alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8172)

#### F. W. Woolworth Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 9942; 15277.

(Decided October 31, 1952)

*Sharretts, Hillis & Paley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by the above named Appeals to Reappraisement, 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 quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was in each instance the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases and that there is no foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that these appeals to reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware articles here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

*489Insofar as tbe appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-20224

USDC No. H-00-CV-345

Summary Calendar

 

EVANS WILLIAM MCKINNELY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

 

June 26, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Evans William McKinnely, Texas prisoner # 554193, seeks a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s

dismissal without prejudice of his petition for habeas corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. McKinnely’s federal petition alleged

that a state habeas application had been filed on October 12, 1999,

but that no decision had been made. The district court sua sponte

dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies.
2

McKinnely has provided this court with evidence that his state

application for habeas relief has recently been denied by the Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals. Ordinarily, this court will not enlarge

the record on appeal with evidence that was not before the district

court. See Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Martin, 963 F.2d 795, 799 (5th

Cir. 1992). Under these limited circumstances, we find that the

interests of justice and judicial economy are best served by

granting the COA, VACATING the dismissal and REMANDING for

reconsideration of McKinnely’s petition in light of the new

evidence. 

COA GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED.
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

DIANNE NELSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1103 DFL KJM PS

vs.

PLACER COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

The court is in receipt of a letter from plaintiff that will be construed as a request

for extension of time. Plaintiff states she did not serve the request on opposing counsel and

requests that the matters contained therein remain confidential. It does not appear to the court

that matters referred to in plaintiff’s request merit sealing. However, the court will direct the

filing of plaintiff’s request under seal temporarily, pending plaintiff’s showing cause why her

request should be maintained under seal.

As to plaintiff’s request for accommodation, the court notes that throughout this

litigation, plaintiff has repeatedly requested extensions of time and in general has not diligently

prosecuted this action. The pending motion for summary judgment already has been continued

for hearing and plaintiff was afforded a generous extension of time to respond to the motion. 

The motion was filed April 28, 2006 and plaintiff has now had over six weeks to formulate a

Case 2:04-cv-01103-DFL -KJM Document 163 Filed 06/16/06 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

1 The Clerk is advised that plaintiff must first be called at this number so that her facsimile

machine can be initiated; the number can then be used to fax the order to plaintiff.

2

response. Pretrial conference is currently scheduled for August 11, 2006 and trial for October 23,

2006. Defendants are entitled to resolution of this matter. Even if plaintiff is having some

difficulties proceeding with the litigation, she initiated this action and, although proceeding pro

se, is obliged to prosecute the matter in a diligent fashion. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of June 28, 2006 is vacated.

2. Plaintiff shall file opposition, if any, to the motion for summary judgment no

later than July 7, 2006. Failure to file opposition will be deemed as a statement of nonopposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

3. Reply, if any, shall be filed no later than July 14, 2006. The matter shall

thereafter stand submitted.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff via

facsimile at (907) 262-68771 and also by mail.

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to file plaintiff’s letter dated May 24, 2006 and

attached documents under seal, and to maintain said letter and documents under seal pending

further order of the court.

6. Within 20 days from the date this order is filed, plaintiff shall show cause in

writing why the letter dated May 24, 2006 and attachments should be maintained under seal.

DATED: June 16, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

06 nelson2.eot

Case 2:04-cv-01103-DFL -KJM Document 163 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4543 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to allow States to waive 

certain administrative requirements for recertification, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2024 

Mr. WELCH (for himself and Mr. PADILLA) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to allow 

States to waive certain administrative requirements for 

recertification, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘SNAP Recertification 

5 Reform Act of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4543 IS

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIRE2 MENTS FOR RECERTIFICATION UNDER SUP3 PLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PRO4 GRAM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 11(e)(6) of the Food and 

6 Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(6)) is amend7 ed— 

8 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

9 the end; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(C) the State agency may waive recertifi12 cation interviews required by the Secretary sub13 ject to the condition that the applicant— 

14 ‘‘(i) waives the interview; and 

15 ‘‘(ii) has already demonstrated eligi16 bility for the continuation of benefits; and 

17 ‘‘(D) if the Secretary requires an applicant 

18 interview for recertification, the State agency 

19 shall give the applicant the option to conduct 

20 the interview in-person, by phone, virtually, or 

21 through any other medium determined by the 

22 Secretary to reduce administrative burden;’’. 

23 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

24 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 180 

25 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7403

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

SAMMY ESQUEDA FRAUSTI, a/k/a Sammy Esqueda Frausto,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00233-RJC-1; 3:16-cv-00492-RJC)

Submitted: February 17, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017

Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sammy Esqueda Frausti, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sammy Esqueda Frausti seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Frausti has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY DOW, 2:04-cv-1667-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

W. HUTTO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On November 4, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

Case 2:04-cv-01667-GEB-CMK Document 16 Filed 01/26/06 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

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 4, 2005, are adopted

in full;

2. This action is dismissed; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.

Dated: January 26, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01667-GEB-CMK Document 16 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 2
Conference Call to Discuss Imidacloprid Pollinator Field Studies

December 5, 2013 3:00

- 4:00 PM EST

Participants :

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR): Ann Prichard, Liz Pelham, Denise Alder, Rich Bireley , John Troiano, Jill Townzen

Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Authority (PMRA): Connie Hart, Wayne Hou, Tina Singal, Mary Mitchell, Ni cole Lauro

