alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 57687.

#### Norda Essential Oil & Chemical Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 158978-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of camphor oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Orbis Products Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 244, C. D. 1527), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### Antonio M. WALLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine PAGE, Psychiatrist, Red Onion State Prison; P. Rasnick, Nurse; Lieutenant Younce; Sergeant Flanary; Sergeant Fowler; Thompson, Prison Guard, Defendants-Appellees, and Fred Schilling, Director of Health Services; Correctional Medical Services; John Doe, Defendants.

No. 00-7309.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 17, 2001.

*110Antonio M. Waller, pro se. David Ernest Boelzner, Heather Marie Kofron, Wright, Robinson, Osthimer & Tatum, Richmond, VA; Mark Ralph Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Antonio M. Waller appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to some of the Defendants in his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.*
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- 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 

JOHN L. CARLTON (SBN 88925) 

STEVEN D. PARK (SBN 215219) 

777 South Figuerora Street, 44th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844 

Telephone: (213) 243-4000 

Facsimile: (213) 243-4199 

Attorneys for Defendant WYETH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SUSAN BULLOCK, JACQUELINE NIELSEN, 

and LORETTA LAWRENCE, 

Plaintiff 

v. 

WYETH, et al., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CIVIL DOCKET NO. S:04-CV-00542 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

AHP\0098178\994375.1 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-00542-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/10/06 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

27

28

-2- 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiffs Susan Bullock and Jacqueline Nielsen, 

on the one hand, and defendants Wyeth, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Wyeth-Ayerst 

International, Inc. (herein “Defendants”), on the other hand, by and through their designated 

counsel that the above-captioned action brought by plaintiffs Susan Bullock and Jacqueline 

Nielsen in this matter be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1). 

This Stipulation of Dismissal shall apply to the action brought against Defendants by 

plaintiffs Susan Bullock and Jacqueline Nielsen only, and will have no effect on the action 

brought by plaintiff Loretta Lawrence. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 10, 2006 

 /s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. 

 United States District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-00542-GEB-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 31.1**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002I, Christopher R. Pook, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Championship Auto RacingTeams, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:     (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; and     (b) [*]     (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and     (d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likelyto
19

 
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and     (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 14, 2005   /s/ Christopher R. Pook   Christopher R. Pook  Chief Executive Officer   * — Temporarily modified to eliminate certain references to internal control over financialreporting until the compliance date for management’s internal control report and relatedattestation.
20
Before the Third Division,

May 18, 1959

No. 63081.

#### Valley Knitting Co., Inc., and H. P. Lambert Co., Inc., of La. *v.*United States,

protest 322685-K/14973 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 58509.

protests 175853-K, etc. (New York).

#### Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, G. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co'., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10387)

Entry No. 4724, etc.

#### RCA Victor Mexicana S.A. de C.V. *v.*United States et al.

(Decided December 4, 1962)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiffs.

*Joseph*D. *Ccnilfoyle,*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:

> IT 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 between March 18, 1959, and June 22,1961.

> 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 reappraisement, 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 the 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,” *474hereto 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.
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 13 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 13 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 13 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 13 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 13 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 13 Filed 04/16/2008 Page 6 of 6
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROWLAND PUGH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1091 DFL PAN P

vs.

A. STONE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed March 15, 2006, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, within thirty

days, why his action should not be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and

plaintiff has not shown cause or otherwise responded to the court's order.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01091-DFL-PAN Document 15 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 25, 2006. 

