alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

March 27, 1946

No. 50956.

#### Protest 98380-K of C. S. Emery & Co. (St. Albans).

Mollison, Judge:

In this case the plaintiff seeks to recover duties paid on the importation of merchandise described on the invoices and entries as “crude oxide of iron.” Duty was assessed thereon by the collector at the rate of one-eighth of 1 cent per pound under the provision for “Ochers * * * crude” in paragraph *24573, Tariff Act of 1930, and the protest claim is for free entry under the provision in paragraph 1700 of the same act for “iron ore.”

It appears from the record that the shipper of the merchandise, one Charles D. Girardin, had a mine at Yamachiche, near Three Rivers, Quebec, Canada, from which the imported merchandise was extracted. He testified that it was a “hydrated iron ore, limonite, what is called commonly crude bog iron ore”; that he had tried to sell it to paint companies, presumably as a pigment, but it was rejected as not suitable, and that he had been able to sell it only to gas companies.

From the testimony of qualified witnesses called by the plaintiff it appears that the merchandise is used in the purification of illuminating gas. In such use it is—

* * * mixed in a preparation to a consistency of shavings that is installed in what is known as a purifying box, 40 by 40 feet square in three layers, each three feet deep, and the gas passes through this material removing the hydrogen sulphide.

There is evidence indicating that the designation of the merchandise as “oxide of iron” was an error, and-that it is known and bought and sold as crude bog iron ore. A sample is before us, marked “Exhibit 1,” which has the appearance of brown earth, containing, among other things, twigs and dead leaves.

The only evidence offered in support of the collector’s classification is the report marked “Exhibit 2,” of a Government chemist who analyzed a sample of the material in question and found it to be “ocher, crude.”

In Webster’s New International Dictionary (1945) “bog iron ore” is defined as “A porous variety of limonite,” and “limonite” is defined as follows:

Hydrous ferric oxide, 2Fe203.3H20, an important ore of iron, occurring in stalactitic, mammillary, or earthy forms, of a dark-brown color, and as a yellowish-brown powder. Called also *brown hematite.*Limonite includes bpg ore and ochers, in which impurities are common.

The last sentence of the foregoing definition seems to hold the key to this case. There are apparently at least two forms of limonite, viz, bog ore and' ochers, and we think the record as a whole establishes that the merchandise at bar belongs in the former class and not in the latter. It is not used as a pigment, and appears to be principally, if not exclusively, used for a purpose for which ochers are not suitable, to have a larger percentage of iron oxide than found in ochers, and to be mixed with materials other than those found in ochers.

Judgment will therefore issue sustaining the protest claim and directing re-liquidation of the entries accordingly.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas E. Mills, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMP Productions,
Ltd.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b)     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)     presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5.     I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)     all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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.

6.     I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

August 1, 2006

By /s/ Thomas Mills
Thomas E. Mills
President & 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

THE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF

NEW YORK,,

NO. CIV. S 04-1166 MCE GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

FOOD SERVICE INSURANCE

MANAGERS, DWIGHT HALVORSON

INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. and

DWIGHT HALVORSON,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Defendant Food Service Insurance Managers, Inc.

(“Defendant”) has submitted an ex parte application asking the

Court to shorten the time for hearing its Motion for Relief from

Pretrial Scheduling Order. Defendant has filed, in addition to

its application, a stipulation signed by all counsel agreeing

that the motion be heard on an expedited basis.

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01166-MCE -GGH Document 46 Filed 07/18/05 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

2

Given that stipulation, and in light of the impending

deadlines in this matter as set forth in the Court’s Pretrial

Scheduling Order, Defendant’s Ex Parte Application is GRANTED. 

The hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Relief from the Pretrial

Scheduling Order is set for August 8, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. 

Defendant’s Motion must be filed, and notice provided to all

affected parties, not later than July 19, 2005. Opposition, or a

statement of non-opposition, shall be submitted to the court not

later than July 25, 2005. Any reply is due by August 1, 2005.

