alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 52614.

protests 57069-K, etc. (New York).

#### Stair & Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*220Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.s
Before the Third Division,

June 14, 1962

No. 66863.

#### Tex Mex Brick *&*Import Co. *v.*United States,

protests 60/10765, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of face brick similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Bunker Hill Brick & Supply, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 95, C.D. 2240), 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

 The California Department of Corrections is now known as the California Department 1

of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONON ALSTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2374 DFL JFM P

vs.

M. SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants are violating his rights under the Religious

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by enforcing against him grooming

regulations promulgated and implemented by the California Department of Corrections (CDC)

1

in 1997. On July 29, 2005, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On the same day,

the Court of Appeals decided Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9 Cir. 2005) in which it th

held that the CDC had failed to meet its burden under RLUIPA of showing that the grooming

regulations were the “least restrictive alternative” for achieving the compelling state interest 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02374-DFL -JFM Document 30 Filed 12/21/05 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 Warsoldier involved an appeal from the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction. 2

2

advanced in defense of the regulations, and, therefore, that the plaintiff in Warsoldier had shown

a likelihood of success on the merits of his RLUIPA claim. See Warsoldier, at 998-1002. 

2

Good cause appearing, defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be denied

without prejudice to its renewal, as appropriate, in light of the decision in Warsoldier. The

parties will be given one additional period of forty-five days in which to file dispositive motions. 

No extensions of time will be granted, and this matter will be reset for pretrial conference and

trial at the end of the thirty day period set in this order if no dispositive motion is filed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ July 29, 2005 motion for summary judgment is denied without

prejudice; and 

2. The parties are granted one period of forty-five days in which to file dispositive

motions. No extensions of this time limit will be granted. 

DATED: December 20, 2005.

12

alst2374.msj1

Case 2:04-cv-02374-DFL -JFM Document 30 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 2
[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:**NASAaerospace flight battery program: recommendations for technicalrequirements for inclusion in aerospace battery procurements
pt 1|pt 2|
 
SuDoc Number:NAS 1.15:2010-216728/V.1-2

Item Number: 0830-D (online)

CGP systemNumber:000753160 
November 2, 2018
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Activate/Deactivate a User

To activate/deactivate a user, complete the following steps:

1. From the Administration tab, select User Administration>Manage Users. The Step 1 of 

2: Select a User page appears.

2. Select the user profile radio button that you want to activate/deactivate. 

You can only activate/deactivate one user profile at a time.

3. Select Activate/Deactivate as shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Step 1 of 2: Select a User (Activate/Deactivate a User)

4. The Step 2 of 2: Review User Profile for Activation/Deactivation page appears.

5. Verify the user profile should be activated/deactivated. Select Submit. A Confirmation page 

appears presenting the user profile that is activated/deactivated.

• Select Return to View User Profile List to return to the View User Profile List for 

that terminal.

• Select Return Home to the OTCnet Home Page.

Application Tip

Additional Buttons
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 

FURTHER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DATES IN STATUS ORDER 847753v2 35206/0001

MICHAEL T. FOGARTY, ESQ. (65809) 

LAURA J. FOWLER, ESQ. (186097) 

McDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN PC 

Attorneys at Law 

555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916.444.3900 

Fax: 916.444.3249 

Attorneys for Defendants Zinaz, Inc. 

and John G. Breeding 

DANIEL STEINBERG, ESQ. 

TRAINER – ROBERTSON 

701 University Ave., Suite 200 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

Phone: 916.929.7000 

Fax: 916.929.7111 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Kobra Properties 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KOBRA PROPERTIES, a California general 

partnership, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ZINAZ, INC.; JOHN G. BREEDING; and 

DOES 1 - 50, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. CIV S-04-2544 DFL GGH 

FURTHER STIPULATION TO 

CONTINUE DATES IN STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER 

On February 9, 2005, the Court issued a Status (Pre-Trial Scheduling) Order ("Status Order") 

in this action. The parties, by and through their counsel of record, request that the Court continue all 

deadlines established in this Status Order as outlined below. All parties agree to the proposed 

continuance. 

