alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 59526.

protest 737292-G (New York).

#### M. S. & J. A. Workman, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry *334under paragraph 1681 was sustained. Entry 726857, having been abandoned, the protest was overruled as to said entry.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
Exhibit
32.1








KNIGHT
INC.


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 on Form 10-K of Knight Inc. (the “Company”)
for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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 results of operations of the Company.





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Knight Inc. and will be retained by Knight Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








Dated:  March
      31, 2009
            
            /s/
      Richard D. KinderRichard
      D. Kinder
              Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11256

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

LENA MARIE LINDBERG, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DEAN LACORTE,

owner, beachside storage and office park,

TY BERDEAUX, 

court operations manager, 

MATTHEW PATTERSON, 

deputy clerk, 

SCOTT ELLIS, 

brevard county clerk of court, retired,

ROBERT BLAISE TRETTIS,

public defender,

USCA11 Case: 23-11256 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11256

et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cv-01747-RBD-DCI

____________________

Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. The statutory time limit required Lena Lindberg to file a notice of appeal on or before May 31, 2022, which was the next business day after 30 days following the date judgment was deemed 

entered on the district court’s November 29, 2021 dismissal order. 

28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 

(7)(A), 26(a)(1)(C). However, Lindberg did not file a notice of appeal until April 8, 2023. 

Additionally, there is no basis in the record for relief under 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6). Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 

1300 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting that the timely filing of a notice of 

USCA11 Case: 23-11256 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023 Page: 2 of 3
23-11256 Opinion of the Court 3

appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement, and we cannot 

entertain an appeal that is out of time). 

All pending motions are denied as moot. No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other 

requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.

USCA11 Case: 23-11256 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023 Page: 3 of 3
# EUR-Lex - 52007BP0121(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007BP0121(01)

**1. European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for the implementation of the budget of Eurojust for the financial year 2005 (C6-0395/2006 - 2006/2162(DEC)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0233 - 0233 *

1.

European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for the implementation of the budget of Eurojust for the financial year 2005 (C6-0395/2006 — 2006/2162(DEC))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2005 [1],

- having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2005, together with Eurojust's replies [2],

- having regard to the Council's recommendation of 27 February 2007 (5711/2007 — C6-0080/2007),

- having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof, and the EU Treaty, and in particular Article 41 thereof,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities [3], and in particular Article 185 thereof,

- having regard to Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime [4], and in particular Article 36 thereof,

- having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 [5], and in particular Article 94 thereof,

- having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the Report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0120/2007),

1. Grants the administrative director of Eurojust discharge for the implementation of Eurojust's budget for the financial year 2005;

2. Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the administrative director of Eurojust, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

[1] OJ C 266, 31.10.2006, p. 34.

[2] OJ C 312, 19.12.2006, p. 67.

[3] OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 (OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

[4] OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 1. Decision as amended by Decision 2003/659/JHA (OJ L 245, 29.9.2003, p. 44).

[5] OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

--------------------------------------------------
| (1)   | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Vegas Equity International Corp..                for                the quarter ended September 30, 2005 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended September 30, 2005, fairly presents in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Vegas                Equity International Corp.. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/                  Gordon                  Forgey                                    |   |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  Name:     |       Gordon                  Forgey                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|  Title:    |  Principal                  Executive Officer,Principal                  Financial Officer and Director                                                                                                                                                                      |
|  Date:     |  November                  21, 2005                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
(Reap. Dec. 8665)

Entry Nos. 914728; 755205; 845754.

#### Bluefries-New *York, Inc. v.*United States

(Decided October 3, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Eicwall, Judge;

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

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that

> 1. The merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of chocolate bars and other chocolate articles exported from Holland, the same in all material respects as those in *Bluefries New York, Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 8470, wherein it was held that cost of production as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the proper basis of value.

> 2. The record in said Reap. Dee. 8470 may be incorporated herein.

> 3. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved in the appeals for reappraisement listed in said Schedule A, there was no foreign value or export value or United States value for such or similar merchandise as defined in Sec. 402, Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, and the cost of production is therefore the proper basis of value,

> 4. The cost of production, as defined in Sec. 402 (f), (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, for the chocolate bars and other chocolate articles listed in Schedule B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is as set forth in said Schedule B.

> 5. The appeals for reappraisement listed in said Schedule A are submitted on this stipulation and are limited to the items set forth in said Schedule B, and abandoned as to all other items.

