alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           483,606
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                           14,420
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                             14,277
<EQUITIES>                                       1,559
<MORTGAGE>                                      14,836
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   15,467
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 669,538
<CASH>                                           6,537
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              14,474
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          24,926
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,315,293
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                128,265
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             10,669
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 544,621
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            6,125
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 59,385
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,137
<OTHER-SE>                                      95,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,315,293
<PREMIUMS>                                      11,694
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             64,781
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   3,591
<BENEFITS>                                      42,639
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      3,929
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            15,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,483
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,769
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,714
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,714
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.11
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
No. 61799.

#### Manca, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 309990-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
No. 55192.

#### Overseas Commerce Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 137675-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of reptile skins the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Fleming-Joffe, Ltd.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1263), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1765 was sustained.
# Main

IRC Handout 9-25-18

# Footnotes and Additional Inform
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 E. WILMSHURST, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0988 DFL KJM PS

vs.

BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). 

On April 22, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which currently is calendared for

hearing on June 8, 2005. No opposition to the motion to dismiss has been filed. 

Local Rule 78-230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion must be

filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Rule further provides that “[n]o party

will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to

the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” In addition, Local Rule 78-230(j) provides

that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in

sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may

be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

inherent power of the Court.”

Case 2:04-cv-00988-DFL -KJM Document 64 Filed 06/02/05 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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of June 8, 2005 is vacated. Hearing on defendants’ motion to

dismiss is continued to June 29, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26.

2. Plaintiff shall file opposition, if any, to the motion to dismiss, no later than

June 15, 2005. Failure to file opposition and appear at the hearing will be deemed as a statement

of non-opposition and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: June 1, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

wilmshurst.nop

Case 2:04-cv-00988-DFL -KJM Document 64 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 2
Revised 8/16/05:

 

Page 1 of 

 6 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Case Number: P040624 Assessor: Wormell 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES 

Scenario#: 1 Number of Release Sites: 

Release Activity: 

Release Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE 

Total Releases: 0

(kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 

Release Days/yr: 

Per Site Release: 

(kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day) 

Remarks: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 6
POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT --- Page 2 of 6 

CASE NUMBER: P040624 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 6
POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Page 3 of 6 

CASE NUMBER: P040624 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Case Number: P040624 Assessor: Wormell 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES 

Scenario#: 2 Number of Release Sites: 

Release Activity: 

Release Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE 

Total Releases: 

(kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 

Release Days/yr: 

Per Site Release: 

(kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day) 

Remarks: 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 6
POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Page 5 of 

6 

CASE NUMBER:P040624 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 6
POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Page 6 of 6 

CASE NUMBER: P040624 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 6
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: Criminal Action No. 05-0398

v. :

: Civil Action No. 10-4309

EDWARD ROSS :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 1st day of November, 2013, upon consideration of Mr. Ross’s Motion 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence (“Motion”) (Docket No. 

107), the United States’ Response thereto (Docket No. 111), Mr. Ross’s Reply (Docket No. 114), 

and each party’s Supplemental Memoranda (Docket Nos. 118 & 120), IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that:

1. Mr. Ross’s Motion is DENIED;

2. no certificate of appealability will issue because reasonable jurists would not 

disagree with this denial of Mr. Ross’s Motion; and

3. the Clerk of Court shall mark both above-captioned cases closed for all purposes, 

including statistics.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Gene E.K. Pratter

 GENE E.K. PRATTER

United States District Judge
Case 2:02-cv-04403-PBT Document 3 Filed 10/14/2002 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04403-PBT Document 3 Filed 10/14/2002 Page 2 of 2
No. 66800.

#### Vanetta Fabrics Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 59/22885 (New York).

Opinion by

Bao, X

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *D. H. Grant & Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 723), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### ALL DENTAL PRODX, LLC and DMG Dental-Material Gesellschaft MBH, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ADVANTAGE DENTAL PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-1493.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: May 21, 2001.

Before CLEVENGER and SCHALL, Circuit Judges, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PLAGER Senior Circuit Judge.

