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

DEMIANTRA M. CLAY, No. CIV S-04-2367-DFL-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition 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 Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On December 13, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Petitioner has

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

Case 2:04-cv-02367-DFL-CMK Document 13 Filed 08/10/06 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

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 13, 2005, are adopted

in full; 

2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.

Dated: August 9, 2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02367-DFL-CMK Document 13 Filed 08/10/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 55960.

protest 133969-K (Boston).

#### W. N. Proctor Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of “dressed opossum fur, removed from the skins, which has not been dyed, nor felted, nor earroted or otherwise prepared for hatters’ use, and does not consist of any silver fox, black fox, coney, rabbit, hare, dog, goat, kid, seal, lamb, sheep, Caracul lamb, or Persian lamb, in any form whatever,” 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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Ezell Ray Adams,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1482 DFL PAN P

vs. Findings & Recommendations

California Department

of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner prosecuting this civil rights action

without counsel. Defendants have filed and served an answer.

Plaintiff seeks voluntary dismissal with prejudice with an

order directing his transfer to a non-smoking prison facility or

voluntary dismissal without prejudice if the court cannot order

plaintiff’s transfer. Defendants have filed a notice they do not

oppose dismissal without prejudice.

Accordingly, I recommend this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

Case 2:04-cv-01482-DFL-PAN Document 17 Filed 06/03/05 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

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: June 2, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01482-DFL-PAN Document 17 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 62585.

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 290422-K and 302178-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is an entirety, used as smokers’ articles, and that the issue is the same as that in *James Betesh Import Co.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 186, C. D. 1981), 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

27

28 * This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINA BLACKHURST, )

) 02:04-cv-2191-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER*

v. )

)

TRINITY CHURCH, and DONNA HARREL, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On November 10, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for

authorization to serve a trial subpoena on a non-party witness that

lives in Canton, Ohio. Plaintiff is correct that Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 45(b)(2) provides for service of a subpoena on this

prospective witness if authorized by the Court “upon proper

application and cause shown.” However, such service may only be

authorized “[w]hen a statute of the United States provides

therefor . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2). Plaintiff has failed to

identify any statutory authority that provides for the service of a 

Case 2:04-cv-02191-GEB-GGH Document 20 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

subpoena upon the prospective witness. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion

is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 21, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-02191-GEB-GGH Document 20 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10728)

#### The Cherry Company, Limited, et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3216, etc.

(Decided April 28, 1964)

*Lawrence*c6 *Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

> 1. That this stipulation is limited to the items marked “A” and initialed RS (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiner Ronald Sakamoto (Examiner’s Name) on the invoices covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on Schedule “A” annexed, and is abandoned as to all other merchandise.

> 2. That the merchandise was imported prior to the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521).

> 3. That the merchandise consists of canned clams of the type made dutiable upon the basis of the American selling price of a like or similar domestic article, as such American selling price is defined in Section 402(g), Tariff Act of 1930 as it existed prior to said Customs Simplification Act, by the operation of Presidential Proclamation 2081, T.D. 47031.

> 4. That the merchandise and the issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Geo. 8. Bush & Go., Inc.,*v. *United, States,*A.R.D. 140, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated herein.

> 5. That the merchandise herein consists of packs of 10% ounce tins and that on or about the date of exportation, the American selling price of a “like” domestic clam, as defined in said Section 402(g), was $7.50 per two dozen tins, less 1% per centum cash discount, less one-tenth of 1 per centum swell allowance, net packed.

> 6. The appeals listed on said Schedule “A” may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described herein-above and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts and consistent with the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the canned clams *530in question, as hereinabove identified, is American selling price, as defined in section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and hold that such statutory value therefor is $7.50 per 2 dozen tins, less I14 per centum cash discount, less one-tenth of 1 per centum swell allowance, net, packed.

As to all merchandise, other than the canned clams hereinabove identified, the said appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Federal real property profileas of September 30 ...**
 
2002 | 2003 | 2004
 
SuDoc Number:GS 1.15/6:
Item Number:0559-A-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000556617
 
February 11, 2020
AD Grid Sheet 

Docket No.: FAA-2014-1123 

Directorate Identifier: 2014-CE-037-AD 

AD Action: Final rule; request for comments 

This final draft applies toGA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd GA8-TC320 Airplanes; installation 

of fire-resistant washer and inspection of the engine isolator mount orientation. 

If acceptable, please sign the grid on the right with your first initial and full last name 

to show concurrence. 