On the agreed facts, I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as set forth in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

*522Schedule “B”

Article Cost of production per carton Netherland guilder

Milk hazelnut bars — cartons containing 576 bars_ 94. 40

Milk hazelnut bars — cartons containing 600 bars_ 95. 03

Milk bars — cartons containing 576 bars_ 95. 31

Milk bars — cartons containing 600 bars_ 95. 74

Bittersweet bars — cartons containing 576 bars_ 90. 26

Bittersweet bars — cartons containing 600 bars_ 90. 48

Coffee milk bars — cartons containing 576 bars_ 96. 08

Coffee milk bars — cartons containing 600 bars_ 96. 54

Orange milk (milk orange) bars — cartons containing 576 bars_ 95. 89

Orange milk (milk orange) bars — cartons containing 600 bars_ 96. 33

Mocha bittersweet bars — cartons containing 576 bars_ 106. 05

Mocha bittersweet bars — cartons containing 600 bars_ 107. 48
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4293 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4293

 To designate the United States courthouse annex located at 310 South 
 Main Street in London, Kentucky, as the ``Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United 
                       States Courthouse Annex''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2024

 Mr. McConnell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States courthouse annex located at 310 South 
 Main Street in London, Kentucky, as the ``Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United 
                       States Courthouse Annex''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EUGENE E. SILER, JR. UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE ANNEX.

