alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 66277.

#### Castelazo & Associates, a/c David Chow & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/15873 (Los Angeles).

*395Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of iron pictures the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Marshall Field & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 72, C.A.D. 676), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# 216

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2024-03	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 2/15/24

# 218

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2024-03	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 2/15/24

# 221

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2024-03	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 2/15/24
ElderAction: Action Ideas for Older Persons and Their Families

----
No. 57994.

protest 181404-K.

#### Henry Greenberg & Bros. Export & Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

C. D. 1592. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
No. 54016.

#### B. Altman & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

protests 507603-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1


            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Circle Group Holdings, Inc.
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"),
I, Gregory J. Halpern, Chief Executive Officer of the Circle Group Holdings,
Inc. certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

               (1)  The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly
          presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of Circle Group Holdings, Inc.

Dated:  November 10, 2004                  /s/ Gregory J. Halpern
                                           ----------------------
                                           Gregory J. Halpern
                                           Chairman of the Board, President and
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
April 29, 2010 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Original background document Preliminary Review of Environmental Justice 

Impacts sent to OMB 

FROM: Marc Thomas 

Office Resource Conservation and Recovery 

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329 

The attached document is a superceded copy of the Preliminary Review of Environmental Justice 

Impacts that was sent to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on April 13, 2010. Changes 

were later made to this document, in part, due to OMB comments and a revised version is posted 

in the docket. 

 

Attachment
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RUDY REMBERTO OROZCO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10216

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00496-PMP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 21, 2011** 

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Rudy Remberto Orozco appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found unlawfully in

the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

NOV 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-10216

Orozco contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable under

United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2009), because the

sentence does not adequately account for the age of his prior conviction, the nature

of the conduct underlying that conviction, or the nature of his subsequent criminal

history. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608

F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasizing the limited scope of the holding in

Amezcua-Vasquez).

AFFIRMED.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 4/27/2023 1

Ballot-Access Requirements in Puerto Rico 

López-Rutol v. Gracia 

(Hector M. Laffitte, D.P.R. 3:03-cv-1880) 

A would-be independent candidate for Puerto Rico’s senate filed a 

federal complaint challenging ballot-petition requirements for candidates. The court denied the plaintiff immediate relief. On the one 

hand, the plaintiffs “waited for the eleventh hour to file the present 

petition for injunctive relief”; on the other hand, they “erroneously 

believe[d] that a law imposing any burden upon the right to vote 

must be subject to strict scrutiny.” 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

laches. 

A would-be independent candidate for Puerto Rico’s senate and several of 

his supporters filed a federal complaint in the District of Puerto Rico on August 18, 2003, challenging ballot-petition requirements for candidates.1

 The 

complaint sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.2

Judge Hector M. Laffitte issued an order to show cause why injunctive relief should not be granted and set the matter for hearing on August 22.3

 At 

the hearing, Judge Laffitte denied the plaintiffs immediate injunctive relief, 

and he issued an opinion on the matter on September 2.4

 On the one hand, 

the plaintiffs “waited for the eleventh hour to file the present petition for injunctive relief”; on the other hand, they “erroneously believe[d] that a law 

imposing any burden upon the right to vote must be subject to strict scrutiny.”5

 Judge Laffitte found Puerto Rico’s ballot-access petition requirements 

to be reasonable.6

On September 29, Judge Laffitte accepted the plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal.7

1. Docket Sheet, López-Rutol v. Gracia, No. 3:03-cv-1880 (D.P.R. Aug. 18, 2003); Opinion at 1–2 & nn.1–2, id. (Sept. 2, 2003), D.E. 12. 

2. Order to Show Cause, id. (Aug. 19, 2003), D.E. 4.

3. Order, id. (Aug. 20, 2003), D.E. 5; Order to Show Cause, supra note 2. 

Judge Laffitte retired on February 16, 2007. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

4. Opinion, supra note 1. 

5. Id. at 4–5. 

6. Id.

7. Judgment, López-Rutol, No. 3:03-cv-1880 (D.P.R. Sept. 29, 2003), D.E. 19.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT &"Arial,Regular"		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2021 ReportingSection VII  

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2021-12	&"Arial,Bold"VII ESR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"March 2021
(Reap. Dec. 11015)

#### Authentic Furniture Products, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 30899, etc.

(Decided June 15, 1965)

*Stein & Shostak*for the plaintiffs.

