alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**OFFICE OF**  **THE Al-I-ORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

Xonorable A. E. Hfokereon County **Auditor** Montgomery county Conroe, Tar88



# /- l i’

Your letter of 

## hUgU8t l’a,i343, request- the opinion of this iS 88 fOllOWSt c&e~+m stated therein
**paared OVBI?** **one of**  our light bridges\.)?aa’ou) 9in.g dlstrtot, broke thrwigh~,the

brUge muI ia~~arklngthe County to r&mburae for day68 $QI’A~ to hi8 truok. ..-. ) / ‘. ?iould~~Ont~o&& County be re8pOIl8iblOfor jd&ge8 oC,thix kind, end could thir party bring S.+t\+tlC8S~W%'fUSe pam'd'llt Of thl8 Ol~%fn.~ \ 'x / ~,,, OpinS6& 100.O-2779 OS thi8 

### departmentheld th.at Liberty Coupty, vaa not liable for 8 truok wreak under the facts relatAd.~/Ve enclose herewith 8 oopg OS **eaid** opinion for your infom8tlon.

.

Opinion No. O-4754 of thi8 department held that Hill County ~‘8s

## not liable fOP damage to an 8UtolnObileor oompenaation for injuries to the **parties** therein under the f8Ct8 related. We a180 SllOlO808 COPY Of that OpiXliOlh

-- -- -._

__ _ _--. .,-;lonorablo A. Er HIoker8on, 

### Page 2

We quote frcu **Texar** Jurirprudenoo, Vol. XI, **pago** 6fl 88 fO11OW8I

**‘ It**  **ha8 ltXl$bt3Mlth@**  hYin2OX88 **thllttl** County 18 not llablo in damage8 fOP **injUrio8** 8U8taiXledfmZI

OOZl8eqU~Oe Of 

### tQl'tiOU8Or, X48&11- 

## g.nt sot8 Of 

## it888Ollt8 Or-@@OJOe8, tie88 lbblllty theaWon **be oreated**  by etatute,

expre88 tema 

### or by neoo88ay impll

## or ooume, the 

### oounty,.l8 not lable for thi aOt8 Of it8 OrriOeFI VhOn 8UOh aOt8 ’ an not perfomed la oonneotlon vlth their

, offioiel dutle8.' (Also 8ee the authoritier 8U8tatiing thispropo8itiOn **cited** 

### onpage 628, ~0x88 Jurisprudenoe, Vol. XI)

fn VieV Of the fOlvgOing WlthOI'itie8it 18 th. opinion of thl8 department that Wontg*ery County t not liable 

### for the dfm8ger done to the truok in Question. With referenos to thatport&on 

### or y0u2

### question esking 

### In erreot vhether or not theparty ovniIqjthe teak oould bring 8Uit In the event the OOUDty rOf'U8ed payment Or the o1ai.m you 8I?0resDeotiallY advired that it is OUF OpiniOIlthat V8 **or** authority whioh vould Drohibit the knOV Of-n0 8tdilt88 party from brlaglag oEtya;;uld not be

. the suit, hkev8P, a8 abok 8t8ted the

llsbl8 for 8UOh daUIage8OOOuFr~ to

AU:if Ellol.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-422]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5664]


International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) Meeting Notice; 
Closed Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app 2 section 10(a)(2), the Department of State 
announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board, 
formerly the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board (ACNAB), 
to take place on February 5, 2007, at the Department of State, 
Washington, DC.
    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. app 2 Sec.  10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been 
determined that this Board meeting will be closed to the public in the 
interest of national defense and foreign policy because the Board will 
be reviewing and discussing matters classified in accordance with 
Executive Order 12958.
    The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with a 
continuing source of independent advice on all aspects of arms control, 
disarmament and international security, and related aspects of public 
diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting includes classified discussions 
related to the Board's ongoing studies on current U.S. policy and 
issues regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism and Space Policy 
as well as discussions regarding international nuclear proliferation 
and related aspects of public diplomacy.
    For more information, contact Matthew Zartman, Deputy Executive 
Director of the International Security Advisory Board, Department of 
State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 736-4244.

    Dated: January 5, 2007.
George W. Look,
Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. E7-422 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-27-P
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of PrimeEnergy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Beverly A. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Corporation.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Beverly A. Cummings
|Chief Financial Officer
|April 15, 2010
No. 52983.

#### Standard Wine & Liquor Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 121126-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
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

ROBERT ALLAN PETERSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2226 LKK GGH P

vs.

A. TEDFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On August 23, 2005, plaintiff filed a letter with the court stating that jail officials

continue to forward money to the court from his trust account even though the filing fee has been

paid. Court records indicate that as of August 26, 2005, plaintiff had paid $133 toward the $150

filing fee. Because plaintiff still owes $13 toward the filing fee, his request for an order directing

jail officials to stop withdrawing money from his trust account is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 23, 2005, request

for an order directing jail officials to stop withdrawing money from his trust account is denied.

DATED: 10/4/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

pet2226.if UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02226-LKK -GGH Document 30 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 61844.

#### Catherine J. Alonge et al. *v.*United States,

protests 286952-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of condimento similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Paolo Alonge, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 351, C. D. 1886), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremy Demond GOOLSBY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4910.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2001.

Decided June 18, 2001.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, NC, for appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for appellee.