CONCURRENCES 

ROUTING SYM80l 

ACE-112 D RUDOLPH 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ACE-7 LEGAL 

DATE t)•['(J 

ROUT1NG SYM90L 

ACE-113 R BALDWIN 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ACE-113 SR TW 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ACE-113MGR 

RTGSYMBOL 

ACE-101 MGR 

RounNG SYI.IBOL 

ACE-100MGR 
Wessley, Scott (FAA) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Bateman, Marcy (FAA) 

Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:13 AM 

'AIR-ACE-100-KC 

FW: Delegation of Authority 

Wes wi ll be Acting Manager through Friday, October 16. 

From: Bateman, Marcy (FAA) 

Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:12 AM 

To: 'AIR-ACE-100-KC 

Subject: Delegation of Authority 

Wes Ryan will be the Acting Manager for ACE-110 starting today at 2:00p.m. today through Friday, October 23. 

1
Before the Third Division,

February 21, 1945

No. 50037.

#### Petitions 6328-R, etc., of General Electric X-Ray Corp. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial the two petitions in question were consolidated. From the testimony of two witnesses for the petitioner it appeared that petition 6328-R covered four Swedish X-ray grids, three of which were entered upon the basis of foreign value and one on the basis of cost of production. The appraiser advanced all four items on the basis of foreign value and an appeal to xeappraisement was taken. The single judge sustained the plaintiff’s claim (Reap. Dec. 4928) but was reversed on review by the appellate division, except as to the one grid entered on the basis of cost of production (Reap. Dec. 5299). That decision was affirmed in 29 C. C. P. A. 250, C. A. D. 198. Petition 6351-R covered similar merchandise entered on the basis of foreign value and cost of production in conformity with the decision in Reap. Dec. 4928. The merchandise was advanced in value and an appeal was taken. After the above-mentioned decision of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, it was submitted on stipulation and decided in accordance therewith (Reap. Dec. 5747). From an examination of the entire record the court held that the importer was without intent to defraud the Government or deceive its officials as to the proper value of the merchandise and that there was an honest difference of opinion between the importer and the Government appraiser as to the proper basis of valuation. The petitions were therefore granted.
No. 53560.

protests 963019-G, etc. (Los Angeles and San Francisco).

#### R. V. Anderson et al. *v.*United States

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.

Cole, J., dissented on jurisdictional grounds, except as to protests 963122-G, 87794-K, and 980141 — G. *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 158, C. D. 1175), *Fuchs Shoe Corp.*v. *United States*(id. 338, Abstract 53250), and *W. R. Zanes & Co.*v. *United States*(id. 339, Abstract 53251) cited.
No. 54068.

#### General Cocoa Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 134953-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
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

JESSE SIMKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1433 DFL PAN P

vs.

FOOTHILL ORTHOPEDIC, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By an order filed July 7, 2005, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return

to the court, within ninety days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on defendant D.

Sydenstricker. That ninety day period has since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any

way to the court’s order.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant

Sydenstricker be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 4(m).

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

Case 2:04-cv-01433-DFL-PAN Document 51 Filed 03/16/06 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

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 16, 2006.

/001; simp1433.fus

Case 2:04-cv-01433-DFL-PAN Document 51 Filed 03/16/06 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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2391 WBS KJM PS

vs.

EUGENE KOZIOL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment came on regularly for hearing before the

undersigned on June 1, 2005. G. Patrick Jennings appeared for plaintiff. Defendant appeared in

propria persona. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the

arguments of counsel and defendant, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen days, plaintiff shall submit proposed findings and

recommendations and a proposed order regarding injunctive relief.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02391-WBS-CKD Document 34 Filed 06/02/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

2. The matter shall thereafter stand submitted. 

DATED: June 1, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

usa-koziol.oah 

Case 2:04-cv-02391-WBS-CKD Document 34 Filed 06/02/05 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

 Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISABEL TUBACH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2369 GEB KJM P 

vs.

DEBRA JAQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 In her complaint, plaintiff alleges violations of his civil rights by

defendants. The alleged violations took place in Fresno County, which is part of the Fresno

Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See Local Rule

3-120(b). 

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-120(d), a civil action which has not been commenced in

the proper division of a court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper

division of the court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Fresno Division of the

court. 

Case 2:04-cv-02369-GEB-KJM Document 3 Filed 05/05/05 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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California sitting in Fresno; and

2. All future filings shall reference the new Fresno case number assigned and

shall be filed at:

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

1130 “O” Street

Fresno, CA 93721

DATED: May 3, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

tuba2369.22

Case 2:04-cv-02369-GEB-KJM Document 3 Filed 05/05/05 Page 2 of 2
**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***





I, Peter
      W.
      DeVecchis , Principal
      Executive Officer of
      Solomon Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





•  the
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





•  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods
      presented therein.








