alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

      ( print page 9034)    
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Federal Advisory Committee on International Exhibitions will be held by teleconference on March 13, 2007 from the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506. The meeting, for the purpose of application review, will take place from 3 p.m.-4:30 p.m. (ending time is approximate), and will be closed. 

The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 16, 2007, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. 

Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5691. 

Dated: February 21, 2007. 

Kathy Plowitz-Worden, 

Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.

 [FR Doc. E7-3410 Filed 2-27-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
No. 55237.

#### Wm. Jameson & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 41217-K, etc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-776 LKK EFB P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 13, 2010, defendants filed a request for reconsideration of the

Magistrate Judge’s order filed August 30, 2010, granting plaintiff leave to file an amended

complaint to state an equal protection claim. Dckt. No. 180. Pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule

303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 

Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the

Magistrate Judge filed August 30, 2010, is affirmed. 

DATED: November 22, 2010.

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 191 Filed 11/22/10 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

/

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 191 Filed 11/22/10 Page 2 of 2
No. 65489.

#### Robert E. Landweer & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/406, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of nylon gill nets similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63947, the merchandise was held dutiable at 22% percent under paragraph 1006, as modified, as gill nets, wholly or in chief value of flax or ramie, by similitude. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of fish netting similar to that involved in said Abstract 63947, were held dutiable at 25 percent under the provision in paragraph 923, as modified, for cotton fishing nets, by similitude.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 18

- 40649 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Sergio Martinez**

**- Tapia,** 

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:17

- CR

- 953

- 1

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Higginson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Sergio Martinez

- Tapia has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez

- Tapia has not filed a response. We have reviewed

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 10, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-40649 Document: 00515668754 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2020No. 18

- 40649

2 counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5 TH**  **C IR** 

**. R.**  42. Case: 18-40649 Document: 00515668754 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2020
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
**Exhibit 13.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
     In connection with this amendment to the Annual Report of KLM Royal DutchAirlines (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A for the periodended March 31, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Robert A. Ruijter, the Managing Director andChief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, that tomy knowledge:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of the operations ofthe Company.
Dated January 9, 2004   /s/ ROBERT A. RUIJTER**R.A. Ruijter**  **Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer**  
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C§1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos.333-89872, 333-37986 and 333-20405 on Form S-8 of our report dated****September 20, 2010, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Koss Corporation and Subsidiary, which includes anexplanatory paragraph related to legal matters described in Note 16 to theconsolidated financial statements, as of and for the years ended June 30,2010 and 2009, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of KossCorporation for the year ended June 30, 2010.

 

 

/s/BAKER TILLY VIRCHOW KRAUSE, LLP

 

Milwaukee,Wisconsin

September 20,2010

 

----
### NUMBER 13

- 14

- 00492

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

IN R E PENSION ADVISORY GROUP, INC. AND

PAUL D. HINSON

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Relator s, Pension Advisory Group, Inc. and Paul D. Hinson, f iled a petition for writ

of mandamus in the above cause on September 2, 2014

. Through this original

procee ding, relators seek to: (1) compel the trial court to withdraw its order overruling

relators’ objections to and affirming an omnibus order issued by the special master, and

(2) grant a de novo hearing and determination on the issues addressed by that orde r.

T he Court requests that the real parties i n interest

, Fidelity Security Life Insurance

Company and David Smith, or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the2

relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or be fore the

expiration of seven days from the date of this order. See id. R

. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

4th day of September , 201 4

.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE EIDEN,

NO. CIV. S-04-977 LKK/CMK

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

HOME DEPOT USA, INC., dba

HOME DEPOT #6609; and HD

PROPERTIES OF MARYLAND,

Defendants.

 /

In light of plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment

filed concurrently with their opposition brief, and in order to

give the defendants sufficient time to prepare their opposition,

hearing on the cross-motions is CONTINUED to December 2, 2005 at

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 4. Defendants’ opposition to the

cross-motion for summary judgment and their reply in support of

their original motion shall be FILED by November 9, 2005. 

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-00977-LKK -CMK Document 42 Filed 10/25/05 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

Plaintiffs shall FILE the reply in support of their cross-motion

by November 16, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 25, 2005

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00977-LKK -CMK Document 42 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CLINTON BROWN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 432 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CLINTON BROWN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 433 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kent A. Murphy, certify that:

1. I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Luna Innovations Incorporated;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material 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 misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented
in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: November 13, 2007



/s/ KENT A. MURPHYKent A. Murphy, Ph.D.President and Chief Executive 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

JOSEPH DAVID VINCZE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0591 FCD KJM P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with an action for violation of civil rights

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 27, 2005, the court recommended that this action be dismissed

as plaintiff had not submitted an amended complaint as he was directed to do by the court’s May

16, 2005 order. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations in which

plaintiff claims he never received a copy of the May 16 order.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court’s July 27, 2005 findings and recommendations are vacated;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-serve this court’s May 16, 2005 order

upon plaintiff along with copy of the court’s form § 1983 complaint for use by prisoners, and

ensure that the docket reflects such service;

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00591-FCD-KJM Document 17 Filed 10/26/05 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

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to comply with the May 16, 2005 order. Failure

to comply with the May 16, 2005 order within thirty days will result in a recommendation that

this action be dismissed.

