alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10403)

Entry No. DE-24313.

#### John L. Westland & Son, Inc., a/c D. E. Sanford Co., Inc. *v.*United States

*492(Decided December 18, 1962)

*Lawrence é Tuttle (Edwcerd N. Glad*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Morris Braverman,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

JOHNSON, Judge:

When this appeal for reappraisement was called for trial, it was submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> Mb. Glad : We offer to stipulate that the merchandise involved herein consists of plastic flowers which were exported from Hong Kong during the latter half of 1959.

> We further offer to stipulate that these artificial flowers are not on the final list promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury in response to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and are therefore under the new law.

> We offer to stipulate that the export value thereof are the unit values as appraised, plus all of the additional charges indicated on the invoice as taken by the Appraiser, except for the 5 percent buying commission, which should be part of the non-dutiable items.

> Mr. Bravebman. : From information obtained from the Assistant Appraiser, Mr. Clouse, who is present in court, the Government so stipulates.

> Mb. Glad : Plaintiff rests and submits.

> Me. Bbaverman : Government rests and submits.

On the agreed facts, I find that the 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, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein and that such value is represented by the unit appraised values, plus all of the additional charges indicated on the invoice as taken by the appraiser, other than the 5 per centum buying commission, which is nondutiable.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

KENNETH DEAN DAWSON, No. CIV S–04-1211-MCE-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 26, 2004, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to

amend and also directed plaintiff to submit either a completed application to proceed in forma

pauperis or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 21, 2004. 

Plaintiff has not, however, paid the filing fee for this action or submitted a completed application

to proceed in forma pauperis. 

In addition, on March 24, 2005, court orders served on plaintiff at his address of

record were returned as undeliverable. The court thereafter issued findings and recommendations

on April 5, 2005, that this case be dismissed for lack of prosecution based on plaintiff’s apparent

failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. The April 5, 2005, findings and

Case 2:04-cv-01211-MCE -CMK Document 20 Filed 10/13/05 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

recommendations were also returned as undeliverable. A review of the court’s docket reflects

that plaintiff filed a notice of change of address on July 5, 2005. Therefore, in the interest of

justice, the April 5, 2005, findings and recommendations will be vacated. Plaintiff will, however,

be required to comply with the remainder of the court’s August 26, 2004, order and submit either

the filing fee for this action or a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court

will address plaintiff’s amended complaint upon compliance with the court’s orders.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued April 5, 2005, are vacated;

2. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the

full filing fee for this action or submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis,

accompanied by the required declaration and certification; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward to plaintiff the court’s form

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

DATED: October 12, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01211-MCE -CMK Document 20 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 62567.

#### Henry Pollak, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 178276-K, etc. (New York).

*442Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of straw hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Pollak Industrial Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 251, C. D. 1991), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Cheviot Financial Corp. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the
"Report"), I, Thomas J. Linneman, 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, 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/Thomas J. Linneman
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       Thomas J. Linneman
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer

     Date:  May 14, 2004
No. P68/298.

protest 65/23239 (New York).