/s/
      Peter W. DeVecchis, Jr.


Peter
      W.
      DeVecchis, Jr.


President


(principal
      executive officer) November
      19, 2008


*
        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
        required by Section 906, has been provided by Solomon Technologies, Inc.
        and
        will be retained by Solomon Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
        and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
(Reap. Dec. 10752)

#### Homer Cazamias *v.*United States

Entry No. 6995, etc.

(Decided May 12, 1964)

*Stein & Shostak (8. Richard Shostak*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General *{Sheila N. Ziff,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

WilsoN, Judge:

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

> Me. Shostak : This appeal is abandoned insofar as it pertains to all merchandise other than mashed, or puree strawberries, covered by the appeal. The appeal is also abandoned insofar as it pertains to all consumption entries except consumption entry 758, with which we will deal in this stipulation.

> Plaintiff offers to stipulate that the merchandise in the remaining entry not abandoned consists of mashed or puree strawberries imported from Mexico into Laredo, Texas, during the year 1953, at the date shown on the papers.

> Plaintiff further offers to stipulate that on or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise hereinbefore described, such or similar merchandise was freely *558offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Mexico, 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 costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, at 12.45 cents per pound, f.o.'b. Ir’apuato, Gto., net packed, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> Plaintiff also again indicates that the above appeal for reappraisement is limited to the merchandise and entry hereinbefore described, and is abandoned as to all other merchandise; and asks that this appeal may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

> Mrs. Ziff: I have conferred with the line examiner and the Appraiser at the port of Laredo, and so agree to the stipulation.

> Mb. Shostak : Plaintiff submits.

> Mbs. Ziee : Submit,

> Judge Wilson: Ordered submitted on the oral stipulation, without briefs.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, 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 involved herein, consisting of mashed or puree strawberries, and that such value was 12.45 cents per pound, f.o.b. Irapuato, Gto., net, packed. As to all other merchandise involved in this appeal, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Weston, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 157]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), rendered June 2, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Feldman, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the hearing court erred in holding that the police had probable cause to arrest him, and that, as a result, his inculpatory statements were inadmissible and should have been suppressed. We disagree.

Detective Anthony DeRita, the assigned investigator, observed blood stains from the roof of the building where a body was found to the hallway near the defendant’s apartment. A neighbor told Detective DeRita that the defendant had been in the hallway with the victim on the previous evening and that, shortly afterward, the neighbor had heard gunshots either in the hallway or in the defendant’s apart*673ment, followed by the sound of something being dragged across the roof. This "established the probable involvement” of the defendant in the death of the victim and, added to the detective’s further independent observation of blood stains on the floor and wall of the defendant’s apartment, was sufficient to establish probable cause for the defendant’s arrest *(see, People v Brnja,*50 NY2d 366, 374; *People v Cruz,*191 AD2d 507).

In light of our determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.
NAICS NAICS_TITLE OCC_CODE

31-33 Manufacturing 11-9041 31-33 Manufacturing 17-2081 31-33 Manufacturing 43-0000 31-33 Manufacturing 49-0000 31-33 Manufacturing 51-8099OCC_TITLE GROUPTOT_EMPEMP_PRSE

Engineering managers 71790 2.1 Environmental engineers 2790 3.4 Office and administrative support occupations major 1208460 0.4 Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations major 618890 0.8 Plant and system operators, all other 3570 9.9PCT_TOTAL PCT_RPT H_MEAN A_MEANMEAN_PRSEH_PCT10H_PCT25

0.58 6 57.80 120220 0.8 35.54 44.06 0.02 ~ 39.53 82220 0.8 25.95 31.74 9.71 63 17.31 36010 0.2 10.14 12.70 4.97 22 22.08 45930 0.3 13.30 16.74 0.03 ~ 22.72 47250 1.7 13.34 17.77H_MEDIAN H_PCT75 H_PCT90A_PCT10A_PCT25A_MEDIAN A_PCT75

55.34 68.46 # 73910 91650 115120 142400 39.19 47.23 53.91 53970 66020 81510 98240 16.06 20.60 26.31 21100 26420 33410 42850 21.13 26.54 32.60 27670 34820 43940 55190 22.36 27.45 31.79 27750 36960 46510 57100A_PCT90ANNUALHOURLY # 112140 54730 67810 66130