alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10395)

Entry No. 40328, etc.

#### *W.*J. Byrnes & Co., a/c Charles Mathieu, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 13, 1962)

*Lamb é Lerch*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following agreement entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the merchandise marked “A” and initialed FH by Examiner Franklin Hennigan, on all the entries contained in Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of Talc, appraised on the basis of United States value, as that value is *485defined in Section 402(a), Value (Alternative), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by tbe Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the United States value found by the Appraiser on all of the entries contained in Schedule A attached hereto was $63.15 per 2,000 pounds.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that United States value is the proper basis for appraisement and that the correct United States value on all the entries contained in Schedule A attached hereto, as defined aforesaid, is $36.93 per 2,000 pounds.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals for reap-praisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On. the agreed facts, I find and hold United States value, as that value is defined in section 402a, Value (Alternative), of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value is $36.93 per 2,000 pounds in each case.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4410 

To prohibit United States cooperation with the International Criminal Court, 

the use of the Economic Support Fund to support the Palestinian Authority, and any Federal funding for the ICC. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2024 

Mr. SULLIVAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To prohibit United States cooperation with the International 

Criminal Court, the use of the Economic Support Fund 

to support the Palestinian Authority, and any Federal 

funding for the ICC. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop the ICC Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST COOPERATION WITH THE 

6 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND SUP7 PORT FOR THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY. 

8 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4410 IS

1 (1) In 2014, and in each subsequent year, Con2 gress has enacted provisions, including section 

3 7041(k)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Further Consolidated 

4 Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118–47), pro5 hibiting the use of economic support funds for the 

6 Palestinian Authority if the Palestinians initiate an 

7 investigation of the International Criminal Court 

8 (referred to in this section as the ‘‘ICC’’), or actively 

9 support such an investigation, which subjects Israeli 

10 nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes 

11 against Palestinians. 

12 (2) In 2021, the ICC opened an investigation 

13 into the ‘‘Situation in Palestine’’. 

14 (3) The chief prosecutor of the ICC recently ap15 plied for arrest warrants for Israeli leaders for a 

16 range of offenses allegedly committed ‘‘on the terri17 tory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) 

18 from at least 8 October 2023’’. 

19 (b) PROHIBITION AGAINST COOPERATION WITH THE

20 ICC.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no of21 ficial of the United States may cooperate with the Inter22 national Criminal Court with respect to any matter. 

23 (c) FULFILLMENT OF STATUTORY CONDITION.—The 

24 investigation referred to in subsection (a)(2) and the ap25 plication for arrests warrants for Israeli officials referred 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4410 IS

1 to in subsection (a)(3) justifies prohibiting the use of eco2 nomic support funds for the Palestinian Authority in ac3 cordance with section 7041(k)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Further 

4 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118– 

5 47). 

6 (d) PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF ECONOMIC SUP7 PORT FUND IN GAZA.—None of the funds made available 

8 pursuant to chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance 

9 Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.) may be used to pro10 vide support for the Palestinian Authority. 

11 (e) PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDING FOR THE

12 ICC.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 

13 Federal funds may be made available for the ICC. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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

Stipulation for Dismissal and Order Thereon SANFORD v. OFFICE MAX, et. al.

 CIV. S.04-1534 DFL KJM

LYNN HUBBARD, III, SBN 69773

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD IV, SBN 212970

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

12 WILLIAMSBURG LANE

CHICO, CA 95926

Telephone: (530) 895-3252

Fax: (530) 894-8244

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICE MAX, INC. DBA OFFICE MAX

#227, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CIV.S.04-1534 DFL KJM

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL AND

ORDER THEREON 

Case 2:04-cv-01534-DFL -KJM Document 33 Filed 07/11/05 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

Stipulation for Dismissal and Order Thereon SANFORD v. OFFICE MAX, et. al.

- 2 - CIV. S.04-1534 DFL KJM

TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES:

Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and Release between plaintiff, JAMES

SANFORD and defendants, OFFICE MAX, INC. DBA OFFICE MAX #227, the parties

hereby request that all parties be dismissed with prejudice from the above-entitled action.