Pending the Court’s determination of Defendant’s motion, the

current July 22, 2005 deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses

is extended. The new date for such disclosure will be determined

by the Court at the time it rules on Defendant’s motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 18, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01166-MCE -GGH Document 46 Filed 07/18/05 Page 2 of 2
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.1


                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 March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kevin Kelly, President and Chief Executive 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: May 15, 2009

                                           /s/ Kevin Kelly
                                           Kevin Kelly
                                           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 If, as plaintiff suggests, the Government is stone walling

and refusing to answer relevant questions concerning its legal

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISION SERVICE PLAN,

NO. CIV. S-04-1993 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

The United States has filed a motion to reconsider an order

of Magistrate Judge Moulds denying in part the Government’s motion

for a protective order. 

It is not clear to this court that the issue is moot.

Although the deposition took place, it appears that the

Government’s direction to its witnesses not to answer was in direct

conflict with the previous order, and thus will probably give rise

to a motion to compel answers to those questions. Nonetheless, as

plaintiff argues the motion must be denied.1

Case 2:04-cv-01993-LKK -JFM Document 47 Filed 09/20/05 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

position, and if by virtue of the cut off for discovery plaintiff

will be deprived of an opportunity to elicit that information, the

proper remedy may be the exclusion at trial of evidence concerning

the defendant’s position, or a determination that the Government

has waived any right to present a legal theory. 

2

As plaintiff maintains, the scope of review of the Magistrate

Judge’s order in issue is very narrow. This court cannot determine

that, under all the circumstances, the Magistrate Judge’s order was

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See L.R. 72-303(f); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(a). 

The motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 19, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01993-LKK -JFM Document 47 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.02 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the quarterly report of Essential
Innovations Technology Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended July 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth G.C. Telford, Chief 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, that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief: (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 result of
  operations of the Company.  /s/ Kenneth G.C. TelfordKenneth G.C. TelfordChief Financial OfficerSeptember 7, 2007 A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
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

BENJAMIN D. TERRITO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1460 MCE PAN P

vs.

RICHARD W. SANDHAM, M.D., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Defendants request the court to vacate the pretrial schedule dates. Pursuant to the

August 4, 2005, schedule, plaintiff had until April 28, 2006, to file and serve a pretrial statement,

defendants had until May 12, 2006, to file and serve a pretrial statement, pretrial conference is set

for May 19, 2006, and trial is set for August 9, 2006, before the Honorable Morrison C. England,

Jr.. 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is pending.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01460-MCE -EFB Document 53 Filed 05/31/06 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

Accordingly, IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that defendants’ May 15, 2006, request

to vacate the above dates is granted. Said dates will be reset, if appropriate, following resolution

of the motion for summary judgment.

DATED: May 31, 2006.

\004\terr1460.ord to vac sched

Case 2:04-cv-01460-MCE -EFB Document 53 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0069 - EN

*|*

# 52007AP0069

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 March 2007 on the proposal for a Council decision on authorising Member States to ratify, in the interests of the European Community, the 2006 Consolidated Maritime Labour Convention of the International Labour Organization (COM(2006)0288 - C6-0241/2006 - 2006/0103(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 301 E , 13/12/2007 P. 0139 - 0139 *

P6_TA(2007)0069

Ratification of the ILO's Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 March 2007 on the proposal for a Council decision on authorising Member States to ratify, in the interests of the European Community, the 2006 Consolidated Maritime Labour Convention of the International Labour Organization (COM(2006)0288 — C6-0241/2006 — 2006/0103(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2006)0288) [1],

- having regard to Article 42 and Article 300(2), first subparagraph, first sentence, of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0241/2006),

- having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0019/2007),

1. Approves the proposal for a Council decision as amended;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

TEXT PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION | AMENDMENTS BY PARLIAMENT |

Amendment 1

Title

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on authorising Member States to ratify, in the interests of the European Community, the 2006 Consolidated Maritime Labour Convention of the International Labour Organization | Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on authorising Member States to ratify, in the interests of the European Community, the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 of the International Labour Organization |

Amendment 2

Recital 1

1. The 2006 consolidated Convention of the International Labour Organization (hereinafter referred to as the ILO) on maritime labour was adopted on 23 February 2006 by the maritime session of the International Labour Conference of the ILO convened in Geneva. | 1. The Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 of the International Labour Organization (hereinafter referred to as the ILO) on maritime labour was adopted on 23 February 2006 by the maritime session of the International Labour Conference of the ILO convened in Geneva. |

