alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 52277.

protest 930686-G (Boston).

#### W. T. Grant & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
April 15, 1954

No. 58019.

Suits 4760/3.

#### United States *v.*Esso Standard Oil Co. and Esso Standard Oil Co. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1441 reversed December 29, 1953. C. A. D. 546. '
Before the First Division,

April 21, 1955

No. 58987.

protests 203081-K/4407 and 192341-K/3961 (Chicago).

#### American Express Company and J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These two protests, which were consolidated at the time of trial, relate to pieces of vellum which are described on the invoices either as “Best Vellums” or as “Best Selected Uncut Vellums.” The collector classified the merchandise as parts of percussion instruments under paragraph 1541 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by T. D. 51909, and accordingly assessed duty at the rate of 20 per centum ad valorem. Plaintiffs claim that the merchandise is free of duty under the *eo nomine*provision for “vellum” in paragraph 1736 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

The case is a retrial of the issue presented in *J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc.*v. *United States,*30 Cust. Ct. 473, Abstract 57385, the record in which case was incorporated herein on motion by plaintiffs and without objection from defendant. There, as here, the merchandise consisted of pieces of vellum of various sizes. On the basis of plaintiff’s uncontradicted testimony in the incorporated case, we found, as matter of fact, that the merchandise was susceptible of various uses, including lamp shades, manuscript folders, bookbinders, materials for artificial lamps, and drumheads; that the merchandise was incapable of use in its imported condition; and that it always required additional processing to become available for any of its variety of uses.

Plaintiffs’ uncontradicted testimony in the present case is merely cumulative and corroborative of the evidence introduced in the incorporated case. Therefore, the factual findings and legal conclusions reached in the *J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc.,*case, *supra,*have equal application in this case. Accordingly, we hold here, as we did in the cited case, that “the vellum in question is mere material *346which, in its imported condition, is not a part of percussion instruments, as assessed by the collector. It is properly classifiable under the *eo nomine*provision for ‘vellum’ in paragraph 1736, *supra,*and free of duty thereunder, as claimed by plaintiff.”

The protests are sustained and judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 12-10743 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 4:02-cr-00245-WTM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OPOLLO REY JOHNSON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Georgia

 ________________________

(December 18, 2012)

Before HULL, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-10743 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 1 of 3 
Opollo Rey Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a

reduction in his 240-month sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He

contends that Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011), gave the district

court authority to resentence him, and that his sentence was based on the crack

cocaine guidelines rather than his designation as a career offender.

A defendant may file a motion to modify a term of imprisonment if the

defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range

that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). We review a decision to reduce a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion, and legal interpretations de novo. United

States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1338-39 (11th Cir. 2008). 

Amendment 750 revised the crack cocaine quantity tables in U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1 to conform to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which amended certain

statutory minimum sentences. See U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 750 (effective Nov. 1,

2011). A subsequent amendment made Amendment 750 retroactive, permitting

sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. App. C, amend.

759. However, a reduction is inappropriate if an offender was originally sentenced

as a career offender. See United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.

2008). We have held that Freeman did not overrule Moore because Freeman did

2

Case: 12-10743 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 2 of 3 
not address defendants who were sentenced as career offenders. United States v.

Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1320-1321 (11th Cir. 2012). 

The PSI assigned Johnson a guidelines range based on a career offender

enhancement. The district court explicitly adopted the PSI in full during

Johnson’s sentencing hearing. The district court adopted a guidelines range based

on the career offender enhancement, and departed downward from the career

offender range based on Johnson’s criminal history. Accordingly, the sentence

was not based on the guidelines range for crack cocaine, and Johnson was

ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750. See Moore, 541 F.3d at

1330. Thus, we affirm the district court’s denial of Johnson’s 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) motion.

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 12-10743 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**ESSEX
      PORTFOLIO, L.P** **.**


**Certification
      of Principal Financial Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**








Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Michael T. Dance,
      Principal Financial Officer, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that
      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the “Form
      10-Q”) of Essex Portfolio, L.P. fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended, and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Essex
      Portfolio, L.P. at the dates of and for the periods presented.











Date:
      August 7, 2006     /s/
      Michael T. Dance


Michael
      T.
      Dance


Chief
      Financial Officer, Executive Vice President,


Essex
      Property Trust, Inc., general partner of


Essex
      Portfolio, L.P.
Exhibit
32(a), Form 10-K


Kansas
City Life Insurance Company







KANSAS
CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






Year
Ended 2009






The
undersigned certify that the registrant’s Form 10-K report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report
fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the registrant.






















