoice unit values, less the items on the-invoices marked “A” and initialed JD by Examiner John J. Dolan..

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No 60020.

#### F. C. Mackay et al. *v.*United States,

protests 176453-K, etc. (Pembina).

*473Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef or veal similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-20484

Summary Calendar

Janece Tisdel, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

The Witness Protection, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CV-881

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The district court’s judgment dismissing this case for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-20484 Document: 00516135972 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2021
Exhibit
      10.21

    Feed
      Purchase Contract

    


    Party
      A:
      Weifang Taihong Feed Co., Ltd

    Party
      B:
      Weifang Yuhe Poultry Co., Ltd

    


    This
      contract is signed on a friendly negotiation and equality basis by and between
      the aforementioned parties:

    


    
      	1,	
              Party
                B shall buy all necessary feed from Party A; Party A shall offer
                a
                preferential price for Party B.

            


    

    


    
      	2,	
              Party
                A shall provide feed in accordance with the nutrient demands of Party
                B’s
                flocks. Party B has the right to test the nutrient ingredients Party
                A’s
                provided feed.

            


    

    


    
      	3,	
              Term
                of this contract: During the term from January 1st,
                2006 to December 31st, 2008, Party B shall place purchase orders
                in
                accordance with its operating
                demands.

            


    

    


    
      	4,	
              Place:
                Weifang Taihong Feed Co., Ltd

            


    

    


    
      	5,	
              Delivery
                of feed: Party A shall deliver the feed to appointed breeding farms
                of
                Party B.

            


    

    


    
      	6,	
              Payment:
                The feed shall be paid for in cash or through the banking
                system.

            


    

    


    
      	7,	
              Violations
                of this contract: In the event that Party A fails to provide feed
                in due
                time, which leads to Party B’s great loss, Party A should compensate for
                Party B’s losses by deducting the losses from payments of the feeds.
                Should Party B violates any provisions of this contract, party A
                can at
                any time stop the feed supply, or revoke this contract.
                

            


    

     

    
      	8,	
              This
                contract shall come into effectiveness after signature by both parties.
                This contract is made in two original copies, with one to be held
                by each
                party.

            


    

    


    Party
      A:
      Weifang Taihong Feed Co., Ltd

    Representatives:
      Wang Jianbo

    Party
      B;
      Weifang Yuhe Poultry Co., Ltd

    Representatives:
      Han Chengxiang

    


    Date:
      January 1st,
      2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH MARINO, :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

KENT LINE INTERNATIONAL, et al., : No. 02-4488

Defendants. :

 ORDER

AND NOW, this day of May, 2003, following a telephone conference on May 1,

2003, with counsel for the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that:

If the depositions of Captain Ian Biggs, and First Mates Adamiak Maciej and

Zbigniew Soja do not occur prior to May 30, 2003, the close of formal discovery,

those individuals shall be precluded from testifying at trial.

BY THE COURT:

 

Berle M. Schiller, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 34 Filed 05/01/2003 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 24
                              IONICS, INCORPORATED

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

We, the undersigned officers and directors of Ionics, Incorporated (the
"Company"), hereby severally constitute Arthur L. Goldstein and Stephen Korn,
and each of them, to sign for us, and in our names in the capacities indicated
below, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2001, and any and all amendments to such Annual Report, hereby
ratifying and confirming our signatures as they may be signed by our attorneys
to such Annual Report and any and all amendments thereto.

Witness our hands on the respective dates set forth below.

           Signature                    Title                       Date
           ---------                    -----                       ----

/s/Douglas R. Brown                   Director                  March 28, 2002
-------------------------
Douglas R. Brown

/s/Stephen L. Brown                   Director                  March 28, 2002
-------------------------
Stephen L. Brown

/s/Arnaud de Vitry d'Avacourt         Director                  March 28, 2002
-----------------------------
Arnaud de Vitry d'Avacourt

/s/Kathleen F. Feldstein              Director                  March 28, 2002
------------------------
Kathleen F. Feldstein

/s/Arthur L. Goldstein     Chairman of the Board of Directors   March 28, 2002
----------------------     Chief Executive Officer and President
Arthur L. Goldstein        (Principal Executive Officer)

/s/William E. Katz                    Director                  March 28, 2002
-----------------------
William E. Katz

/s/William K. Reilly                  Director                  March 28, 2002
-----------------------
William K. Reilly

/s/John J. Shields                    Director                  March 28, 2002
-----------------------
John J. Shields

/s/Carl S. Sloane                     Director                  March 28, 2002
-----------------------
Carl S. Sloane

/s/Daniel I. C. Wang                  Director                  March 28, 2002
-----------------------
Daniel I. C. Wang

/s/Mark S. Wrighton                   Director                  March 28, 2002
-----------------------
Mark S. Wrighton

/s/Allen S. Wyett                     Director                  March 28, 2002
-----------------------
Allen S. Wyett
Before the First Division,

September 23, 1948

No. 52548.

protest 139356-K (New York).

#### Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the estrogenic hormone passed upon in *Roche-Organon*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.