#### Biddle Purchasing Co. *v.*United States,

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of garden hose nozzles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Lipman's*(52 CCPA 59, C.A.D. 859), except that those involved herein are in chief value of zinc, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40369 c/w No. 04-40379 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERTO CARBAJAL-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-161-ALL USDC No. 1:03-CR-861-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Roberto Carbajal-Hernandez (“Carbajal”) appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation as well as from the revocation of supervised release relating to a prior illegal reentry conviction. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000) andNo. 04-40369 c/w No. 04-40379 -2- Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). He therefore reasons that both the instant conviction as well as his prior illegal reentry conviction must be reduced to convictions under the lesser included offense found in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2). A defendant may not use the revocation of supervised release to challenge his sentence for the underlying offense based on Apprendi for the first time. United States v. Moody , 277 F.3d 719, 720-21 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore, Carbajal may not challenge his prior illegal reentry conviction in the appeal of the revocation of his supervised release. See id. Regardless, as Carbajal acknowledges, his attack on 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but he seeks to preserve it for Supreme Court review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Mancia-Perez , 331 F.3d 464, 470 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 358 (2003). Accordingly, this court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Mancia-Perez , 331 F.3d at 470 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Moreover, in United States v. Pineiro , 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263), this court held that “ Blakely does not extend to the federal Guidelines.” A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel’s decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision byNo. 04-40369 c/w No. 04-40379 -3- this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. United States v. Lipscomb , 299 F.3d 303, 313 n.34 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are
AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-60,936] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 12, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Duro Textiles, LLC, Fall River, Massachusetts. The workers at the subject facility produce dyed, coated, and finished fabric. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 26th day of February 2007. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-4065 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Essex
Portfolio, L.P. report for the six months ended June 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          18,396
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,225
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,347
<PP&E>                                       1,042,912
<DEPRECIATION>                                  90,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,016,825
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,300
<BONDS>                                        440,485
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     380,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,016,825
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,789
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,390
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,710
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,710
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     90
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,620
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.96


</TABLE>
Before Judge Wilson,

February 27, 1968

No. R68/19.

reappraisement R67/17640 (Seattle).

#### Lollytogs, Ltd. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those in Lollytogs, *Ltd.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 608, Reap. Dec. 11073), the court found and held that the 4% percent invoiced purchasing commission of the Swedish Trading Co., Ltd., was a *Iona fide*buying commission which formed no part of the value of the involved children’s wearing apparel and that export value as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise and that such values are the invoice unit values, f .o.b. Hong Kong, exclusive of any additional charges or commissions.
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 Israel Bank of Agriculture Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Yakov Cohen, 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 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 result of operations of the Company.


Yakov Cohen
Chief Financial Officer
July 9, 2003
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

JEFFREY A. PATE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1201 FCD DAD P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFFS DEPUTIES,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee.

On January 5, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff to file either the appropriate

documentation demonstrating that defendant Garcia had been properly served, or an application

requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis so that the court could direct the U.S. Marshal to

serve the defendant Garcia. On January 17, 2006, plaintiff filed a proof of service by mail which

is not sufficient service of process. Rule 4(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires

that a person not a party must effect service, and that if service is not waived by the defendant,

the defendant must be personally served with the summons and complaint. The court will 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01201-FCD-DAD Document 29 Filed 06/12/06 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

provide plaintiff with a final opportunity to submit an application requesting leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall submit an

application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis which has also been completed and

signed by the authorized prison official, and a certified copy of the inmate trust account

statement;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with an Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner; and

3. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: June 9, 2006.

DAD:4

pate1201.ifp

Case 2:04-cv-01201-FCD-DAD Document 29 Filed 06/12/06 Page 2 of 2
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/07 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.06 N 76.88 WMeters AGL
Before the First Division,

March 29, 1946

No. 50979.

#### Protest 92253-K of Fung Chong Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of a commodity the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247). On the stipulated facts the merchandise, which includes salt as a substantial component part thereof, was excluded from paragraph 5 and held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 as claimed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of PrimeEnergy Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Beverly A. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Corporation.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Beverly A. Cummings
|Chief Financial Officer
|April 3, 2009
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

TIMOTHY JACKSON SEELEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1800 DFL CMK P

vs.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 73 Filed 10/28/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 19, 2005

request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: October 26, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 73 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          14,096
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,895
<ALLOWANCES>                                       586
<INVENTORY>                                     29,634
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,136
<PP&E>                                         111,913
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,273
<BONDS>                                         36,590
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,912
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,591)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,965
<SALES>                                        157,424
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               169,658
<CGS>                                          105,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,749
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,881
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,681
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,681
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,681
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.55<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.54<F2>
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - BASIC PER SFAS 128
<F2>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - DILUTED PER SFAS 128
</FN>


</TABLE>