alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM E. KAUFMAN, Specialist Five, U. S. Army, Appellant

15 USCMA 17, 34 CMR 463

No. 17,741

August 21, 1964

*Colonel Joseph L. Chalk, Captain Charles W. Schiesser,*and *Captain J. Philip Johnson*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Bruce C. Babbitt*and *First Lieutenant Joseph H. Crosby*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, the accused was convicted of a mail offense, forgery, and absence without leave, in violation, respectively, of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 134, 123, and 86, 10 USC §§ 934, 923, 886. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for five years. As a result of the pretrial arrangement for the entry of accused’s guilty pleas, the convening authority reduced the period of confinement involved to one year, but otherwise approved the sentence. The board of review affirmed, and we granted accused’s petition for review upon the issue of the propriety of the law officer’s instructions on the sentence.

The advice, although delivered by a different law officer, is similar to that condemned by us in United States v Ellis, 15 USCMA 8, 34 CMR 454, this day decided. As the circumstances of the case indicate the existence of a fair risk of prejudice to the accused, it follows that the sentence must be set aside.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing on the sentence may be ordered.
*An official caption containing a complete list of parties is

on file and available for inspection in the Office of the Clerk of

the Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

_____________

No. 95-3613WA

No. 95-3979WA

_____________

Robert A. Miller, et al., *

*

Appellees, * Appeals from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Tony Alamo, et al., * [UNPUBLISHED] *

*

Appellants. *

_____________

Submitted: July 5, 1996

 Filed: November 6, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Tony Alamo appeals the district court's orders denying Alamo's

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion attacking as void a civil

judgment against him, see Miller v. Tony and Susan Alamo Found., 748 F.

Supp. 695 (W.D. Ark. 1990), and granting the plaintiffs' fourth petition

for attorney's fees and costs. Having carefully reviewed the record and

the parties' briefs, we conclude no error of law appears, and an extended

discussion is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
August 11, 1944

No. 49671.

Suit 4447.

#### *United States*v. *Wheeler & Miller.*

C. D. 749 affirmed. C. A. D. 280.
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

JOSEPH ABDULLAH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1736 KJM

vs.

EMERALD PLACE APARTMENTS,

et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

A status conference was held in this matter on October 5, 2005 before the

undersigned. Reuben Nathan appeared telephonically for plaintiff. Ronald Peck appeared

telephonically for defendant. Upon consideration of the joint status report on file in this action,

discussion of counsel and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT ORDERS AS

FOLLOWS:

1. Initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) shall be

made within thirty days from the date of this order.

2. Discovery, including the hearing of discovery motions, shall be completed by

April 26, 2006. Discovery motions, if needed, shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 37-

251.

Case 2:04-cv-01736-KJM Document 20 Filed 10/18/05 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. Dispositive motions, other than discovery motions, shall be noticed to be

heard by June 28, 2006.

4. The pretrial conference is set for September 6, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. before the

undersigned. Pretrial statements shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 16-281.

5. Trial of this matter is set for November 6, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. before the

undersigned. The parties shall file trial briefs in accordance with Local Rule 16-285.

6. Defense counsel Peck shall register with the Court’s electronic filing system,

CM/ECF, within fourteen days from the date of this order.

7. The parties are reminded that all documents filed with the court must bear the

case no. CIV S-04-1736 KJM.

DATED: October 17, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

006

abdullah.oas

Case 2:04-cv-01736-KJM Document 20 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3876]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) will submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).
    Title: Defense Priorities and Allocation System.
    Agency Form Number: None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0694-0053.
    Type of Request: Renewal of an existing collection of information.
    Burden: 14,477 hours.
    Average Time per Response: 1 to 31.5 minutes.
    Number of Respondents: 700,000 respondents.
    Needs and Uses: The record keeping requirement is necessary for 
administration and enforcement of delegated authority under the Defense 
Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061, et seq.) and 
the Selective Service Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App. 468). Any person who 
receives a priority rated order under the implementing DPAS regulation 
(15 CFR part 700) must retain records for at least 3 years.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households, business or other for-
profit organizations.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, e-mail address, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#266247504f4279744955524d435466494b440843495608414950"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f5b194839c91aaa79a86819e9087b59a9897db909a85db929a83">[email protected]</span></a>, or fax number, (202) 395-7285.

    Dated: March 1, 2007.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-3876 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 The X-Change  Corporation,  Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the year ending  December 31, 2005, as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, 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, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

(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 Company.


/S/ Scott Thompson
Scott Thompson
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


April 19, 2006

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
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.
The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying the Company's Form 10-KSB soley
pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section  1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United  States  Code) and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.
No. 52027.