DATED: October 25, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

vinc0591.vfrs

 

Case 2:04-cv-00591-FCD-KJM Document 17 Filed 10/26/05 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

MICHAEL B. WILSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0464 LKK GGH P

vs.

MARK IWASA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Pursuant to Judge Karlton’s order filed January 30, 2006, this case was re-opened

and plaintiff was directed to file a second amended complaint within thirty days. The thirty day

period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint or otherwise

responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, 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-00464-LKK -GGH Document 18 Filed 03/30/06 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: 3/29/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

wils464.fta

Case 2:04-cv-00464-LKK -GGH Document 18 Filed 03/30/06 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

MICHAEL SHAWN ROCHESTER,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-04-0449 DFL KJM P 

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with an application for writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 20, 2004, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. 

Petitioner has not filed an opposition. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

petitioner file an opposition regarding respondent’s motion to dismiss, or a statement of nonopposition, within thirty days of this order. Failure to comply with this order may result in

sanctions, including dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: May 10, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 roch0449.osc

Case 2:04-cv-00449-DFL -KJM Document 6 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

October 29, 1951

No. 55941.

petitions 6802-R, etc. (New York).

#### Carl Fischer Musical Instrument Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial the president of the petitioner testified that the invoice prices represented the actual prices paid; that his firm had been buying this type of instrument from the seller for about 55 years and that during, that period there had been no question as to the dutiable value of the merchandise imported; that the only information as to the correct valuation which the appraiser-was able to obtain from the United States consulate in Paris was a printed price-list; that he disagreed with customs officials about the price list, which he believed' to be a retail price list, and appeals for reappraisement were filed in each instance; that he endeavored to obtain information as to the foreign market values and secured an affidavit which counsel stated did not fully support his position; and that he accepted a compromise in the final disposition of the appeals for reappraisement. On the record presented it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the-case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petitions were therefore granted.
Qlante TIT6-ra-n­

'l,waHili. 

March 19,2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Dnited States pepartmellt ofT!at}.~portation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

On behalf of Plante & Moran, PLLC, I am writing to express our strong support for the 

application of Delta Air Lines for new nonstop service between Detroit and Haneda. 

, , 

Approval of Delta's new service would be a major benefit for our region, where many' 

corporations have strong trade and market presence with Japan. There are almost 250 Japanese 

companies located in Indiana and hundreds more whose business activities rely on access to 

Japan and its market. The growth of our business ties with Japan has created demand for 

increased capacity to Tokyo. Indiana corporate representatives look to the convenience of flying 

into Tokyo's downtown Haneda airport. 

Indianapolis does not offer international service to Asia, and many of our business 

travelers use Detroit as their hub when flying to Japan. Detroit is a proven and successful 

gateway to Asia and is an airport that can support trans-pacific routes. This summer Delta is 

adding new service to Seoul and Hong Kong, fulfilling the commitment Delta made to DTW to 

make it the airline's gateway to Asia. Th~addition of Haneda as a destination is a natural fit that 

would clearly benefit our region. 

Thank you for consideration ofthis request. '; ~ ~i~~j i·,. ' / ' , • '.' ,. 

, ,; -} 

Sincerely, 

L', '" ::';"'/,,(7, ," ; " '., ~rt::J)/L--f?"/ 

George H. Cumpata 

Plante & Moran, PLLC 

.. illinois Chicago' Elgin Michigan Ann Arbor' Auburn Hills' Detroit • East lansing Praxity'; MEM:ER .,' Flint • Grand Rapids • Kalamazoo • Macomb' St. Joseph' Southfield • Traverse City GLO' AI. ALUANCE Of 

Ohio Cleveland' Columbus' INOEPENOEtlT fiRMS ToledO China Shanghai Mexico Monterrey plantemoran.com
(Reap. Dec. 10063)

#### Midwood Industries, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 7689, etc.

(Decided August 16, 1961)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*William E. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LaweeNCe, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purpose of certain steel flanges forms the subject of the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule attached to and made a part of this decision.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact wherein it was agreed as follows :

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement listed in the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof consists of steel flanges exported from Germany; that at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States the market values or prices 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 quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States were the invoice unit values less 15%, less 5%, plus the items marked “X”, described as extra charge for green painting, on each invoice, net packed, except that in entry No. 11620 covered by Reappraisement R60/16366, as to the item of merchandise identified by the letter “Z” and described as a 16" slipon No. 32-42 instead of the invoice value of $17.40 the appraised value of $22.41 is the basic value to which the previously described *439deduction of 15% and 5% and the extra charge for green painting marked “X” shall apply.

Upon the record before tbe court, 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 Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)), is the proper basis of value for the steel flanges in issue and that said value is the invoice unit values, less 15 per centum, less 5 per centum, plus the items marked “X,” described as extra charge for green painting on each invoice, net packed, except that, in entry No. 11620, covered by reappraisement R60/16366, as to the item of merchandise identified by the letter “Z” and described as a 16" slipon No. 32-42, instead of the invoice value of $17.40, the appraised value of $22.41 is the basic value to which the previously described deduction of 15 per centum and 5 per centum and the extra charge for green painting marked “X” shall apply.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.