Expert disclosure: September 9, 2005; 

Supplemental: September 23, 2005; 

Discovery cutoff: November 11, 2005; 

Dispositive motion filing: December 21, 2005; 

Case 2:04-cv-02544-DFL-GGH Document 24 Filed 08/11/05 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 

FURTHER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DATES IN STATUS ORDER 847753v2 35206/0001

Dispositive motion hearing: January 18, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.; 

Joint pretrial statement due: February 22, 2006; 

Final pretrial conference: March 1, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.; 

Trial: April 3, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: August 10, 2005 

McDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN PC 

Attorneys at Law 

By: ___________/s/ Laura J. Fowler____________ 

LAURA J. FOWLER 

Attorneys for Defendant Zinaz, Inc. and 

John G. Breeding 

DATED: August 10, 2005 

TRAINOR ROBERTSON 

Attorneys at Law 

By: _______/s/ Daniel Steinberg_______________ 

DANIEL STEINBERG 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Kobra Properties 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 10, 2005 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

For HON. DAVID F. LEVI 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-02544-DFL-GGH Document 24 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 63114.

#### H. P. Lambert Co., Inc., of La. *v.*United States,

protests 307878-K/14795, 307883-K/14554, and 58/21050-14788 (New Orleans).

*401Opinion by

Rao, J.

An examination of tbe official records disclosing no evidence to disturb tbe presumptively correct classification made by tbe collector, tbe protests were overruled.
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

 If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of any defendant, then

plaintiff must serve documents on that attorney and not on the defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5(b).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN WASHINGTON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2291 FCD KJM P

vs.

RICHARD W. SANDHAM, et al.,

Defendants. DISCOVERY ORDER

 /

Defendants J. Rohlfing, M.D., F. Winter and F. Bates have answered the

complaint. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1, 16, and 26-36, discovery shall

proceed as follows:

1. Discovery requests shall be served by the party seeking the discovery on all

parties to the action.1 Discovery requests shall not be filed with the court except when required

by Local Rules 30-250(a), 33-250(c), 34-250(c) and 36-250(c);

2. Responses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five days after the

request is served;

Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM Document 15 Filed 08/31/05 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

3. The parties are cautioned that filing of discovery requests or responses, except

as required by rule of court, may result in an order of sanctions, including, but not limited to, a

recommendation that the action be dismissed or the answer stricken;

4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a), defendants may depose

plaintiff and any other witness confined in a prison upon condition that, at least fourteen days

before such a deposition, defendants serve all parties with the notice required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

30(b)(1); and

5. If disputes arise about the parties’ obligations to respond to requests for

discovery, the parties shall comply with all pertinent rules including Rules 5, 7, 11, 26, and 37 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 5-134, 5-135, 6-136, 7-130, 7-131, 7-132, 11-

110, 43-140, and 78-230(m) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California; unless otherwise ordered, Local Rule 37-251 shall not apply. 

Filing of a discovery motion that does not comply with all applicable rules may result in

imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to denial of the motion.

DATED: August 30, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/kf

will2291.440

Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM Document 15 Filed 08/31/05 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUEBEN ROBERTS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2232 MCE PAN P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See

28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 16, 2006, the court directed petitioner to file and serve an opposition or

notice of non-opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner has responded with a

document styled, “Motion for Phone Conference to Respond to Opposition.”

In cases where the petitioner is a prisoner without counsel, motions are resolved

on the papers. Local Rule 78-230(m).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The March 16, 2006, order to show cause is vacated;

2. Petitioner’s April 21, 2006, motion is denied;

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02232-MCE -EFB Document 31 Filed 05/26/06 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

3. Petitioner has 20 days from the date of this order either to file an opposition to

respondent’s motion to dismiss or a notice of non-opposition. Failure to file an opposition may

result in a finding petitioner has waived opposition. See Local Rule 78-230(m). 

DATED: May 25, 2006.

\004

\robe2232.vac osc

Case 2:04-cv-02232-MCE -EFB Document 31 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 51724.

#### Protest 120083-K of Old Monastery Co. (Seattle).

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 certain barrels was lost in transit 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.
Exhibit
10.1.40









November 30, 2007




Steven
      Helmers, Esq.
            Christopher
      Reitz, Esq.Black
      Hills Corporation
            Aquila,
      Inc.625
      Ninth Street
            20
      West Ninth StreetRapid
      City, SD 57709
            Kansas
      City, MO 64105





Re:
            Partnership
      Interests Purchase Agreement and Asset Purchase Agreement (collectively,
      the "Agreements") by and among Aquila, Inc. ("Aquila"), Black Hills
      Corporation ("Black Hills"), Great Plains Energy Incorporated ("Great
      Plains") and Gregory Acquisition Corp.
  ("Gregory")




Dear
Steve and Chris:




Under the
terms of the Agreements, as modified by those certain letters dated as of June
29, 2007, August 31, 2007, and September 28, 2007, Black Hills, Aquila and Great
Plains are to attach schedules setting forth Retained Agreements and Shared
Agreements prior to November 30, 2007.  We recognize that this
deadline may be implausible and therefore propose extending the date set forth
under section 2.2(1) and 8.5(d) of the Agreements to January 31,
2008.