Under the law of the Second Circuit, grant of a preliminary injunction requires that the movant show “(a) irreparable harm and (b) either (1) likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them fair grounds for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting relief.” *Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons,*596 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam). The district court in this case declined to find that All Dental had shown the requisite likelihood of success on the merits, and focused instead on the serious question for litigation. However, the only “serious question” identified by the court referred to a patent not at issue in this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 requires that, when granting a preliminary injunction, “the court shall ... set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action.” *943Given what the district court gave us to work with, we are unable to affirm the preliminary injunction based on the record before us. We are particularly unwilling to do so in the present case, in which the factual recitations describe nothing but efforts by Advantage to inform potential in-fringers of the patentee’s rights, *see*35 U.S.C. § 287(a), which efforts are not themselves illegal. We find it unfortunate that the parties were unable to have the obvious problems with the preliminary injunction resolved short of appeal to this court. Indeed, we do not understand how All Dental-and particularly All Dental’s prominent and experienced counsel-expected to present a successful defense of the district court’s action. We therefore *vacate*the preliminary injunction and *remand*for further consideration.

COSTS

Costs to Advantage.
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 ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S ACTION - 1

2:04-CV-0775-RRB-GGH-P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:04-CV-0775-RRB-GGH-P

ORDER

Plaintiff Brian Tracey Hill (“Plaintiff”), a state

prisoner filing 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 September 11, 2006, Magistrate Judge Gregory G.

Hollows filed Findings & Recommendations (Docket No. 41) herein,

which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to

Plaintiff that any objections to the same were to be filed within

twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Findings &

Recommendations.

BRIAN TRACEY HILL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case 2:04-cv-00775-RRB-GGH Document 42 Filed 10/16/06 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 ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S ACTION - 2

2:04-CV-0775-RRB-GGH-P

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the Findings &

Recommendations (Docket No. 41) to be supported by the record and

by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings & Recommendations (Docket No. 41),

filed on September 11, 2006, are adopted in full; whereby,

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket

No. 36 is GRANTED.

ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2006.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00775-RRB-GGH Document 42 Filed 10/16/06 Page 2 of 2
Before The First Division,

January 19, 1944

No. 49140.

#### Protests 103461-K, etc., of Schieffelin & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The collector’s letter and also a statement of goods remaining in warehouse on the effective date of said trade agreement were admitted in evidence at the trial without objection by the Government. As the bottles in question were withdrawn from warehouse subsequent to the effective date of said trade agreement, the claim at )4 cent per pound was sustained.
October 23, 1946

No 51383.

Suit 4524.

#### *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*

C. D. 937 affirmed July 9,1946. C.A. D.342.
(Reap. Dec. 10380)

Entry No. 2675, etc.

#### Brown, Alcantar *&*Brown, *Inc. v.*United States

(Decided December 4, 1962)

*Sharretts, Paley é Carter*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

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

> *467IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise which is the subject of the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule B, hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of phonograph records exported from Mexico after January 1, 1960.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that phonograph records are not on the list of articles published in T.D. 54521 and are subject to appraisement under the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927 — 84th Congress, 2nd Session).

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing re-appraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, 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, 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 the prices shown on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement listed in Schedule B are hereby submitted on this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the phonograph records in question is statutory export value and hold that such value therefor is the prices shown in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

October 18, 1946

No. 51368.

#### Protests 25571-K, etc., of Geo. J. Higginson (San Francisco).

*204Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of oat-meals or oatmeal saucers and chowder cups'or puree cups the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Copeland & Thompson, Inc.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 85, C. D. 833) and *Johnson Bros.*v. *United States*(15 id. 113, C. D. 955). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
.~ - - 

!l r► F i q ' +~v r ~ yt sP > 

~,~r ib J1t,~~,r' '~ t,.ii ~.~ ;-:ua'a.'?:.~.~+~rat~Sr}~~itisrf . . t r ft rtrls t. .J

.l,.r.i r ~l? ' t ~ l.f. ~ ~ •ifi.r <-.5-'. 

~ 

n .. ... ... ~._.. 1N ♦aP .i ....- Nr.!'Sr... ) 

"W a ~!•~YS+r 0. ~~Y ~~ ~ S ~;f ~ rS11tJ1t7r .r

~ky~,D i[2' tk t~'~a,.l. ~~'~ 

~rrO~ICj`~~Jr•,:~~'•~1C~1 ~~~ ~~~~ Fkr E] ~7

~} x,_~i' 3L4 - ~ 

~'' ._..,+ >... I.i....~ .>.> 7.i.~, .J.~aw~-Eti~u ~~. ,~z;.a4• 

,.1~ s.. 

~ : ~ ~K , r,_-~ q k~~` R ` ~ w•• -ftJ^aqj re~ ~. ~'. r„~.,,+.,, _ 

..3.-~

tlb 5~r• ~, ; . ~ ir' St .~.. ' ~~~.s~~ , r- 'S Tr' 'i: t ri. Yk .. ~~11•. .. - ., aps l 

SS SSt. ~

. $.t~ "d~'~ .. r ~-. v . ~-~ • . l~ ~~fvr~a-a

t~ ~sN~~v~~~~lF <• i tt 

~P ~`lf. B ! .~4s EGIAL}$1{APS• ~y&"+'~Rj~ ~~{~~i ~ IC E~q ~~~ 

~ 

....~..,-.~:..'.~ .....~~`ZS•y i ~~tL•~S". - .".

