alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7403** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. SAMMY ESQUEDA FRAUSTI, a/k/a Sammy Esqueda Frausto , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:07

- cr - 00233

- RJC

- 1; 3:16

- cv - 00492

- RJC )

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

Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Sammy Esqueda Frausti, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina , Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sammy Esqueda Frausti seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief o n his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of t he denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the c onstitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the disp ositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Frausti has not made the requisite showi ng. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 52289.

protest 126827-K/913 (Chicago).

#### Austin Nichols & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gauger's return as verified by the affidavit of the importer. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 50460.

#### Petitions 6442-R, etc., of Reedy Forwarding Co. (Tampa).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial the witness for the petitioner testified that since it was impossible for the shippers to furnish sufficient information at the time of shipment it was necessary to file entries on *proforma*invoices at values which petitioner thought were proper; that prior to entry petitioner kept in close touch with the deputy collector of customs, filing written requests for information which requests were invariably returned with the notation “no information available”; and that had the information been made available beforehand, petitioner would have amended the entries in line with the proper values. Government counsel stated that the report of a customs agent made upon investigation of this matter corroborated petitioner’s statements. Upon the record it was held that petitioner did not misrepresent the facts and that there was no intention to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise or to defraud the revenue of the United States. The petitions were therefore granted.
Before the Second Division,

December 16, 1955

No. 59573.

protests 223892-K, etc. (New York).

#### Ramallah Trading Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

It .was stipulated that the items of merchandise marked “A” consist of jacquard-figured bedspreads, composed in chief value of cotton, having a staple less than 1)4 inches in length, and that the items marked “B” consist of jacquard-figured upholstery cloths (not pile fabrics), which are table scarves, composed in chief value of cotton, having a staple of less than *1%*inches in length. Accepting the stipulation as a statement of fact, the items marked *“A”*were held dutiable at 20 percent under the provision in paragraph 911 (a), as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476), for jacquard-figured bedspreads, wholly or in chief value of cotton, and the items marked “B” were held dutiable at 27)4 parcent under the provision in paragraph 908, as modified, *supra,*for jacquard-figured scarves, wholly or in chief value of cotton.
No. 53580.

protest 145514-K (New York).

#### Weigert-Dagen Shoe Company *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 claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 65522.

#### Rich Guild Shirt Company *v.*United States,

protest 60/24795 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Kansas City Life Insurance  Company (the Company) of our report dated January
24, 2000 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company as
of  December  31,  1999 and for each of the two years in the  period  then ended
included in the 2000 Annual Report to Shareholders of Kansas City Life Insurance
Company.

Our audits also included the financial  statement  schedules of Kansas City Life
Insurance  Company as of December  31, 1999 and for each of the two years in the
period then ended listed in item 14(a).  These schedules are the  responsibility
of the Company's  management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based
on our audits. In our opinion,  the financial  statement  schedules  referred to
above, when considered in relation to the basic financial  statements taken as a
whole,  present  fairly,  in all material  respects,  the  information set forth
therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No.  2-97351)  pertaining  to the Savings and Profit  Sharing  Plan of
Kansas City Life  Insurance  Company of our report  dated  January 24, 2000 with
respect to the consolidated  financial statements referred to above incorporated
by reference  and our report dated March 24, 2000 with respect to the  financial
statement  schedules  referred to above in the Annual  Report (Form 10K) for the
year ended December 31, 2000.


                                                               Ernst & Young LLP


Kansas City, Missouri
March 28, 2001
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

KEITH M. CASSELLS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1798 FCD PAN P

vs.

D. MEHTA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

§ 1983. Plaintiff moves to modify the scheduling order filed January 27, 2006, by extending the

time for discovery. Defendants oppose.

A schedule may be modified only upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b). Good cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline

despite exercising due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th

Cir. 1992). Pursuant to the scheduling order discovery closes May 26, 2006. 

Plaintiff asserts he receives insufficient time in the law library. But plaintiff has

served discovery requests and has sought orders compelling disclosure. He does not identify the

discovery he still must do but cannot complete by May 26.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 55 Filed 04/18/06 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

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate he will not be able to complete discovery despite

exercising due diligence. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 4, 2006, motion for

extension to complete discovery is denied.

DATED: April 18, 2006.

\004

\cass1798. dny modif sched

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 55 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 54052.

#### Freund Freund & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 498004-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2119 LKK GGH P 

vs.