Bayer CropScience: David Fischer, Clive Halder, Lisa Bowers, Allen Olmstead, Jeff Parsons , Pete Cody

EPA: Rusty Wasem, Tom Mori arty, Neil Anderson, Patricia Parrot , Steven Snyderman, Keith Sappington, Anita Pease, Don Brady, Clayton Myers, Elizabeth Hill, Michael Wagman

All three Agencies held a conference call with Bayer to discuss the upcoming pollinator field effects studie s required to support the re

- evaluation of imidacloprid. Specific study design elements and timing of the studies were discussed as were how the Agencies intend to use the studies for risk assessment and risk management.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7679

WILLIAM ALLEN LEGG,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(CA-03-1455-8-DKC)

Submitted: March 10, 2004 Decided: April 7, 2004

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Allen Legg, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Allen Legg seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his suit. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction, because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

July 16, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on September 16,

2003. Because Legg failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss

the appeal. 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
IT

- --..-... :~ ;. -, . Memorandum

u.s. Department of

Transportation

Office of the Secretary

of Transportation

Subject:

From:

Notice of Communication in case:

Docket DOT -OST -2013-0204

Anthony R. FOX-~

Secretary ofTr~

Date: February 26,2015

Reply to Reese Davidson

Attn. of: x68161

To: Chief, Dockets

In accordance with Department practice, I am reporting the following communication.

During a telephone call on January 30, 2015,Violeta BuIe,the European Commissioner

for Transport, raised the application of Norwegian Air International Limited (NAI)

pending before DOT. Commissioner BuIe stated that NAI is entitled to a decision with

minimum procedural delay under the U.S.-EUaviation agreement and that the carrier's

application should be approved without further delay. She also offered the EU's

assistance in helping the Department achieve that objective. Because NAI's application

is part of an ongoing proceeding, I did not discuss the merits of the case and a summary

of the conversation is being placed in the docket.

Please place this memorandum in Docket DOT -OST -2013-0204.

cc:Commissioner Violeta BuIe
No. 6597.

#### STATE, EX REL., AUGUSTIN LASSEIGNE vs. DEMOCRATIC PARISH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, ET ALS.

Appeal from the 28th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. John the Baptist, No. 490. Honorable John E. Pleury, Judge.

*275Opinion and decree, December 22nd, 1915.

' Guión, Lambremont and Chenet, for plaintiff and appellant.

P. E. Edrington, Jr., L. M. Reynaud, for defendant and . appellee.

Per Curiam.

This case presents the sanie question involved in the matter of State, ex rel., Elfer vs. Parish Democratic Executive Committee, et als., No. 6990 of our docket, this day decided, and for the reasons therein set forth,

The judgment herein is annulled and reversed and it is now decreed that there be judgment in favor of relator herein ordering and commanding the respondents herein to print and cause to be printed the name of relator upon all ballots to- be used and cast at the primary election to be held in the Parish of St. John the Baptist on January '25, 1916,.as a candidate of the Democratic Party for nomination to the office of Police Juror, Ward 4, of said Parish, and to certify relator’s name as such candidate to the Secretary of State of Louisiana; and it is further decreed that respondents pay the costs of both Courts.

Reversed.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 27, 2009

0518 

# Order

May 27, 2009

138138

MACHINING ENTERPRI SES, INC., a/k/a ENTERPRISE AUTO SYSTEMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138138 COA: 277950 Oakland CC: 2004-056494-CK WAUSAU BUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY and AMERICAN ALTERNATIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees, and

STEVEN RODTS,
Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the December 16, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4497 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to authorize the 

use of individual training accounts for certain youth. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2024 

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

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

to authorize the use of individual training accounts for 

certain youth. 

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 ‘‘Building Youth Work5 force Skills Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. YOUTH WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES. 

7 Section 129(c) of the Workforce Innovation and Op8 portunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3164(c)) is amended by adding 

9 at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4497 IS

1 ‘‘(9) INDIVIDUAL TRAINING ACCOUNTS.—Funds 

2 allocated as described in paragraph (1) to a local 

3 area may be used to pay, through an individual 

4 training account, an eligible provider of training 

5 services described in section 122(d)(1) for training 

6 services described in section 134(c)(3) provided to 

7 an in-school youth who is not younger than age 16 

8 and not older than age 21, or any out-of-school 

9 youth, in the same manner that an individual train10 ing account is used to pay an eligible provider of 

11 training services under section 134(c)(3)(F)(iii) for 

12 training services provided to an adult or dislocated 

13 worker.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>



        <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET, THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND THE STATEMENT OF CASH
FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         326,502
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  800,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,000,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,126,502
<PP&E>                                           1,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,127,602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,033,429
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        450
<COMMON>                                        31,118
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,062,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,127,602
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (2,068,975)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               810,206
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,258,769)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   106,570
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                     (106,769)
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,258,769)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4067]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-61,003]


Yamaha Corporation of America, Grand Rapids, MI; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on February 22, 2007, in response to a petition filed by 
a company official on behalf of workers at Yamaha Corporation of 
America, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
    This petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition 
(TA-W-60,996) filed on February 21, 2007 that is the subject of an 
ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been 
issued. Consequently, further investigation in this case would 
duplicate efforts and serve no purpose; therefore the investigation has 
been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 27th day of February 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-4067 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P