alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

MIGUEL E. DIAZ, No. CIV S-04-2375 MCE JFM P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., 

Defendants.

____________________________/

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

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 March 31, 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. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02375-MCE -JFM Document 24 Filed 05/10/05 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

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 31, 2005

are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s November 15, 2004, November 23, 2004,

February 18, 2005 and March 10, 2005 motions for temporary

restraining order and injunctive relief be denied; 

3. Plaintiff’s December 23, 2004 request for pre-judgment

injunction be denied; and

4. Plaintiff’s December 23, 2004 motion for the appointment

of a special master be denied.

DATE: May 10, 2005 

 

____________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-02375-MCE -JFM Document 24 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 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

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

 /

On July 13, 2005, respondent filed a request for leave to file a supplemental

answer. However, on July 20, 2005, the court issued findings and recommendations

recommending that the petition be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent’s July 13, 2005, request

for leave to file a supplemental answer is denied as unnecessary.

DATED: 8/5/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

rod2119.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02119-LKK -GGH Document 17 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 8188)

#### United States *v.*Kaufman Trading Corp.

Entry No. 149.

(Decided December 11, 1952)

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Arthur R. Martoccia,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Harry V. Meissner*for the defendant.

*524Mollison, Judge:

Tbis is an appeal, initiated by the collector of customs at'the port of Milwaukee, for reappraisement of the values of certain first and second quality wet salted calfskins imported from Holland.

The facts of the case do not appear to be in dispute and show that the merchandise originated in Poland, from whence it was shipped to Rotterdam, The Netherlands. In Rotterdam, the bales of skins were opened, sorted, inspected, and assembled for shipment to the United States. The merchandise was entered at the invoiced values less certain charges described on the invoice, one of which was an item of the cost of freight from Poland to Rotterdam.

The unit values of the merchandise were advanced by the appraiser, but he allowed as a nondutiable charge the item of freight from Poland to Rotterdam. Although the basis of value upon which the merchandise was entered and appraised is nowhere stated, nevertheless, from the fact that the appraised values include a home market tax of one-half of 1 percent, it would appear that appraisement was made on the basis of foreign value, which is defined in section 402 (c), as amended, of the Tariff Act of 1930.

When the case was called for trial, it was conceded by importer’s attorney that the item of freight from Poland to Rotterdam was properly a part of the value of the merchandise for duty purposes.

On this record, I find foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c), as amended, 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 value for each quality was the appraised value, plus the cost of freight from Poland to Rotterdam, as invoiced.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 10064)

#### Variable Condenser Corp. Globe Shipping Co., Inc. v. United States

Entry No. 776599.

(Decided August 16, 1961)

Plaintiffs not represented by counsel.

William H. Orrick, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a re-appraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiffs, and the case was ordered submitted by the court.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by said appeal to be the ~value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Cyco.net, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates 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 to his 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 operation of
          the Company.


By: /s/ Richard A. Urrea           May 13, 2003
    --------------------------
    Richard A. Urrea
    Chief Executive Officer


By: /s/ Daniel Urrea               May 13, 2003
    --------------------------
    Daniel Urrea
    Chief Financial Officer
Contents

Geographic Coverage

Why isn’t my state or county included in the viewer?

What are the current status and plans for future updates of the viewer?

Data

Where do the data come from?

What is the accuracy of the mapping used in this tool?

What is VDATUM?

How often is the mapping updated with new elevation data?

How do I access the data layers in the viewer?

Can I get the digital elevation models (DEMs) that were used to create the layers in the viewer, and how are they different from most other DEMs?

Modeling Approach

How is this tool different from other national sea level rise mapping efforts?

Why does the tool show inundation starting at mean higher high water (MHHW)?

Is this viewer based on a “bathtub” modeling approach?

Does this viewer show timing of inundation levels (e.g., 3 feet by 2100)?

Do the maps shown in this viewer take into account levees and/or hydraulic features (culverts, pipes, levees, bridges)?

Do the maps take into account future changes in geomorphology, shoreline           change, etc.?

How is the marsh migration mapping different from maps generated from the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model?

How is accretion handled in the marsh impact modeling tab of this tool?

Using the Tool

What am I looking at in each tab or section of the tool?

How do I get my regional or local GIS data to overlay with the layers in this viewer?

Can I get the viewer source code?

