alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 05-CR-618-1

vs. :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-CV-159

KENNETH WELCH :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of March 2011, upon consideration of the Motion of Kenneth

Welch pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 to set aside or reduce his sentence (Doc. No. 182) and the

Government’s Response thereto (Doc. No. 184), and for reasons set forth in the accompanying

Memorandum, the Motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Gene E.K. Pratter 

GENE E.K. PRATTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 23, 2009 

d0316 

Order 

 

March 23, 2009 

136952 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136952 

 COA: 275300 

Bay CC: 06-010509-FH 

ARTHUR JAMES BRIDGES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 10, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 47341.

#### Protest 963281-G of Siegfried Lowenthal Co.

Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                          EXHIBIT 12


                                                             MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V
                                                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.
                                                               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                                                   COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                                                                    (dollars in thousands)


                                             FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                   MARCH 28, 2003                          MARCH 29, 2002
                                         ----------------------------------       ----------------------------------
                                          MERRILL LYNCH      MERRILL LYNCH         MERRILL LYNCH      MERRILL LYNCH
                                            PREFERRED          PREFERRED             PREFERRED          PREFERRED
                                         CAPITAL TRUST V    FUNDING V, L.P.       CAPITAL TRUST V    FUNDING V, L.P.
                                         ---------------    ---------------       ---------------    ---------------
<S>                                        <C>                <C>                   <C>                <C>
Earnings                                    $ 15,949           $ 18,614              $ 15,949           $ 18,665
                                            ========           ========              ========           ========



Fixed charges                               $      -           $   -                 $      -           $      -

Preferred securities distribution
  requirements                                15,470             15,949                15,470             15,949
                                            --------           --------              --------           --------

Total combined fixed charges and
  preferred securities distributions        $ 15,470           $ 15,949              $ 15,470           $ 15,949
                                            ========           ========              ========           ========

Ratio of earnings to combined
  fixed charges and preferred
  securities distributions                      1.03               1.17                  1.03               1.17







</TABLE>
- Bureau of the Fiscal Service
- Financial Innovation & Transformation
- Blog
- Need a Mental Break – FIT has You Covered

# Need a Mental Break? – FIT has You Covered

We know for the next two weeks our eyes will be glued to the news. Although it seems like our lives have changed a bit, FIT will continue to perform business as usual.

 With that in mind, at times you will need a mental break. FIT has you covered with informative material to catch up  on what’s going on in the Federal Financial Management Community. 

- **Planting the  Seeds to an Innovative Future**
- **A Great  Partnership Builds a Wealth of Knowledge in Federal Financial Management**
- **How  do you communicate with the next generation of the federal workforce?**
- **Deciphering X:  Cracking the Codes of CX, UX, EX, HX, DX, and JX**
- **Why are we so  focused on Standards?**

Want more? Sign-up with FIT to keep track of new innovative stories  or follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. 

Last modified 03/18/20
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

SHAWN HAWK, No. CIV S-04-0731-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant Runnels’ request for an extension of

time (Doc. 33), filed on October 2, 2006. Good cause appearing therefor, the request will be

granted. Defendant Runnels shall file a response to plaintiff’s complaint on or before October

18, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 4, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00731-MCE -CMK Document 35 Filed 10/04/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 52265.

protests 117737-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Serge De Touloff et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99(a)

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Charles K. Gifford, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of FleetBoston
Financial Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Section.1350), that:

1.     the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December
       31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
       13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.Section.
       78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  March 5, 2003

                                    /s/ CHARLES K. GIFFORD
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                          Charles K. Gifford
                                          Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50864 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1258 HIGUERA ROAD, SAN ELIZARIO, TEXAS, WITH ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON; ET AL., Claimants, BENJAMIN CHAGOYAN; GUADALUPE CHAGOYAN, Claimants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-94-CV-386

- - - - - - - - - - September 16, 1997 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Benjamin Chagoyan and Guadalupe Chagoyan appeal the denial of their “Motion to Rescind Agreement and for the Restitution of Real Property” filed in the instant forfeiture proceeding, 21No. 96-50864 - 2 - U.S.C. § 881. On appeal, they argue (1) that there was no evidence of wrongdoing on their part and, therefore, the Government was without authority to take their property; (2) that they failed to receive any consideration for surrendering their interest in the subject property; and (3) that the stipulation agreement for compromise settlement should be rescinded because it was signed without any understanding of its contents inasmuch as the document was in English and they read and understand Spanish only. The Chagoyans’ motion to rescind, being construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) motion, was filed more than one year after the entry of the order on the stipulation agreement and, therefore, was untimely. Because the Chagoyans’ motion was not timely filed, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). In any event, the Chagoyans’ brief wholly fails to meet the requirements for preserving issues on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(4). This appeal presents no issue of arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
117 STAT. 858 PUBLIC LAW 108–57—JULY 14, 2003

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2030 (S. 1145):

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 149 (2003):

June 10, considered and passed House.

June 25, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–57

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 120 Baldwin

Avenue in Paia, Maui, Hawaii, as the ‘‘Patsy Takemoto Mink Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

120 Baldwin Avenue in Paia, Maui, Hawaii, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Patsy Takemoto Mink Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Patsy

Takemoto Mink Post Office Building’’.

Approved July 14, 2003.