Amendment 3

Article 1

The Member States are hereby authorised to ratify the 2006 ILO consolidated Maritime Labour Convention, adopted on 23 February 2006. | The Member States are hereby authorised to ratify the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 of the ILO, adopted on 23 February 2006. |

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

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

BENJAMIN ELLIS, No. CIV S-04-1483-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ALBONICO, 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 defendants’ motion for modification of the

scheduling order. Specifically, defendants seek an extension of the dispositive motion cut-off

date to February 10, 2006. On January 10, 2006, however, the court issued an order sua sponte

extending the dispositive motion cut-off date to March 14, 2006. The instant motion is,

therefore, unnecessary.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 33 Filed 01/18/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion for an

extension of the dispositive motion cut-off date is denied as unnecessary.

DATED: January 17, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01483-LKK -CMK Document 33 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

April 29, 1948

No. 52294.

petition 6634-R (San Francisco).

#### Thornley *&*Pitt *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petition was dismissed.
# C_2006311EN.01005901.xml

| 19.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/59

---

List of third countries recognised under the procedure laid down in Article 18(3) of Directive 2001/25/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1)

1

(Situation on 20 November 2006)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 311/15)

| Member States | Third Countries |
| --- | --- |
| Greece | Serbia & Montenegro |
| Belgium | Hong Kong
  Canada
  South Africa
  Bulgaria
  Ukraine
  Malaysia
  India
  New Zealand
  Romania
  USA
  Argentina |
| Italy | Brazil
  Argentina
  Cuba |
| United Kingdom | Slovenia |
| Danemark | Argentina
  Brazil
  New Zealand |
| Luxembourg | Argentina
  Senegal
  Canada
  Australia
  Hong-Kong
  Singapore
  Malaisia |
| Sweden | Russia |

Member States

Third Countries

Greece

Serbia & Montenegro

Belgium

Hong Kong

Canada

South Africa

Bulgaria

Ukraine

Malaysia

India

New Zealand

Romania

USA

Argentina

Italy

Brazil

Argentina

Cuba

United Kingdom

Slovenia

Danemark

Argentina

Brazil

New Zealand

Luxembourg

Argentina

Senegal

Canada

Australia

Hong-Kong

Singapore

Malaisia

Sweden

Russia

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 18.5.2001, p. 17. Directive as amended by Directive 2003/103/EC (OJ L 326, 13.12.2003, p. 28).

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6910

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TYRONE YOUNG,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Danville. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (4:18-cr-00017-JPJ-1)

Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 24, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Young, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Patrick Jones, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia; Kari Kristina Munro, FRITH, ANDERSON & 

PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6910 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Young appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to 

supplement his motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) and 59(e). We have reviewed 

the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Young, 

No. 4:18-cr-00017-JPJ-1 (W.D. Va. Aug. 1, 2022). 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6910 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 13.(a).1






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 Annual Report of Partner Communications Company Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:




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: March 10, 2014




By: /s/ Haim Romano

——————————————

Name: Haim Romano

Title: Chief Executive Officer





Date: March 10, 2014




By: /s/ Ziv Leitman

——————————————

Name: Ziv Leitman

Title: 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTORIA HERNANDEZ )

) 2:04-cv-1747-GEB-PAN

)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

v. ) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

) CONFERENCE

STEVE and JACKIE MARTINEZ; and )

GARCIA FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, )

PLAZA, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED )

)

Defendants. )

)

The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for March 6,

2006, is rescheduled for July 31, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. The Plaintiff

shall file a further status report no later than July 17, 2006, which

explains only the status of the default proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01747-GEB-EFB Document 28 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 1
April 30, 1953

No. 57298.

Suit 4679.

#### Dorward & Sons Co. and Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1290 affirmed March 18, 1952. (No C. A. D. number assigned.) Rehearing granted June 24, 1952. C. D. 1290 reaffirmed January 14, 1953. C. A. D. 512. (Note: Pursuant-to the granting of the petition for rehearing, the case was reconsidered and a new opinion written, without changing the original conclusion. The original opinion of March 18, 1952. was withdrawn and a new opinion substituted therefor, i. e., C. A. D. 512.)