Dated: June 6, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

 /s/ Lynn Hubbard, Esq. /

LYNN HUBBARD, III 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: June 17, 2005 FOLEY & LARDNER

 Signature on File /

MICHAEL DELEHUNT

Attorney for Defendant OFFICE MAX, INC. DBA

OFFICE MAX #227

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint of plaintiff, USDC Case No. CIV.S04-1534 DFL KJM, is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: 7/7/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01534-DFL -KJM Document 33 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 2
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.2


               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 quarterly report of Patient Portal Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Thomas Hagan, Acting 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, to my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 4, 2009


                                               /s/ Thomas Hagan
                                               Thomas Hagan
                                               Acting Chief Financial Officer





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

MANUEL AYALA, No. CIV S-04-0903-RRB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ANDREASEN, 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 plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third

amended complaint (Doc. 14). 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her

pleading “. . . once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Once a responsive pleading is filed, a party’s pleadings may only be

amended upon leave of court or stipulation of all the parties. See id. In this case, the docket

reflects that plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed by the court sua sponte, with leave to

amend. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, which was also dismissed by the court sua

sponte, with leave to amend. Plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint pursuant to the

Case 2:04-cv-00903-JAM -CMK Document 16 Filed 02/22/06 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

court’s order. Given the foregoing history, the third amended complaint that plaintiff currently

seeks to file would be his first amendment “once as a matter of course. . .” As such, it is

unnecessary for plaintiff to obtain leave of court to file a third amended complaint. The third

amended complaint was filed on January 9, 2006, and will be reviewed by separate order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a

third amended complaint is denied as unnecessary.

DATED: February 22, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00903-JAM -CMK Document 16 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.2


AMENDMENT TO 
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, LICENSE AND DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of October 10, 2016.


BY AND BETWEEN


		
	(1)
	POSCO Energy Co., Ltd., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea, having its principal place of business at POSCO Center, 440 Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 135-777, Korea (“POSCO Energy”); and 




		
	(2)
	FuelCell Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation having a principal place of business at 3 Great Pasture Rd., Danbury, CT 06810, U.S.A. (“FCE”). 




POSCO Energy and FCE are sometimes referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”    


RECITALS


WHEREAS, POSCO Energy and FCE are parties to a series of technology transfer agreements identified as follows:


		
	(a)
	the Alliance Agreement, dated as of February 7, 2007 (the “AA”);


		
	(b)
	the Technology Transfer, Distribution and Licensing Agreement, dated as of February 7, 2007, (the “TTA”);  


		
	(c)
	the Stack Technology Transfer and License Agreement dated October 27, 2009 (the “STTA”); and


		
	(d)
	the Cell Technology Transfer and License Agreement dated October 31, 2012 (the “CTTA”);


all as amended, and among other agreements,


WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Term of the TTA, as amended previously on October 31, 2012, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual promises made herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 8.1 of Article VIII of the TTA is replaced in its entirety by the following:




8.1 Term.  The initial term of this Agreement (the “Initial Term”) shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the provisions set forth herein, on October 31, 2027.




Except as set forth in this Amendment, the TTA is unaffected and shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.  




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and year written below.













	
					
	POSCO Energy Co., Ltd.
	 
	 
	FuelCell Energy, Inc.
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:  /s/ Tong-Wood Shim
	 
	 
	By:  /s/ Michael S. Bishop
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Name: Tong-Wook Shim
	 
	 
	Name: Michael S. Bishop
	 

	Title: Executive Vice President,
	 
	 
	Title: Senior Vice President,
	 

	         Chief Financial Officer    
	 
	 
	         Chief Financial Officer
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Date:    October 10, 2016
	 
	 
	Date:  October 13, 2016
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 24


                                    FORM OF
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, an officer and/or
director of Jefferson-Pilot Corporation, a North Carolina holding company, does
hereby constitute and appoint John D. Hopkins, Robert A. Reed, Richard T.
Stange, and Andrea H. Fox, and each of them (with full power of substitution to
appoint any Senior Officer, Vice President, Secretary or Assistant Secretary of
the Company) as his or her true and lawful attorney and agent, to do any and
all acts and things and to execute any and all instruments which said attorney
and agent may deem necessary or advisable to enable the Corporation to comply
with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any rules,
regulations and requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission in
respect thereof, in connection with the filing of the annual report for the
year 1999 or any later year on Form 10-K, including specifically, but without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, the power and authority to sign for
and on behalf of the undersigned the name of the undersigned as officer and/or
director of the said corporation to any such Form 10-K or to any amendment
thereto filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to any instrument
or document filed as part of, as an exhibit to or in connection with, said Form
10-K; and the undersigned does hereby ratify and confirm as his own act and
deed all that said attorney and agent (or the substitute) shall do or cause to
be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has subscribed these presents.



