alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10406)

Entry No. 21589, etc.

#### Hurricane Import Co. *v.*United States

(Decided December 19, 1962)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

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

Rao, Judge:

The instant appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> 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 JTC, by Examiner John T. Clifford on the invoices covered by the above-entitled appeals.

> 2. That as so limited, the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Gitkin Co.,*A.R.D. 132, and that the record in the cited ease may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 3. That as so limited, the prices at the time of exportation at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for exportation to the United States to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, such prices including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the appraised values less the proportionate part of the items on the invoices marked “B” in green ink by the Examiner; and that at the said time of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered or sold for home consumption in the country of exportation.

> 4. That the involved merchandise was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption after February 27, 1958, and is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521).

> *4955. That the appeals enumerated in the attached Schedule “A” may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts and the cited authority, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise, covered by this appeal for reappraisement and identified by the items marked “A” and initialed JTC by Examiner John T. Clifford on the invoices covered by said appeal, and that such values were the appraised values, less the proportionate part of the items on the invoices marked “B” in green ink by said examiner.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Order filed, September 17, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00218-CR

____________

DANIEL MICAH VERMILYEA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1335846

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due August 5, 2013. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

Volume 4 of the record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s 

record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Marcia Barnett, the court reporter, to file Volume 4 of the record 

in this appeal within 20 days of the date of this order. 
PER CURIAM
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

----oo0oo----

GARRY SEABROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BFI BROWNING FERRIS INDUSTRIES,

et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

CIV. S-04-1538-FCD-PAN-PS

ORDER

----oo0oo----

This matter was referred to the Honorable Peter A. Nowinski,

United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636, et

seq., and E.D. Local Rule 72-302. On May 17, 2005, Judge

Nowinski recommended that plaintiff’s action be dismissed and

ordered he pay sanctions in the amount of $3,612.00. On May 25,

2005, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and

recommendations. By order dated June 28, 2005, the court adopted

the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01538-FCD-PAN Document 25 Filed 07/22/05 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

2

now moves for reconsideration of the court’s June 28, 2005 order. 

Absent “highly unusual circumstances,” reconsideration of a

final judgment is appropriate only where (1) the court is

presented with newly-discovered evidence, (2) the court committed

“clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,” or

(3) there is an intervening change in the controlling law. 

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, 5 F.3d at 1263. In order

for evidence to be considered "new" for the purposes of Rule

60(b), it must be of such a character that it would change the

outcome of the court’s prior decision. See Fernhoff v. Tahoe

Regional Planning Agency, 622 F.Supp. 121, 122 (D. Nev. 1985).

To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party

must show: (1) the availability of new evidence; (2) a clear

error of law resulting in manifest injustice; or (3) an

intervening change in the controlling law. See School District

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

In the absence of new evidence or a change in the law, a

party may not use a motion for reconsideration to present new

arguments or claims not raised in the summary judgment motion. 

See 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th

Cir. 1999). Similarly, a court does not err in declining to

reconsider claims never pleaded in the complaint. See id.

Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating (1) the

availability of new evidence; (2) a clear error of law resulting

in manifest injustice; or (3) an intervening change in the

Case 2:04-cv-01538-FCD-PAN Document 25 Filed 07/22/05 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

3

controlling law. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff is admonished that the

court will look with disfavor on the filing of redundant motions

that do not satisfy Rule 60's requirements. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 21, 2005.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 Frank C. Damrell, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01538-FCD-PAN Document 25 Filed 07/22/05 Page 3 of 3
No. 55939.

protests 134763-K, etc. (Pittsburgh).

#### J. S. Finch & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 58053.

protests 175001-K, etc. (New York).