/s/
R. Philip Bixby


R. Philip
Bixby


President,
Chief Executive Officer,


and
Chairman of the Board














/s/
Tracy W. Knapp


Tracy W.
Knapp


Senior
Vice President, Finance


Date:
February 26, 2010
No. 53537.

protests 139977-K, etc. (Tampa).

#### Aircargo Brokerage Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ RYDEX, LTD., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERI CA, INC. (DOING BUSINESS AS M AZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS), Defendants

- Cross Appellants

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Defendant

- Cross Appellant

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA , INC., Defendant

- Cross Appellant

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC

. , SUBARU OF AMERICA, I NC., Defendants

______________________

2013

- 1462, 2013

- 1463

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in No. 11

- CV

- 0122, Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore.______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

S TAMATIOS S TAMOULIS , Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

D OMINIC F RANCIS P ERELLA , Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant

- cross appellants. Also represented by J ASON R. M UDD , Erise IP, P.A., Ove rland Park, KS. J EFFREY S COTT P ATTERSON , Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, Dallas, TX, for defendant

- cross appellant Nissan North America, Inc. E RIC W. S CHWEIBENZ , Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Ne ustadt, LLP, Alexandr ia, VA, for plaintiff

- cross appellant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. Also represented by R ICHARD D. K ELLY , R OBERT C ARTER M ATTSON

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST , Chie f Judge, M OORE and O’M ALLEY , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

February 1 8 , 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

724 

CA 12-02207 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

PATRICIA J. CURTO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE 

AT CORNELL, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, NELSON ROTH, 

VALERIE CROSS, HUNTER RAWLINGS, III, DONALD 

SMITH, KATHERINE EDMONDSON, LISA CLARK, SUSAN 

STEVENS SUAREZ, LINDA ALLEN MIZER, WENDY 

TARLOW, WALTER LYNN AND DANILEE POPPENSIEK, 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, 

ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

PATRICIA J. CURTO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE.

VALERIE CROSS DORN, ITHACA, FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy

J. Walker, A.J.), entered January 30, 2012. The order granted the

motion of defendants-respondents to dismiss the complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Matter of Laborers Intl. Union of N. Am., Local

210, AFL-CIO v Shevlin-Manning, Inc., 147 AD2d 977). 

Entered: June 7, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
No. 66825.

#### Contractor’s Brick *&*Supply et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/10763, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of face brick similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Bunker Hill Brick & Supply, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 95, C.D. 2240), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Luna Innovations Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dale E. Messick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ DALE E. MESSICK    
|Dale E. Messick        
|Chief Financial Officer

August 13, 2007
REGULATION IV

AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT REGULATIONS

Rule 401 Permit Required

Any person building, altering, or replacing any source of air contaminants shall first obtain an Authority to Construct fr om the Air Pollution Control Officer. An Authority to Construct shall remain in e ffect until the Permit to Operate for that source for which the application was filed is either granted or denied or until termination pursuant to other pr ovisions of this Regulation.

Major sources subject to Title V of the Clean Air Act of 1990, shall also comply with the requirements of Rule 522 Title V - Federal Operating Permits . The applicant for a major source shall apply to the U.S. EPA for applicable federal requirements pursuant to Title I of the Cl ean Air Act of 1990, that have not been delgated to the District.

Northern Sierra AQMD Rule 400 - 1 Amended Rules & Regulations 05/11/94
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS3926 lost

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

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
EXHIBIT 21

                        JEFFERSON-PILOT CORPORATION


Subsidiary listing as of January 6, 1999

Jefferson-Pilot Corporation (North Carolina corp.)

     Alexander Hamilton Life Insurance Company of America (Michigan corp.)

          First Alexander Hamilton Life Insurance Company (New York corp.)

     Jefferson Pilot Financial Insurance Company (New Hampshire corp.)

          Jefferson Pilot LifeAmerica Insurance Company (New Jersey corp.)

     HARCO Capital Corp. (Delaware corp.)

          Omega Jefferson Pilot Seguros de Vida S.A. (Argentina corp.)(2)

             Jefferson Pilot Omega Seguros de Vida S.A. (Uruguay corp.)