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

Nichols, Judge:

The. appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the schedule of cases, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are before me 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:

> 1. That the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, manufactured by Otsubo Kogyo, Hida Sangyo, or by Kashiwa Moldeo, Ltd., consists of chairs and other wood furniture, 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 coverings 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, net packed.

> 2. That all the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement was entered subsequent to February 27,1958.

> 3. 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.

> 4. That the merchandise and issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those in *Authentic Furniture Products*v. *United States,*Reappt. No. R61/23233, etc., 51 Cust. Ct. 438, Reap. Dec. 10614, Advance Treasury Decisions, Vol. 98, No. 45, page 113, and that the record in said case may be incorporated with the records herein.

> 5. That the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts and on the authority of the decision cited, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification *723Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of value of the merchandise involved herein and that said value is represented by the invoice unit values, net packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
AMERIPRISE CERTIFICATE COMPANY  POWER OF ATTORNEY    City of Minneapolis    State of Minnesota    Each of the undersigned as a director of Ameriprise Certificate Company, a face-amount  certificate company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, hereby  constitutes and appoints Abu M. Arif, Brian Granger, Jason Bartylla, Megan E. Garcy,  Christopher O. Petersen and Paul B. Goucher or any one of them, as his or her attorney- in-fact and agent, to sign for him or her in his or her name, place and stead any and all  registration statements and amendments thereto (with all exhibits and other documents  required or desirable in connection therewith) that may be prepared from time to time in  connection with said Company’s existing or future face-amount certificate products –  whether pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, the Investment  Company Act of 1940 or otherwise – and periodic and other reports, and amendments  thereto, including those on Form 10-K, Form 10-Q and Form 8-K, as required pursuant to  provisions of applicable federal securities laws, and any necessary or appropriate filings  with states or other jurisdictions, and grants to any or all of them the full power and  authority to do and perform each and every act required or necessary or appropriate in  connection with such signatures or filings.    Signed on this  1st day of September, 2021        /s/ Karen M. Bohn  Karen M. Bohn        /s/ Lorna P. Gleason  Lorna P. Gleason        /s/ Ronald L. Guzior  Ronald L. Guzior        /s/ Robert J. McReavy  Robert J. McReavy
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 4/3/2023 1

Too-Early Ballot-Access Requirement 

for New Political Parties 

California Justice Committee v. Bowen 

(Percy Anderson, C.D. Cal. 2:12-cv-3956) 

A month before a primary election, and six months before the general election, minor parties filed a federal complaint challenging the 

state’s ballot-access law for new political parties. The district judge 

issued a preliminary injunction without argument two weeks later. 

The state had not justified requiring ballot-petition signatures for 

the general election to be submitted 135 days before the primary 

election. Following a later bench trial, the judge issued a permanent 

injunction. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topic: Getting on the ballot. 

On May 7, 2012, one month before California’s primary election and six 

months before the general election, the Justice Party and the Constitution 

Party filed a federal complaint in the Central District of California challenging California’s ballot-access law for new political parties.1

 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed ex parte application for a preliminary-injunction hearing only two weeks later.2

Judge Percy Anderson agreed to hear the case on May 21 at 1:30 p.m.3

 On 

that day, however, Judge Anderson issued a preliminary injunction without 

argument.4

 California’s elections code required petition signatures or voter 

registrations supporting certification of a new party to be submitted 135 days 

before the primary election.5 Judge Anderson concluded, however, that “the 

Secretary of State has failed to explain why it is reasonable for that deadline 

to be 135 days prior to the primary election for a party that seeks only to appear on the general election ballot.”6

On October 18, following a bench trial, Judge Anderson permanently enjoined the 135-day requirement.7

 Neither party qualified a candidate for the 

2012 general election.8

1. Complaint, Cal. Justice Comm. v. Bowen, No. 2:12-cv-3956 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2012), 

D.E. 1. 

2. Ex Parte Application, id. (May 7, 2012), D.E. 2; see Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id.

(May 7, 2012), D.E. 16. 