.5?c.tRT -- . ~Y~Ss~T ~:T!` . .... ' 

~✓ • ~ 1i >N Y Nam 

April 19, 2013 

Alex Cristafaro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

David Rostker, U.S. Small Business Administration, 0ffice of Advocacy 

Cortney Higgins, U.S. Office of Management and Budget , 

Dear Mr. Cristafaro, Mr. Rostker, and Ms. Higgins: 

; am writing today as ihe President of a small brick manufacturing company that has the potential to be 

significantly impacted by the upcorning MACT sfiandard for major sources in the brick and structural clay 

processing industry. W.e are not a formal Small Entity Representative (SER) in the current review p.aneL 

being conducted under ttie Small Ciusiness Regulator Enforcement Fairness-Act (SBREFA): We are also 

not members of the Brick industry Association (BlA). However, all of our industry is warking together 

with the BIA on this critical rulemaking and they are keeping us apprised of the activities on this rule. 

We consider them to be speaking on ali industry's behalf as they work with you. 

The proposed MACT standard will severely impact us and would most likely put us out of business in the 

current economic climate. Even if business were booming, it would be difficult to survive since it would 

be hard to obtain financing and this would increase the cost of our brick by over - 20%. This malces it very 

ciifficult to be competitive and to remain in business. 

Sincereiy, 

~

i~,•-,-~ r-, '` t" , i r ~;~ !! f r'~ ~. -L:.tilr j,:.✓'~•..~ /ZC. ~: ~9

J" 

J. Murr~ay Xre-smas 

ident ~ ( 

TSNJi/I:ac
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 30 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 1 of 2

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 30

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 30 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
No. 63625.

protest 237653-K (New York).

#### R. F. Downing & Co., Inc., and Hooker Electrochemical Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of copper rods similar in all material respects to those the subject of *H. J. Van Der Ryn, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 90, C.D. 1964), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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 Defendants’ request for a continuance complied with Local Rule

(continued...)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY )

OF AMERICA, a Washington ) CIV. S-04-836 GEB JFM

corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 

) ORDER

v. ) 

)

MBA CONSTRUCTION, a California )

corporation doing business as MACK )

CONSTRUCTION; KEVIN D. MACK, an )

individual; KATIE BAUGH, an )

individual; and DANNY W. BAUGH, )

an individual, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On April 27, 2005, the Court continued Plaintiff’s motion

for partial summary judgment previously scheduled for May 2, 2005, to

June 27, 2005. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of

that continuance. 

While the Court was busy handling a congested docket,

Defendants requested that the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion be

continued, arguing that the hearing should be continued “because trial

of a related action involving the same parties and same subject matter

. . . commence[d] on April 26, 2005.”1 (Defs.’ Request for

Case 2:04-cv-00836-GEB -JFM Document 42 Filed 04/29/05 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

1(...continued)

78-230(g), which states that “Requests for continuances of hearings on

the motion calendar . . . shall be made to the Judge . . . at least five

(5) court days prior to the scheduled hearing date.” 

2 Local Rule 78-230(d) states that “Not less than five (5) court

days preceding the date of hearing, the moving party may serve and file

a reply to any opposition filed by a responding party.”

3 The motion for reconsideration also appears to contain

arguments that should have been set forth in a timely reply brief. In

fact, nearly two-thirds of Plaintiff’s fourteen page motion for

reconsideration is dedicated to those arguments.

2

Continuance at 1.) Plaintiff did not respond to that request, even

though it could have done so at the prescribed time for filing a reply

brief.2 Therefore, the request was granted. Plaintiff then filed a

motion for reconsideration in which Plaintiff argues “Defendants have

improperly alleged untrue facts in their Opposition in order to obtain

a continuance” and, in fact, “different contracts and legal issues are

at issue [in the trial which commenced April 26, 2005], such that

under no circumstances could a result in the trial in that other

action be dispositive in any way in the present indemnity 

action. . . .”3 (Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. at 2.) However, Plaintiff

did not explain why it could not have opposed the continuance request

in a timely filed reply brief. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00836-GEB -JFM Document 42 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 2
# Data

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2020-10	&"Arial,Bold"VII VSR - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BMarch 2020