(SEAL)                                  ---------------------------------------
                                        Name:
                                        Date:  February 14, 2000
No. 60841.

#### Wool Distributing Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 272654-K (New York).

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.
Case No. 15,052.

#### UNITED STATES v. EMERY.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 270.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1832.

Highways—Recording Location.

The road from Georgetown, D. C., to the Little Falls bridge, is not a public highway, be-ftiuse the location thereof was not recorded among the records of the territory of Columbia.

This- was an indictment for obstructing the highway between Georgetown, District of Columbia, and the Little Falls bridge, b'y blasting. rocks, etc.

C. Cox, for defendant,

contended that, as the location of the roád had never been “recorded among the records of the territory of Columbia," as required by the Maryland act of 1795, c. 44, § 2, it was not a public highway, and therefore the indictment could not be sustained.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Crunch, Chief J udge.]

And so THE COURT instructed the jury (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent).

See the case of U. S. v. Schwartz [Case No. 16,237].
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

JOHNATHAN S. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1335 LKK KJM P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 12, 2004, plaintiff filed a document seeking removal of a state habeas

action to this court. State court actions generally are not removable by the party that filed the

state action, see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), and plaintiff fails to provide any justification for departure

from this rule. 

It appears from filings made after plaintiff’s motion for removal that plaintiff may

wish to initiate an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, the court will order that the Clerk

of the Court send plaintiff the court’s form-complaint for violations of civil rights alleged by

prisoners and grant plaintiff thirty days to file a completed complaint. The court will not rule on

plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis at this time, but will do so if plaintiff files a

complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he files a complaint, he will be charged the $150.00 filing

fee that was in effect for a § 1983 action at the time of his filing of this action. If he qualifies for

Case 2:04-cv-01335-LKK -KJM Document 13 Filed 05/11/05 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 forma pauperis status, the filing fee will be collected in increments from his trust fund.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. All outstanding motions, except plaintiff’s July 12, 2004 and September 20,

2004 requests to proceed in forma pauperis, are denied.

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days within which to file a complaint for violation of

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s failure to file a complaint within thirty days will

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the court’s formcomplaint for violations of civil rights alleged by prisoners. 

DATED: May 10, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

will1335.com

Case 2:04-cv-01335-LKK -KJM Document 13 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
                                                               Exhibit 27(b)

The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1996 and the Consolidated Statement
of Income and the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for the twelve months
ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>     0000052485
<NAME>    IES UTILITIES INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,358,215
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     69,791
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         139,038
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        10,437
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 201,129
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,778,610
<COMMON>                                        33,427
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      279,042
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            231,337
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 543,806
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     18,320
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           517,334
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              25,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 110,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    8,140
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     19,600
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                15,125
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 521,285
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,778,610
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      754,979
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            43,092<F1>
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     601,254
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     601,254<F1>
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        153,725
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              (3,190)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 150,535
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        43,714
<NET-INCOME>                                    63,729
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        914
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   62,815
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        44,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       38,709
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         165,506
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Income tax expense is not included in Operating Expense in the Consolidated
Statements of Income for IES Utilities Inc.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00423-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.G.M., a Child

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-01833

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order of termination is 

AFFIRMED. 

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant Father because he is indigent. 

SIGNED October 21, 2015.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
(Reap. Dec. 10400)

Entry No. 797634.

#### George Peters *v.*United States

(Decided December 13, 1962)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Kao, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersigned that the merchandise consists of brass household articles exported from India on September 9,1960.

> IT IS EURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise is not on the final list of products published in T.D. 54521.

> IT IS EURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing appraisement, at which such or similar merchandise is 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, was the invoiced unit value, net, packed.

> IT IS EURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find 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, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such values were the invoiced unit values, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.