/001; pugh1091.fsc

Case 2:04-cv-01091-DFL-PAN Document 15 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 2
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS3864 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 October 29, 2013

Order 

Clerk

October 29, 2013

145594(27)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 145594

v COA: 307728

Wayne CC: 1995-003838-FH

WILLIAM CRAIG GARRETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Innocence Clinic and 

the American Civil Liberties Union to file an amicus curiae brief is GRANTED. The 

amicus curiae brief submitted on October 24, 2013, is accepted for filing.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4215 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish new 

prohibited acts relating to dietary supplements. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 30, 2024 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

establish new prohibited acts relating to dietary supplements. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. NEW PROHIBITED ACTS RELATING TO DIETARY 

4 SUPPLEMENTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 301 of the Federal Food, 

6 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331) is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(jjj) The introduction or delivery for introduction 

9 into interstate commerce of any product marketed as a 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4215 IS

1 dietary supplement that does not meet the definition of 

2 a dietary supplement under section 201(ff). 

3 ‘‘(kkk) The introduction or delivery for introduction 

4 into interstate commerce of a dietary supplement that has 

5 been prepared, packed, or held using the assistance of, or 

6 at the direction of, a person debarred under section 306.’’. 

7 (b) NEW IMPORT EXCLUSION.—Section 801(a) of the 

8 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(a)) 

9 is amended in paragraph (3) of the third sentence, by 

10 striking ‘‘section 301(ll)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (ll), 

11 (jjj), or (kkk) of section 301’’. 

12 (c) NEW SEIZURE AUTHORITIES.—Section 304 of the 

13 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 334) 

14 is amended— 

15 (1) in subsection (a)(1), in the first sentence, 

16 by striking ‘‘section 301(ll)’’ and inserting ‘‘para17 graph (ll), (jjj), or (kkk) of section 301’’; and 

18 (2) in subsection (d)(1), in the first sentence, 

19 by striking ‘‘or cosmetic’’ and inserting ‘‘cosmetic, 

20 or product in violation of paragraph (jjj) or (kkk) of 

21 section 301’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6579

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRENDAN BODDIE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, District Judge. (1:19-cr-00016-TSK-MJA-2)

Submitted: August 20, 2020 Decided: August 25, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brendan Boddie, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brendan Boddie appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act 

of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239.

*

 When denying relief, 

the court considered Boddie’s desire to care for his elderly, disabled grandparents but did 

not address the purported dire financial circumstances of his immediate family. Because 

the court did not consider all of Boddie’s arguments in support of his motion for 

compassionate release, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying the 

motion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020) (stating 

standard). We therefore vacate the court’s order and remand so that the court may consider

Boddie’s motion in its entirety. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 cmt. 

n.1, p.s. (2018) (providing nonexhaustive list of extraordinary and compelling 

circumstances).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

* The district court originally denied Boddie relief due to his failure to exhaust his 

administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons. After Boddie appealed that order, the 

court considered the merits of his motion, effectively supplanting the original order. 

Although Boddie did not note a separate appeal from the district court’s second order, we 

construe his informal brief as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal. See Smith v. 

Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992).
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 40 (Thursday, March 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3569]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than March 16, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Todd A. Seib, Dallas, Texas; Jonathan C. Seib, Dallas, Texas; 
and James A. Priebe, Plano, Texas; to acquire additional voting shares 
of Gulfport Bancshares of Delaware, Inc., Richwood, Texas, and thereby 
indirectly acquire voting shares of the Brazos National Bank, Richmond, 
Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 23, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-3569 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
August 6 , 2015

Mr. James Waldon

Paramount Law Group, PLLC

1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3000

Seattle, WA 98104

Dear Mr. Waldon :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

§ xx.xx of Title 14, Code of Fe deral Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your May 26

, filed in D ocket No. FAA

- 20 15

- 1899 , but we are unable to process

your requ est any further. Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the

following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, th e extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

For more detailed information relatin g to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

Wh at You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective dat e of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newt on

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA-2014-0170

 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM169AD

747-53A2443, R1 --- 6/25/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
----

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 25 January 2006 — European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) v Norbert Schmitt

(Case C-426/04 P) (1)

(2006/C 249/18)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

----

(1)OJ C 300, 04.12.2004.

----
# Cover

# Table 1

# Table 2

# Table 3

# Table 4

# Table 5

# Table 6

# Historical Note