#### Eximport of America Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 95910-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) 2)4 percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269; and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*As to the cheese similar to that passed upon in *Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp.*v. *United States*(T. D. 47955), it was held that an allowance for the weight of the paper or foil, or both, should have been made by the collector from the net weight used in computing the duty thereon. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 52022.

#### Jay-Willfred Co., Inc., et al. v. United States,

protests 976175-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
The Honorable Robert Allan Edgar, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of *

Tennessee, sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 07a0208n.06

Filed: March 21, 2007

No. 06-3770

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

NANCY FIGUEROA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: COOK and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and EDGAR, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. Nancy Figueroa appeals the district court’s judgment against her on her

claims of discrimination, retaliation, and violations of the Family Medical Leave Act, the Federal

Employee Compensation Act, and the Federal Tort Claims Act. Having reviewed the record, the

applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we determine that no jurisprudential purpose would be served

by a panel opinion and affirm the district court's decision for the reasons stated in that court’s

opinion.
No. 60067.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L. A. *v.*United States,

protest 265228-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
Before Judge Watson,

January 30, 1968

No. R68/12.

reappraisement R63/9022 (St. Albans).

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

In 'accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *F. W. Myers & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 550, Reap. Dec. 10750), the court found and held that constructed value, as that value is defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question and that such value was equal to the entered value herein.
No. 41779.

#### Protests 589860-G, etc., of C. S. Emery & Co. (St. Albans).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

It was stipulated that the clapboards in question are similar to those the subject of *Emery*v. *United States*(T. D. 46702) and the protests were accordingly sustained.
# C_2006321EN.01000101.xml

| 29.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/1

---

Notice concerning the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Member States of the European Union)

and the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania,

concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union.

(2006/C 321/01)

Further to the deposit of all instruments of ratification and pursuant to Article 4(2) thereof, the Treaty of Accession, signed in Luxembourg on 25 April 2005 (1), will enter into force on 1 January 2007.

1

---

(1)  OJ L 157, 21.6.2005, p. 11

1

---
No. 58947.

protest 238433-K (New York).

#### Paul K. Frankford, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the papers disclosing nothing to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector, the protest was overruled.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

I, Mark D. Erion, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Scientific Officer of Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to my knowledge:

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009 (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 for the period covered by the Report.



|                   |  |     |  |                                                                                      
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Mark D. Erion                                                                    
|                   |  |     |  | Mark D. Erion, Ph.D., President, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Scientific Officer

I, Tran B. Nguyen, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Corporate Secretary
(Principal Financial Officer) of Metabasis Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to my knowledge:

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (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 for the period covered by the Report.



|                   |  |     |  |                                                                                                                                
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Tran B. Nguyen                                                                                                             
|                   |  |     |  | Tran B. Nguyen, M.B.A. Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Corporate Secretary (Principal Financial Officer)
(V. D. 22)

#### Paramount Import & Export Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 787879.

(Decided February 8, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Edward N. Clad*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This is a proceeding which arose by reason of a judgment rendered by the first division of this court in the case of *Paramount Import & Export Co. et al.*v. *United States,*33 Cust. Ct. 409, Abstract 58473. By that judgment, under the terms of the statute (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)), the matters were remanded to a single judge to "determine the proper dutiable value of the merchandise.” The proceeding before me, insofar as protest 211069-K is concerned, has been abandoned by counsel for the plaintiff. It is therefore dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES -0XLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Diversified Thermal Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, B. Grant Hunter, Chief Executive 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; and

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

March 27, 2004                      /s/ B. Grant Hunter
                                    --------------------------------------
                                    B. Grant Hunter
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.

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 on Form 10-Q of Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P. (the
Partnership) for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer of Magellan Midstream Holdings GP,
LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 Partnership.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Don R. Wellendorf                     
|Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer
|Date: May 6, 2009                         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership
and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Advanced Accessory Systems, LLC (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terence C. Seikel,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:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   /s/ Terence C. Seikel     |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Terence C. Seikel                     |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| November 12, 2003                     |   |

 

1

----
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-11-0000413

10-JAN-2014

03:15 PM
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

TUVALU TUTNILA F.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1724 DFL KJM P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion for permission to

appeal Magistrate Judge’s December 23, 2004 denial of his request for appointment of counsel

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 5 and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and (e). The court has denied

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order.

The court construes plaintiff’s motion as a request to certify the court’s denial of

reconsideration for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Under § 1292(b), a court

should certify its decision for appeal when that decision involves (1) “a controlling question of

law” in which (2) “there is substantial ground for difference of opinion” where (3) “an

immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the

litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 

The court finds the decision to deny appointment of counsel does not raise a

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM Document 33 Filed 09/13/05 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

substantial ground for difference of opinion.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for permission to

appeal the denial of his request for appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/9/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

/

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM Document 33 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 2