    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse annex located at 310 
South Main Street in London, Kentucky, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
courthouse annex referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United States Courthouse 
Annex''.
                                 <all>
```
Before the Second Division,

April 6, 1949

No. 53000.

#### Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. United States,

petition 6594-R (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

Upon the entire record the court was satisfied that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted insofar as it relates to entries 84 and 115. The petition was dismissed as to entry 827. :
(Reap. Dec. 10747)

#### J. T. Steeb & Co., Inc. Unit Venetian Blind Co. (Unitron Import Corp.) *v.*United States

Entry No. 3395.

(Decided May 6, 1964)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General *(Bernard J. Ban,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the parties herein:

> Mb. Tuttle: * * *

> *******

> At this time I offer to stipulate with Government counsel that the merchandise covered by the invoice herein was entered or withdrawn from customs warehouse for consumption after the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and was therefore appraised under Section 402(h) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, Second Session, said merchandise not being identified in the final list published in T.D. 54521.

> I further offer to stipulate with Government counsel that, as to the merchandise on the invoice herein at the time of exportation to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold, or in the absence of sales offered for sale in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities, and in the usual course of trade for exportation to the United *548States, were the invoice unit values shown on the invoice, plus the packing charges marked “X” in red ink.

> I further offer that the appeal herein he submitted on this stipulation.

> All other claims are abandoned.

> Mb. Babb: After having conferred with the customs examiner, the Government so stipulates, your Honor.

> Mb. Tuttle : And the plaintiff rests and submits.

> Mb. Babb : Defendant rests and submits.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold 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, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise herein involved and that such values were the invoice unit values shown on the invoice, plus the packing charges marked “X” in red ink.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 4, 2017

No. 04-17-00137-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.A.P., JR. ET AL. CHILDREN,

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015PA02543

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On May 3, 2017, appellant’s brief was filed. The brief violates Rule 9.8(b) of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure because the order of termination contained in the appendix to the 

brief does not redact the minor’s names. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b). It is therefore ORDERED 

that the brief filed by the appellant is STRICKEN from our record. It is FURTHER ORDERED 

that appellant file an amended brief containing a redacted order in the appendix no later than ten 

days from the date of this order. Because appellee has been served with a copy of the brief, this 

order does not affect the May 23, 2017 deadline for the filing of the appellee’s brief.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 4th day of May, 2017.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 46137.

#### Protest 28343-K/89234 of International Harvester Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the record presented the merchandise in question was held dutiable as drawings at 25 percent under paragraph 1410 as claimed.
No. 61353.

protest 296895-K (New York).

#### Meadows Wye & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
|
PAY
i !
y 4
JAN Fu id
_—T 4
A. eae i
\ | p
Lg @! sf | tty VO YL
= A : ialliguiasnaeaileapetiaaiesinen a TEA ae. oO we AS 7 aia eto en RS
3 ° : g TY os
—————— H \
om i :
| E O.* ise kW
©) Len i is,
| LA eee SO NN \
O =v — =!
| = >>? cs SG *
<L 5 SC O° oo 2 =
S. = 2 Sees. | SI}
za — =
i _ i
; Z@) 4) = > << >) '@>)
| Oo co >+f§ BDO G
i x< Oy eet ee = = Lo !
‘ge nooanet & LO |
i ON
i i ll
eae
i | 4 —
= re om) © |
S f i
a5 = een mR > CQpE a EOE:
| :
LLJ } i
ro] rr a = A H
+t ni, Sapien f |
CO |} f |
Ls, ‘ 4
aoe  aigenkt i ee
<n ee
c |
= |
i
J 4 X.
= 5 | a
it Pa — | Yih
| me |
———— gr 1
LS: . Pa
bese ao ~e |
ge : Se | Ny |
= i \ \.. ia
20 fas ms ms as es ms ms 5 SS Se a. 5 Soueeeeeaet es ms ns ss a ileal 202 AES OS NG AS MS ANS NS NS sy es 2k NS NG NS A SS 1 coms os aoe on ee OA oe OS OO OO 1 ee en =
0 A tt | oafl Mac | |
rr, aoe ba -
.. 4 H i
iN | | ara .
ee ee ae: x
a , \ | ° i er TM 4
bes | =a og pore? |
e - a“
anh | | i
- | | |
LO | —
. Dee ae
: a
| | |
. . ~ sa
ee Y ) os S| |
Nog, ¢ atl “OE i? © gull
Rl. x © | |
Ss |. —— fh | |
‘a See s i . i i
eo ee I. Seed [rote ae. See Q--------5- LZ)... fone frorpieeeen ence ene ar) a 1c.
a a a fe
7 eae i OC = || the
; N.. |
| O = | me .
. ! , i )
| = ee ae eee fo | f
> Y) Poe SL , ve i /
i |:
: | c | |
Lael Shu Yh i \ o dS
oi h Ds | a wed
oe? i 4 | ae
LL it ! = Pac | a |
© aa a‘ S. | <—
ae <7 he i.
| 7 | oe ‘li
; ! J i f ’ i ,
! are) J = | ce |
: J } & Ly | |
t 7 I t ‘ H /
i vi >) Pa 1 f a J
1 ipanseiecguadinapmesabticomians res isssnssliessesemiapptilipreconnncantapecaapanndilitisceasiinsaseal a 4 sulilbipapitesaiaaesnipaieaiiageia =< a Se , ee a fem eae ee ne ese enemas ene ese ee + ——— ee _ iia AREA EONS OTRO ORAL PEO
{y \ =o — | 4 7 S&S a
: ea i Ve bak, 5 va
hoy ae ye E Dest i : |
f a J A { ( ¢
oot 4 \ “ i
i 4 ! ' t x. | H
i H d ‘a ' zie i a
——<—<—<—<——_—— — oe i ae
H Be Suc i / : a ¢ i
| “s : \.. i , <9 | ( | a 5s [
f f i 2 ¢ ! of
lf 1 » © f | si . <
| r ie 7. / !
H t hp i O H | =
. é i if 4 =
| , ct = ost Fae }
| S| = g i ; ¢ ee |
a ae oO % oo} 4 %, . |
LU i ee © > s fo , 7%
= ae te > i se ‘e} ; f P. |
all WO] = v as | \ di = 4,
= ; > — SS y = —
ed i —_ \ I i. W ; /
ms a 5 x e | ., f a \
es © / oe i oO: “
j. oN ee \ ‘i a vue
r eo BN ues qxcepncnssnenennennnnsse] cancnsennqe san ses etnsns nenesen eases ents ie os uenss sa sasennans >) ONE a aenanaaae ya he a r seopsenennne ans aes sencnesnpesssssens mseaees:
rc . “ ) !
| = hte ha |
et | —
Om =| \
1»,
.
|
i
i
i
i
i
| Y
\.
\ i
) i
i
ws 4
yi
, 4
\
a
l
- eres Bi
39) h
© I
EB
\ |
\ ,
oe
i
ul on
k ‘ »
a
| | ¥Nt
f Le |
he
| \
i
L 4 ¥
°
ra)
ras)
Wz
Mo
ee)
50]

30°45'N

30°30'N

30°15'N
Before the Second Division,

June 11, 1962

No. 66845.

#### D. H. Armaghanian *v.*United States,

protest 60/2480 (B) (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of electrically operated vacuums of the household type and similar to the household electric floor polishers the subject of *United States*v. *Electrolux Corporation*(46 C.C.P.A. 143, C.A.D. 718), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.02

                            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 Essential Innovations Technology
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April 30, 2005, 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.Telford
-------------------------
Kenneth G.C. Telford
Chief Financial Officer
June 13, 2005

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.