July 14, 2003

[H.R. 2030]
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS,

Petitioner,

v.

M. YARBOROUGH, Warden,

Respondent.

CIV S-04-0021 FCD DAD P

 ORDER

Good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time for filing Respondent’s response be

extended to and including August 1, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: June 29, 2005.

DAD:4

burg0021.ext3

Case 2:04-cv-00021-FCD-DAD Document 39 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 1
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated October 6, 2006, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on October 18, 2006, (71 FR 61510), Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals Inc., 2820 N. Normandy Drive, Petersburg, Virginia 23805, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: Drug
ScheduleTetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
IAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMethadone Intermediate (9254)
IIDextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage forms) (9273)
IIFentanyl(9801)
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers for formulation into finished pharmaceuticals. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Boehringer Ingelheim Chemicals Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: February 16, 2007. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control Drug Enforcement, Administration.


[FR Doc. E7-3296 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
(Reap. Dec. 8147)

#### Granucci Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 9838, etc.

(Decided July 25, 1952)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGibbon,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated, by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court:

> 1) That the merchandise marked “A” on the invoices and initialed TLW by Customs Examiner T. L. Walton, involved in the appeals listed in the attached schedule, consists of merchandise exported from France, and appraised at values which included the so-called production or unique tax (also known as the French Fiscal Reform Law tax) in the amounts as shown by the invoices and accompanying certificates of pending reappraisement.

> 2) That merchandise such or similar to the imported merchandise, marked “A” in paragraph I, When sold or offered for sale at the time of exportation, in France for home consumption, or for exportation to countries other than the *454United States, in the ordinary course of trade to all purchasers, and in the usual wholesale quantities, was sold or offered for sale at the appraised values herein, less the French Fiscal Reform Tax (Production or Unique tax) as referred to above in paragraph 1 and as added by the importer on entry, plus 1.01 percent Armament tax when not included in the appraised value, packed, and that the export value was no higher.

> 3) That all other claims of the plaintiffs, as raised by these appeals, are hereby abandoned, and that upon this stipulation these cases are submitted.

On tbe agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section.402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, or as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise represented on the invoices by the items marked “A” and initialed TLW by Customs Examiner T. L. Walton, and that such values were the appraised values, less the French fiscal reform tax (production or unique tax) as added by the importers on entry, plus 1.01 per centum armament tax when not included in the appraised value, packed.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2016296EN.01004801.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/48

---

Action brought on 27 June 2016 — ZZ v Court of Justice

(Case F-33/16)

(2016/C 296/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and an application for compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of 17 July 2015 to dismiss the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 17 July 2015 to dismiss the applicant;

| — | annul the decision of 16 March 2016 rejecting the complaint of 16 October 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 16 March 2016 rejecting the complaint of 16 October 2015;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the material harm suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the material harm suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay damages, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 60 000, by way of reparation for the applicant’s non-material harm; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay damages, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 60 000, by way of reparation for the applicant’s non-material harm;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF

2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned, Dwayne Powell, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Pocahontas Bancorp, Inc. (the Company).



This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 (the Report).



By execution of this statement, I certify that:



| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This statement
is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



|                        |  |                  
|----------------------- |  | -----------------
|February 11, 2005 Dated |  | /s/ Dwayne Powell
|                        |  | Dwayne Powell
Before the Third Division,

April 16, 1968

No. P68/207.

protests 58/9962-15273, etc. (New Orleans).

No. P68/208.

protests 64/8067 and 321581-K (Portland, Oreg.).

#### United China & Glass Company *v.*United States, New York Merchandise Co., Inc., and Ucagco, Inc.,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay*Company, *Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NATHAN J. CHAPMAN, JR., : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff, :

: NO. 02-4472

v. :

:

PHILIP JOHNSON, et al., :

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BUCKWALTER, J. January 7, 2003

Magistrate Judge Peter B. Scuderi filed a Report and Recommendation on

November 27, 2002. Upon his pro se motion, Petitioner was given an extension of time to file

his objections, which he did on December 27, 2002.

The objections are substantially the same arguments that he has made in his

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He also argues in effect that “the issue of due process is

more significant than the issue of timelyness (sic).” The issue of timeliness was correctly

addressed by Magistrate Judge Scuderi, as were the considerations which the court must review

to determine if equitable tolling is applicable.

An order follows.

Case 2:02-cv-04472-RB Document 16 Filed 01/08/2003 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NATHAN J. CHAPMAN, JR., : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff, :

: NO. 02-4472

v. :

:

PHILIP JOHNSON, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 7th day of January, 2003, upon careful and independent

consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and

after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Peter B.

Scuderi, and the objections made thereto by Plaintiff, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2. The petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED.

3. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

 

 RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04472-RB Document 16 Filed 01/08/2003 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

May 14, 1959

No. 63057.

#### Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. v. United States,

protest 245016-K (Seattle).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of so-called chixexers, and parts thereof, the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 125, C.A.D. 685), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
February 8, 2011

Mr. Aaron H. Armstrong Director of Quality Assurance

Trans States Airlines, LLC

11495 Navaid Road Bridgeton, MO 63044

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

We have received your email dated December 17, 2010, withdrawing your November 30, 2010, petition on behalf of Trans States Airlines for an exemption from § 121.1109 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

No further action will be taken on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/ Brenda D. Courtney Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division