User Feedback

How do I provide feedback on this tool?

of 14

Current View

Automatic ZoomActual SizePage FitPage Width50%75%100%125%150%200%
No. 50431.

#### Protest 109321-K of Dons Vainsteins (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the

court dismissed the protest.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v PRINTICE WYSINGLE, Jr., Staff Sergeant, U. S. Army, Appellant

19 USCMA 81, 41 CMR 81

No. 21,597

November 21, 1969

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Major Dennis R. Hunt,*and *Captain Thomas R. Maher*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Edwin P. Wasinger*and *Captain Benjamin G. Porter*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion

Quinn, Chief Judge:

This is a companion case to United States v Adams, 19 USCMA 75, 41 CMR 75. The accused filed a similar petition for reconsideration, which we granted. For the reasons set out in our opinion on the petition in the *Adams*case, we reverse the decision of the board of review as to specification 2 of the charge and the sentence.

The findings of guilty of specification 2 are set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for resubmission to the Court of Military Review. In its discretion, the Court of Military Review may dismiss specification 2 and reassess the sentence on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty, or it may order a rehearing before a court-martial on the specification and the sentence.

DARDEN, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part)

For the reasons set out in my separate opinion in United States v Adams, 19 USCMA 75, 41 CMR 75, I *82would affirm the decision of the board of review in this case.

FERGUSON, Judge

(concurring in the result) :

I concur in the result.

This is a companion case to United States v Adams, 19 USCMA 75, 41 CMR 75. For the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in *Adams,*I concur in the result reached by Chief Judge Quinn in this case.
No. 48522.

#### Protest 37225-K of Pacific Trading Co. (Los Angeles).

*211Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 221, C. D. 610) the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1558 was sustained.
No. 59569.

protests 206266-K/4437 and 207757-K/4620 (Chicago).

#### The Crosse & Blackwell Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef stew the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *The Crosse & Blackwell Co.*(42 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 579), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

ABRAHIM RODRIGUEZ MENDEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1949 LKK DAD P

vs.

CRUZ BUSTAMANTE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 December 7, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On December 15,

2005, plaintiff filed an untimely request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint.

On December 21, 2005, plaintiff was granted a final extension of thirty days to file an amended

complaint and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in the findings and

recommendations being forwarded to the undersigned. The time period has expired and plaintiff

has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Case 2:04-cv-01949-LKK -DAD Document 18 Filed 03/21/06 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

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 7, 2005, are adopted in

full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: March 20, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/mendez1949.800

Case 2:04-cv-01949-LKK -DAD Document 18 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Khalil HAMDAN; Lana K. Hamdan, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-71048.

Tax Ct. No. 8669-97.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

*591Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Khalil Hamdan and Lana K. Hamdan appeal pro se a decision of the United States Tax Court upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of income tax deficiencies for tax year 1989, and an accuracy-related penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6662(a) for negligence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review for clear error the factual findings of the Tax Court, *Wolf v. Commissioner,*4 F.3d 709, 712 (9th Cir.1993), and the Tax Court’s finding that the Hamdans were negligent, *Custom Chrome, Inc. v. Commissioner, 217*F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The Hamdans have failed to establish that the “profit participation fee” was an ordinary and necessary business expense, and have failed to sufficiently document the travel and automobile deduction. We conclude that the Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that the Hamdans did not establish that the “profit participation fee” and travel and automobile expenses were ordinary and necessary business expenses deductible under 26 U.S.C. § 162(a). See *INDOPCO, Inc., v. Commissioner,*503 U.S. 79, 83, 112 S.Ct. 1039, 117 L.Ed.2d 226 (1992).

With regards to Hamdan’s advances to Hamdan Project Development, the lack of any documentation of the terms of repayment or security agreement on the amount of money advanced does not support a finding that these advances were deductible as worthless loans. We conclude that the Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that the advances made to Hamdan Project Development by the Hamdans were capital contributions and not loans. *See Hardman v. United States,*827 F.2d 1409, 1411-12 (9th Cir.1987).

We conclude that the Tax Court did not clearly err in finding the Hamdans negligent and assessing them an accuracy-related penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6662(a). *See Custom Chrome, Inc.,*217 F.3d at 1128.

The Hamdans’ contentions regarding 26 U.S.C. § 1244 and an unnamed section of the Internal Revenue Code were raised for the first time on appeal. Because the Hamdans have not made a showing of exceptional circumstances, we will not consider these arguments. *See El Paso City of Tex. v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc. (In re Am. W. Airlines, Inc.), 217*F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants an Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

TIMOTHY JACKSON SEELEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al. ,

Defendants.