#### Acrow, Incorporated *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of building shores the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract 57727, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Attachment A

Example PFD Showing numbers and illustrative locations of PRDs, OEVLs, and SCPs

: CVS starts where all waste gas streams are manifolded together : VCM gas stream to/from VCM Recovery System

: PVC MACT “Process Vent” Purple outline blocks are presumed to not be in HAP service Numbers of P = PRDs, O = OEVLs, and S

– SCPs shown in small red font SD1 VC Storage Storage Vessel Vent 10 - P , 5 0 - O , 1 0 - S

Unloading Misc Vent Holding Tank Batch PV 1 0 - P , 1 00 - O, 10 - S

Weighing Tank Batch PV 2 - P, 5 0 - O, 5 - S Polymerization Reactor Batch PV 20 - P, 200

- O, 20 - S

Polymer Stripping Vessel Batch or Continuous PV 1 0 - P, 200

- O, 20 - S Knock

- out Pot Continuou s PV 5 - P, 2 0 - O, 5 - S VC Recovery System Continuous PV 1 0 - P, 1 00

- O, 1 0 - S

Blend Tanks 5 - P, 1 00 - O, 20 - S

Drying Cyclone & or Screening PVC Storage & Shipping Process Steps SD1. VC Unloading and Storage SD2. Mixing, Weighing and Holding SD3. Polym erization Reaction SD4. Resin Stripping SD5. Recovery System SD6. Blending SD7. Drying SD8. PVC Storage SD9. “In Process” Wastewater Stripping SD10. Control Device System (e.g. Incinerator) To Wastewater Stripper

Centrifuge Control Device

Caustic

Nat. Gas Water

“In Process” wastewater 1) H2O from Double Mechanical Seals on all Pumps, Compressors and Agitators 2) H2O from Reactor Evacuating Prior to Opening 3) Knock

- Out Pots Wastewater Stripper “In Process” Wastewater

To

Wastewater Treatment To Incine rator/ Scrubber and/or Recovery Continuous PV

Steam 5 - P, 5 0 - O, 5 - S SD6 SD3

SD2 SD5

SD7

- 5 - P, 5 0 - O, 5 - S SD10 SD4

SD9

SD8 Waste Gas Stream from all PVC production equipment PVC MACT P rocess V

ent 1 - P, 20 - O, 2 - S “ Closed Vent System

Proce ss Vent “Table 1” Limits

5 - P, 1 00 - O, 5 - S
Opinion issued May 7, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00133-CV

———————————

JOSEPH NANCE, Appellant

V.

ATIKA ABDURRAHIM, Appellee

On Appeal from the 246th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2015-11750

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Joseph Nance has neither paid the required fees nor established 

indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; see also TEX.

GOV’T CODE §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041; Order, Fees Charged in the 

Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial 
2

Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). 

After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not 

adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c).

We therefore dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees. TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.
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

EDGAR M. COLLINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2243 LKK KJM P

vs.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, et al.,

Defendants FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On June 2, 2005, an order issued by the court was served upon plaintiff’s address

of record. The order was returned to the court by the U. S. Postal Service as undeliverable on

June 9, 2005. Under Local Rule 83-183, plaintiff must keep the court apprised of his current

address. Because mail directed to plaintiff was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as

undeliverable, and plaintiff failed to notify the court within sixty days thereafter of his current

address, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See id.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

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

Case 2:04-cv-02243-LKK -KJM Document 8 Filed 10/21/05 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

2

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 20, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1kf

coll2243.33a(1)

Case 2:04-cv-02243-LKK -KJM Document 8 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4730 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4730

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the energy credit 
                 with respect to electrochromic glass.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2024

Mr. Markey (for himself and Mr. Wicker) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the energy credit 
                 with respect to electrochromic glass.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Dynamic Glass 2.0 Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ENERGY CREDIT FOR ELECTROCHROMIC GLASS.

    (a) In General.--Section 48(a)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended--
            (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``, or electrochromic glass 
        which uses electricity to change its light transmittance 
        properties in order to heat or cool a structure'',
            (2) in clause (x), by striking ``or'',
            (3) in clause (xi), by inserting ``or'' after the comma at 
        the end, and
            (4) by adding at the end the following new clause:
                            ``(xii) electrochromic glass which uses 
                        electricity to change its light transmittance 
                        properties in order to heat or cool a 
                        structure, but only with respect to property 
                        the construction of which begins before January 
                        1, 2033,''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 48(a)(2)(A)(i)(III) of such Code 
is amended by striking ``paragraph (3)(A)(ii)'' and inserting ``clause 
(ii) or (xii) of paragraph (3)(A)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to property placed in service after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 51721.

#### Protest 118661-K of Siegfried Loewenthal Co. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cline, 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 barrels numbered 5, 14, 28, 37, 90, 98, 99, 103, 109, 133, 151, 153, 155, 161, 165, and 171, 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. 42899.