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Jeremy Demond Goolsby appeals the seventy-eight month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to distribution of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (West 1999). Goolsby’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although Goolsby was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, he has not done so. His attorney raises only one issue.

Goolsby contends the district court erred in determining the amount of drugs upon which Goolsby’s sentence was based. This Court reviews for clear error the district court’s factual finding concerning the amount of drugs attributable to a defendant for sentencing purposes. *See United States v. Randall,*171 F.3d 195, 210 (4th Cir.1999). Because Goolsby en*149tered into a stipulation regarding the amount of drugs attributable to him, which the district court found to have a reasonable factual basis, we find the district court did not clearly err. *See United States v. Williams,*29 F.3d 172, 174 (4th Cir.1994); *United States v. Gilliam,*987 F.2d 1009, 1013 (4th Cir.1993).

Pursuant to *Anders,*this court has reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw at this time. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Luna Innovations Incorporated (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, My E. Chung, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

This certification accompanies
this Report to which it relates, shall not be deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ MY E. CHUNG                                                    
|My E. Chung                                                        
|President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)

May 16, 2011
No. 57717.

#### The Emporium Capwell Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 153427-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currency involved in the liquidation of the entries for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currency of the invoices covered by certain enumerated entries should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4051 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

LUIS ANGEL BOTELLO, a.k.a. Juan

Rodriguez-Jimenez,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Nos. 11-30222

11-30224

D.C. Nos. 2:10-cr-00156-LRS

2:10-cr-00160-LRS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Luis Angel Botello appeals from the 

63-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien

in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and from the

FILED

FEB 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-30222

six-month concurrent sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

Botello contends his sentences are substantively unreasonable. The withinGuidelines sentences are substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the

circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and

3583(e). See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en

banc).

AFFIRMED.
Before the Third Division,

April 21, 1955

No. 58996.

protest 198659-K (New York).

#### Dorf International, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that customs Form 3343, executed by Mrs. Susie Latreille, the actual importer, was filed with and at the time of entry of the merchandise, in compliance with customs regulations, and that claim was made for free entry under paragraph 1811; that a bond was given with the entry to produce the foreign vendor’s declaration, but since the bond period expired without the production of such document, the entry was liquidated, and duty was assessed on the articles; and that, subsequent to the liquidation, an affidavit of the owner was submitted and accepted by the collector, in lieu of the vendor’s declaration. From notations of the appraiser on the official papers it appeared that the articles were described by him as artistic antiquities produced prior to 1830. In a memorandum of the collector, dated March 11, 1954, it was stated that the protest would have been allowed by him had the affidavit of the owner been available within the 90-day review period provided for in section 515. The affidavit of Mrs. Latreille stated that the following articles were purchased by her in 1949 from John Bell, an antique dealer in Scotland, and that from the information given by him and her personal knowledge of antiques, it was her opinion and belief that they were made prior to the year 1830:

> 1 Davenport Crocus Pot

> 1 Sevres Box

> 1 Silhouette

> 1 Brass Door Knocker

> 1 Coleport Dressing Table Set'

> 1 Chinese Lowestoft Mug

> 1 Tea Chest containing one globe and one cut glass vase

> 1 Pair Decanters

> 2 Chinese Lowestoft Mugs

> 2 Silhouettes

> 1 Quilt

> 1 Pair Derby Spill Vases

> 1 Floor Derby Tea Set

On the record presented, the above-described articles were held entitled to free entry, as claimed.
(Reap. Dec. 8677)

Entry Nos. W-12695; W-10149.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided October 10, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, 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 by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated above at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised value less the additions made to meet the advances by the Appraiser in similar cases covering non-dutiable E. O. B. charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the 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 here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the additions made to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases covering nondutiable f. o. b. charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling, and lighterage.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 53555.

protests 3892-K, etc. (New York).

#### Anco Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

*167Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE> EX-21.1-1
                                  EXHIBIT 21.1


                                SUBSIDIARIES OF
                            GREAT DANE HOLDINGS INC.


                                                          Jurisdiction
                                                               of
Company Name <F1>                                         Incorporation
-----------------                                         -------------

Checker Motors Corporation                                  Delaware
   Yellow Cab Company                                       Delaware
   Chicago AutoWerks Inc.                                   Delaware
   CMC Kalamazoo Inc.                                       Delaware
   South Charleston Stamping & Manufacturing Company      West Virginia
   American Country Insurance Company                       Illinois
      American Country Financial Services Corp.             Illinois
   Parmelee Transportation Company                          Illinois
      City Wide Towing, Inc.                                Illinois

Great Dane Trailers, Inc.                                    Georgia
   Great Dane Trailers Tennessee, Inc.                      Tennessee
   Great Dane Los Angeles, Inc.                              Georgia

---------------
[FN]
<F1>  Other than SCSM which is 10% owned by Executive Life Insurance Company,
      the voting securities of each company whose name is indented are owned
      by the company set forth immediately above whose name is not indented.
<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0                  22,794
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  40,256
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                 125,754 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                 191,957
<PP&E>                                               0                  42,721
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                  29,325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                 258,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                  42,751
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                   7,020
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                 206,115
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                 258,720
<SALES>                                        151,776                 151,776
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,871                 133,871
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   224                     224
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  50                      50
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,580                  18,580
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,696                   7,696
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,884                  10,884
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16                     .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15                     .15
        

</TABLE>