3. Order, id. (May 7, 2012), D.E. 13. 

4. Minute Opinion, id. (May 21, 2012), D.E. 19, 2012 WL 2861349. 

5. Cal. Elec. Code § 5100. 

6. Minute Opinion, supra note 4, at 5. 

7. Judgment, California Justice Comm., No. 2:12-cv-3956 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2012), D.E. 

50; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, id. (Oct. 18, 2012), D.E. 49, 2012 WL 5057625; 

see Amended Judgment, id. (Nov. 29, 2012), D.E. 58. 

8. California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates for the November 6, 2012, 

General Election (Aug. 30, 2012), elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2012-general/ 

certified-list-candidates.pdf.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-41464

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIO TREVINO,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-99-CR-263-1

--------------------

August 20, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Trevino appeals his sentence following his guilty plea

conviction of one count of possession of 6,704 grams of

methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He argues that the

district court abused its discretion when it refused to grant him

a downward departure at sentencing based on the alleged low

purity of the methamphetamine and based on his mistaken belief

that the contraband he possessed was marijuana. 
No. 01-41464

-2-

This court lacks jurisdiction to review a defendant’s

challenge to his sentence based on mere dissatisfaction with the

court’s refusal to grant a downward departure, unless the court’s

refusal was the result of a violation of law or a misapplication

of the Guidelines. United States v. DiMarco, 46 F.3d 476, 477

(5th Cir. 1995). A refusal to depart is a violation of law if

the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to

depart. United States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir.

1994).

The record does not show that the district court’s refusal

to grant his requested downward departures was based on a

mistaken belief that it could not do so. Rather, the district

court based its decision on its belief that the requested

departures were not appropriate. Because the district court did

not misapprehend its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines,

we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Id. Accordingly,

Trevino’s appeal is DISMISSED.
# sec4_attribtable_2019

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2020-08	&"Arial,Bold"&9IV AT - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BDecember 2019
#### Richard M. BROCK, Claimant-Appellant, v. Hershel W. GOBER, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 98-7037.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 15, 2000.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, PLAGER,* Senior Circuit Judge, MICHEL, LOURIE, CLEVENGER, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, Circuit Judges.

*

 Judge Plager assumed senior status on November 30, 2000.

*ORDER*

Upon review of the recently-enacted Veterans Claims Assistance Act and, mill-legible text] specifically, review of the Act’s substantial revision of 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a),

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The court’s October 24, 2000 stay is lifted.

(2) The judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is vacated.

(3) The case is remanded to allow the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to consider the application of the revised statute to Brock’s case.
04.02
wellquest_s1a-ex1006.htm


     

     

    Please
see PDF "wellquest_s1a-ex1006.pdf" for Exhibit 10.6 - Lease Agreement
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

 Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Smith and Drew were dismissed without prejudice

on February 10, 2005. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN McELROY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0498 FCD DAD P

vs.

E. EDELHOFER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has requested voluntary dismissal of

this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i). Defendant Edelhofer has

filed a statement of non-opposition to dismissal of the action.1

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without order of

court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the adverse party serves an answer or a

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff may not dismiss his action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i)

because defendant Edelhofer served an answer on August 6, 2004. Good cause appearing, the

court will construe plaintiff’s filing as a request for voluntary dismissal of the action without

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). So construed, the unopposed request will be granted.

Case 2:04-cv-00498-FCD-DAD Document 38 Filed 08/26/05 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 22, 2005 motion for voluntary dismissal is granted;

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2); and

3. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

DATED: August 25, 2005.

DAD:13:kf

mcel0498.59

Case 2:04-cv-00498-FCD-DAD Document 38 Filed 08/26/05 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY L. BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0055 LKK GGH P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, 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 August 11, 2004, 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. On

September 9, 2004 and October 4, 2004, plaintiff was granted an additional thirty days in which

to file his objections. And on December 8, 2004, plaintiff was granted an additional twenty days

in which to file his objections. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00055-LKK -GGH Document 31 Filed 05/20/05 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

2

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 11, 2004, are adopted in full;

and

2. Defendants Runnels, Colon and Wagner are dismissed.

DATED: May 19, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/brow0055.805

Case 2:04-cv-00055-LKK -GGH Document 31 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7558
CHRISTOPHER A. CALLOWAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-01-927-2) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 23, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher A. Calloway, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Christopher A. Calloway, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning stated by the district court that Calloway has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Calloway v. Angelone , No. CA-01-927-2 (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 3, 2002 & entered Oct. 4, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

DISMISSED