CIV-S-04-1800 DFL CMK P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS AN

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

OPPOSITION BRIEF

Currently before the court is defendants’ request for an extension of time in which to

file an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: good cause having been shown, Defendants

shall have up to and including January 13, 2006, in which to file and serve an opposition to

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

DATED: December 16, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 79 Filed 12/19/05 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 8236)

#### A. L. Tuska Son & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. B 93112-1/2, etc.

(Decided June 26, 1953)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Sidney Mandell*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

Tbe appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted *373for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement set forth in the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the issues involved in *United States*v. *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.,*A. R. D. 17, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the invoices subject to the reappraisements herein, less the item of a buying commission of 734% and/or 10% as noted on the invoices and deducted on entry, are equal to the price at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export values, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) 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 the appraised values, less the items of a buying commission of *7}{*per centum and/or 10 per centum as noted on the invoices and deducted on the entries.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

July 1, 1941

No. 46138.

#### Protest 6106-K of Dr. Theodore Rubel (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It appeared that the plaintiff was a practicing physician in Vienna where he had used the furniture in his office and home 2 years prior to his removal to this country. From the evidence submitted it was found that the articles in question are free of duty under paragraph 1632, Tariff Act of 1930.
Exhibit










Exhibit 10.3A


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
CHS INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN
(2013 Restatement)
CHS Inc., pursuant to the power of amendment reserved to it in Section 7.1 of the CHS Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (“Plan”), hereby amends the Plan in the manner set forth below effective as of the date executed below.
Section 4.4 of the Plan is amended by replacing paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) with the following new paragraph (f):
(f)    Special Contribution Credits for Newly Hired Participants.  Notwithstanding Section 4.2(b), with respect to any Participant named on Schedule A, the Participant’s Pension Plan Account shall be credited with one or more contribution credits equal to the credit(s) which would have been made to that Participant under the Pension Plan if he or she had been an active participant in the Pension Plan from his or her CHS date of hire through his or her actual date of entry into the Pension Plan (subject to the requirement that the Participant be an Active Participant in this Plan on the applicable December 31 for which such credit would have been made under the Pension Plan).  However, such credits shall be determined as if the limitations on benefits imposed by Section 401(a)(17) and Section 415 of the Code on the Pension Plan were disregarded and if compensation deferred upon the Participant’s election under any nonqualified plan maintained by CHS or any other participating employer in the Pension Plan were to be taken into account as compensation under the Pension Plan, except that amounts deferred or paid under the mandatory deferral portion of any long term incentive compensation program maintained by such an employer, any amounts received as replacement of forfeited compensation in accordance with the Participant’s employment term sheet, or any amounts paid under any other nonqualified plan or program maintained by CHS or such a participating employer will not be considered part of that compensation.
The Plan is further amended by the addition of Schedule A attached hereto.
Executed this 28 day of April, 2014.
CHS INC.
By /s/ Carl M. Casale                                    
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer


STATE OF MINNESOTA        )
)SS.
COUNTY OF  Dakota        )


On this  28th day of April, 2014, before me personally appeared Carl Casale to me personally known, who, being by me first duly sworn, did depose and say that he is the President and CEO of CHS Inc., the corporation named in the foregoing instrument; and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and he acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation.


/s/Annastacia Dunaiski                                 
Notary
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-19-00383-CV 

JACQUELINE SUE WICKWARE, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 53rd District Court1 

Travis County, Texas 

Trial Court No. D-1-GN-19-000066, Honorable Karin Crump, Presiding 

 

February 21, 2020 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, Jacqueline Sue Wickware, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial 

court’s summary judgment in favor of appellee, the State of Texas. Wickware’s brief was 

originally due December 12, 2019, but was not filed. We subsequently granted her two 

extensions to file a brief. By letter of January 22, 2020, we notified Wickware that the 

appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution if her brief was not received by 

1 This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Third Court of Appeals by order of the Texas 

Supreme Court. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013).
2

February 10. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, Wickware has not filed a brief or had 

any further communication with this Court.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1).

Per Curiam
No. 47379.

#### Protests 977607-G, etc., of F. W. Myers *&*Co., Inc. (Detroit).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported, and that no addition should have been made for the planing, tonguing, and grooving. Protests sustained to this extent.