#### Protest 178345-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

*349Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that certain items consist of Normandy laces similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). As to these the claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was sustained. Artificial flowers like those the subject of *Robinson-Goodman*v. *United States*(17 C. C. P. A. 149, T. D. 43473) were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 1419.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-730 

________________________________________________________________________ 

FINANCE 

Debt-For-Nature Swap 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and PANAMA 

Signed at Panama City July 10, 2003 

 with 

Attachments 
 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.” 
PANAMA 

Finance: Debt-For-Nature Swap 

 Agreement signed at Panama City July 10, 2003; 

 Entered into force July 30, 2003. 

 With attachments.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DENNIS R. PARKS, Fireman Apprentice, U. S. Navy, Appellant

17 USCMA 87, 37 CMR 351

No. 20,102

June 9, 1967

*Major L. G. Bohlen,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Thomas P. Casey,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The accused stands convicted of a five-minute unauthorized absence and striking a petty officer who was in the execution of his office, in violation of Articles 86 and 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 886 and 891, respectively. A divided board of review affirmed the conviction. We granted review to consider the accused’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings of guilty.

A number of trial and post-trial errors are apparent on examination of the record. Among the former is a *88ruling, over defense objection, allowing a prosecution rebuttal witness to testify to his personal opinion as to “whether or not *he’s*[the accused] *telling the truth.”*(Emphasis supplied.) See Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, paragraph 138f; cf. United States v Jefferies, 12 USCMA 259, 30 CMR 259. Included in the latter, is a statement in the post-trial advice that as to the assault charge the accused’s “plea of guilty ... established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”; in fact, the accused pleaded not guilty. See United States v James, 1 USCMA 379, 3 CMR 113. After pondering all that happened below, we are convinced that the findings of guilty and the sentence should not stand. United States v Yerger, 1 USCMA 288, 290, 3 CMR 22.

In his action on the sentence, the convening authority provided for re-misssion of the bad-conduct discharge at the end of a probationary period. The period has expired, as has the executed portion of the confinement imposed by the court-martial. Under the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by a rehearing of the cause. See United States v Sheeks, 16 USCMA 430, 37 CMR 50. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is reversed, and the charges are ordered dismissed.
No. 60870.

#### W. A. Taylor & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 294179-K (San Francisco).

*542Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cardboard boxes, which are the usual containers or coverings of the specific duty-paying cognac, imported therein, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
|                                | Exhibit      21.1 |                       |
|-------------------------------------|-------------------|----------------------------|
|                                |              |                       |
|                                |              |                       |
|                                |              | State      or Jurisdiction |
| Name      of Subsidiary             |              | of      Incorporation      |
| Nexus      Custom Electronics, Inc. |              | Delaware                   |
| Interface      Electronics Corp.    |              | Massachusetts              |
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

ARNOLD WILLIAM LEVI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2423 DFL KJM P

vs.

TERRY ROSARIO, 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 June 20, 2006, 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. Plaintiff has not 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: 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02423-DFL -KJM Document 15 Filed 08/28/06 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 20, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: 8/25/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02423-DFL -KJM Document 15 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2
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 General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
      "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
      to
      the best of his knowledge:





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





ii.
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will
      be
      retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or its
      staff
      upon request.


Date:
                August 20, 2007
              By:
              /s/
                John
                ChenJohn
                        ChenTitle:
                        Director and Chief Financial
                        Officer
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

did not file an opposition.

On February 13, 2006, Crew Transport requested dismissal of its request for sanctions

pursuant to its pending settlement agreement with plaintiff. See Request for Dismissal, filed

February 13, 2006.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) defendant Crew Transport Inc.’s request for sanctions, filed November 7, 2005

and supplemented December 9, 2005, is DISMISSED; and

(2) defendant Renzenberger Inc.’s request for sanctions, filed November 7, 2005 and

supplemented December 9, 2005, is GRANTED; plaintiff’s counsel SHALL PAY defendant

Renzenberger, Inc. $625.50 within twenty (20) days from the service of this order.

DATED: March 9, 2006.

006.stoc1999.ord

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 71 Filed 03/10/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 61369.

protest 295698-K (New York).

#### Lep Transport, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

Prom a review of the record in this case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.