     Hampshire Funding Inc. (New Hampshire corp.)

     Jefferson-Pilot Capital Trust A (Delaware business trust)

     Jefferson-Pilot Capital Trust B (Delaware business trust)

     Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company (North Carolina corp.)

          Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of California (North
          Carolina corp.)

          Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of Virginia (Virginia corp.)

          Jefferson-Pilot Sports, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)

          WCSC, Inc. (South Carolina corp.)

               Tall Tower, Inc. (South Carolina corp.)

     Jefferson Pilot Investment Advisory Corporation (Tennessee corp.)

     Jefferson-Pilot Investments, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)

     Jefferson Pilot Variable Corporation (North Carolina corp.)

     Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)

          Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)

     Jefferson-Pilot Property Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)

     Jefferson Pilot Securities Corporation (New Hampshire corp.)

___________

Notes:

(1) Each indentation reflects another tier of ownership.
(2) The immediate parent owns 100% of the voting securities of each
    entity except that HARCO owns 99% of Omega.
(3) All entities more than 50% owned are listed, except that several
    subsidiaries that in the aggregate are insignificant have been omitted.

                                     E-3
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----

DENISE FRANCIS,

NO. CIV. S 04-1640 MCE JFM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

RE: DISMISSAL

DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

The complaint in this matter was filed on August 12, 2004. 

Plaintiff’s counsel, David Ndudim, was ordered to complete

service of process and to submit a joint status report not later

than December 12, 2004. On March 31, 2005, an Order to Show

Cause was issued given Plaintiff’s failure to file a joint status

report. In response to that Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff’s

counsel conceded he had not even effectuated service on the

Defendant and indicated he would be withdrawing from the case. 

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01640-MCE -JFM Document 12 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

27

28

2

Thereafter, despite two purported attempt to withdraw that were

rejected by the Court as both substantively and procedurally

inadequate, Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to either properly

effectuate withdrawal or, even more fundamentally, to serve

Defendant Defense Commissary Agency with this lawsuit.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that if the

summons and complaint is not served on a defendant within 120

days after the filing of the complaint, the Court may, upon its

own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, dismiss the action,

without prejudice. The present case has been pending for more

than a year, and Plaintiff has failed to serve the defendant, let

alone file the required joint status report. Unless Plaintiff

demonstrates good cause for a further extension of time, by

papers filed not later than twenty (20) days following the date

of this Order, the Court will dismiss this action, on its own

initiative and without prejudice, for failure to comply with the

requirements of Rule 4(m). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 26, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01640-MCE -JFM Document 12 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.B
CERTIFICATION
      I, D. Mark Leland, certify that:
1. I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of El Paso Production Holding Company;
2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this Report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date:May 12, 2005   /s/ D. Mark Leland   D. Mark Leland
[Cite as Parks v. Blanchester Bd. of Pub. Affairs , 2022-Ohio-319.]

{¶1} On December 22, 2021, a Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation in this public-records case. The Special Master recommends (1) denying the claim for production of records and (2) assessing c osts to Requester. {¶2} Neither party has timely filed written objections to the Report and Recommendation, as permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Pursuant t o R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects to a special master’s report an d recommendation, then this Court is required to “promptly issue a final order adopting the report and recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation.” {¶3} The Court determines that there is no error of law or other def ect evident on the face of the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation of D ecember 22, 2021. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. Court costs ar e assessed to Requester. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of th is judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN Jud g e Filed January 11, 2022 Sent to S.C. Reporter 2/4/22 JOSHUA PARKS

Requester

v.

BLANCHESTER BOARD OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, VILLAGE OF BLANCHESTER

Respondent Case No. 2021-00524PQ

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

JUDGMENT ENTRY
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 order adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY MARSHALL,

NO. CIV. S-04-1694 LKK/PAN P

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

SHERIFF GARY R. STANTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of defendants’ correspondence to the

court requesting that the court amend the August 5, 2002 order so

that the names of defendants Molloy and Cullison are included in

the dismissal without prejudice.1 The court hereby ORDERS that:

1. “M.E. Cullin” is amended to “Margaret Cullison” and

defendant “Molby” is amended to “Sgt. Leonard Molloy.”

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-01694-LKK -EFB Document 40 Filed 09/14/05 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

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption

to reflect these changes.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 13, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01694-LKK -EFB Document 40 Filed 09/14/05 Page 2 of 2