If you
are in agreement, please sign below on the attached signature page where
indicated and return a copy of this letter to me by fax or e-mail.





Very
      truly yours,
              
              Great
      Plains Energy IncorporatedBy:  /s/
      Mark G. English
              
              Name:
      Mark G. English
              Title:  General
      Counsel








ACKNOWLEDGED,
CONSENTED TO, AND ACCEPTED BY:





BLACK
HILLS CORPORATION








By:  /s/
Steven Helmers





Name:   Steven
J. Helmers


Title:     SVP
and General Counsel








AQUILA,
INC.








By:  /s/
Chris Reitz





Name:   Chris
Reitz


Title:     General
Counsel & Corp. Secretary








GREGORY
ACQUISITION CORP.








By:  /s/
Mark G. English





Name:  Mark
G. English


Title:    Secretary
and Treasurer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Principal Financial
and Accounting Officer of Acology, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Acology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Curtis Fairbrother, Principal Financial
and Accounting Officer of Acology, Inc., certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 24, 2017



/s/ Curtis Fairbrother

Curtis Fairbrother

Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00346-CR

JADEN WALKER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 462nd District Court

of Denton County (F21-2457-462)

August 8, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
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 Quarterly Report of Interline Brands, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William E. Sanford, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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, as amended; and

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


Date: May 6, 2004                   By: /s/ William E. Sanford
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        William E. Sanford
                                        Executive Vice President,
                                        Chief Financial Officer, and
                                             Secretary

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


                                      -32-
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the
undersigned officer of Document Capture Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s
knowledge and belief, that:




(1) The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Form
10-K”) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      March 31, 2010/s/M.
      Carolyn EllisM.
      Carolyn Ellis,Chief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Document Capture Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Document
Capture Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered January 30, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00394-CR

SEDRIC DEJUAN BRAXTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F21-99731-N

ORDER

We REINSTATE the appeal.

On December 20, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the State’s 

motion to abate the appeal to allow the trial court to examine the judgment and 

determine whether the trial court should file a new judgment using the correct 

judgment form. On January 25, 2023, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed 

containing a new judgment.
–2–

Because appellant filed his brief in reliance upon the original judgment, we 

will allow appellant the opportunity to file an amended or supplemental brief if he 

so desires. We ORDER that any amended or supplemental brief be filed by 

February 27, 2023. 

We ORDER the State’s brief filed by March 29, 2023. Because the State’s 

brief was due initially on September 25, 2022, and thus was long overdue at the 

time the State filed its motion for abatement, the Court may set the case for 

submission without a State’s brief if the State’s brief is not filed by March 29, 

2023. 

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
No. 54025.

#### American Glove Co. *v.*United States,

protest 948782-G/87728 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise, whether or not assessed with duty at 10 cents per pound under paragraph 924, consist of gloves the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 915, plus the additional duty under paragraph 924, whether or not that duty was originally assessed, 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 

Rueben Roberts,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2232 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

Tom L. Carey, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoPetitioner is a state prisoner, without counsel, seeking a

writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. December 10, 2004,

the court granted petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

June 13, 2005, petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. 

Petitioner’s June 13, 2005, motion is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: January 19, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02232-MCE -EFB Document 19 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 23

The Board of Directors
Kaneb Services, Inc.:

We  consent  to  incorporation  by  reference  in  registration  statement  nos.
333-60195,  333-14067, 333-08725, 333-08727, 333-14069, 333-14071, 333-22109 and
333-08723 on Forms S-8 of Kaneb Services,  Inc. of our report dated February 25,
1999,  relating to the  consolidated  balance sheet of Kaneb Services,  Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
income,  changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended,
and all  related  schedules,  which  report is included on page F-1 of this Form
10-K.

KPMG LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 25, 1999


<PAGE>


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-60195),  (No. 333-14067),  (No. 333-08725), (No.
333-08727),   (No.  333-14069),   (No.  333-14071),  (No.  333-22109)  and  (No.
333-08723)  of Kaneb  Services,  Inc.  of our report  dated  February  19,  1998
appearing on page F-2 of this Form 10-K.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 25, 1999