MARK SHEPHERD, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On July 20, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Both parties have filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

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

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

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

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-02119-LKK -GGH Document 20 Filed 09/01/05 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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 20, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

DATED: August 31, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/rodr2119.806

Case 2:04-cv-02119-LKK -GGH Document 20 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 2
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01625**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 01625\01625_Checklist_092810_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 01625\01625_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01625\01625_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 01625\01625_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01625\01625_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01625\01625_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 01625\Certification Statement Plant ID 01625.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 01625\Supplemental Documents\01625_Part A_A5-3 Water Balance Z1-PF-01.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01625\Supplemental Documents\01625_Part A_A5-3 Water Balance Z2-PF-01.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01625\Supplemental Documents\01625_Part A_Section 5_A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 01625\Supplemental Documents\01625_SEEG ICR Transmittal Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
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 

 

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

KATHERINE C. HUIBONHOA (SB# 207648) 

Twenty-Fourth Floor 

55 Second Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 

Telephone: (415) 856-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

J. AL LATHAM, JR. (SB# 71605) 

Twenty-Fifth Floor 

515 South Flower Street 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: (213) 683-6000 

Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 

Attorneys for Defendants 

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY (erroneously sued as 

“SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.”), ALICE HUERTA, and 

DEBORAH THOMAS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM GAINES, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 

ALICE HUERTA, DEBRA THOMAS; 

DOE 1; DOE 2; DOE 3; DOE 4; DOES 5 

through 100, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. CIV-S-04-02297 MCE GGH 

STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING 

REVISED PRETRIAL (STATUS) 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-02297-MCE -GGH Document 12 Filed 08/25/05 Page 1 of 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 

 -2- 

 WHEREAS defendants previously were represented by counsel who no longer 

remains in-house; 

 WHEREAS the undersigned counsel for defendants was recently retained in this 

case and requires additional time to evaluate the relevant facts and legal issues presented; and 

 WHEREAS both parties require additional time to conduct and complete 

discovery, and believe that it would be mutually beneficial and serve the interests of justice to 

have additional time to conduct and complete discovery; 

 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT the 

fact and expert discovery cut-off dates previously set by the Court in the Pretrial (Status) 

Scheduling Order, dated January 14, 2005, shall be revised by 60 and 30 days, respectively, as 

follows: 

Current Date New Date

Non-expert discovery cut-off September 12, 2005 November 14, 2005 

Disclosure of expert witnesses November 7, 2005 December 7, 2005 

Other dates indicated in the Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order, including the motion hearing 

schedule and trial date, shall remain the same. 

DATED: ____________, 2005 PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

By: 

KATHERINE C. HUIBONHOA 

Attorneys for Defendants 

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY (erroneously 

sued as “SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.”), ALICE 

HUERTA, and DEBORAH THOMAS 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-02297-MCE -GGH Document 12 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 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 

 -3- 

DATED: ____________, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL L. MITCHELL 

By: 

DANIEL L. MITCHELL 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

WILLIAM GAINES 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

DATED: August 25, 2005 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02297-MCE -GGH Document 12 Filed 08/25/05 Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Sheyla D. and Another, Infants. Maria B., Appellant; Onondaga County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

[635 NYS2d 575]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs' for reasons stated in decision at Onondaga County Family Court, Buck, J. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Buck, J.—Terminate Parental Rights.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
(Reap. Dec. 10420)

#### Manhattan Novelty Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 479896.

*360(Decided January 10, 1963)

*Lane, Young and, Foco*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement listed above has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the above appeal for reappraisement consists of radios manufactured in and exported from Japan to the United States.

> That on or about the date of exportation of the said merchandise, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the appraised value, less the buying commission as shown on the invoice; and that there were no higher foreign values for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above appeal for reappraisement may be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find and hold the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to he the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by the appeal listed above and that said value is the appraised value, less the buying commission as shown on the invoice.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<Page>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

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

    The following certification is being furnished solely to accompany the
Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 'SS'1350 and in accordance with SEC Release No.
33-8238. This certification shall not be deemed 'filed' for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be
incorporated by reference in any filing of the Company under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of
any general incorporation language in such filing.

    In connection with the Annual Report of J. W. Mays, Inc. (the 'Company') on
Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the 'Report'), we, Lloyd J. Shulman and Mark S. Greenblatt,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 'SS'1350, as adopted pursuant to 'SS'906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.

October 14, 2004

                                             /S/ LLOYD J. SHULMAN
                                          ----------------------------
                                             Lloyd J. Shulman
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                             /S/ MARK S. GREENBLATT
                                          ----------------------------
                                             Mark S. Greenblatt
                                             Chief Financial Officer

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

                                       20
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-430 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EXTRADITION 

 Second Protocol Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CANADA 

Amending the Treaty of 

December 3, 1971, 

As Amended 

Signed at Ottawa January 12, 2001 

 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 CANADA 

 Extradition 

Second protocol amending the treaty of December 3, 1971, 

 as amended. 

Signed at Ottawa January 12, 2001; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate July 11, 2002 (Treaty Doc. 107-11, 

 107th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 October 8, 2002 (Senate Executive Report No. 107-14, 

 107th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 November 14, 2002; 

Ratified by the President January 23, 2003; 

Exchange of instruments of ratification at Washington 

 April 30, 2003; 

Entered into force April 30, 2003.
No. 51742.

#### Protests 107279-K, etc., of Werner Marx et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of “Gruyére process-cheese” similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp.*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 767), and that other items consist of “ Cheese having the eye formation characteristic of the Swiss or Emmenthaler type,” the same as that involved in *S. A. Haram*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 37, C. D. 1016). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

ELMER DAVENPORT, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 33 EM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of May, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary 

Relief is DENIED.