alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Third Division,

December 16, 1955

No. 59580.

protests 138212-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Moses Harvey Brotman et al. *v.*United States,

Johnson, Judge:

In this action, plaintiffs contend that the collector at the port of San Francisco failed to follow judgments rendered by this court, wherein duties upon alcoholic beverages lost in transit, as shown by the gaugers’ returns, verified by the importers’ affidavits, were ordered refunded. *Joseph Abrams Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 146, Abstract 51947; *Traders Distributing Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 147, Abstract 51949.

Counsel have submitted these cases on a stipulation reading as follows:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows concerning the merchandise referred to below:

> 1) The merchandise and the issues involved herein are similar in all respects to the facts and issues in Juillard Cockcroft Corp. v. US, Abstract 57670, and Baer v. US, Abstract 57671, wherein the court ordered the collector to re-reliquidate the entries in accordance with the mandate of the court in its original decision.

> 2) The records in said decided cases may be admitted in evidence herein and upon this stipulation these protests may be deemed to be submitted.

In view of this stipulation and on the authority of the decisions cited, judgment will be rendered for the plaintiffs, directing the collector to re-reliquidate the entries in accordance with the mandates of this court in its respective original decisions and to refund duties accordingly.

DISSENTING OPINION

Donlon, Judge:

I do not concur with my colleagues. This action is not properly before us. These plaintiffs are clearly aggrieved, but their remedy is not in the relief their protests seek.

They have protested reliquidations by the collector of certain entries, without his complying with the final judgments of this court, entered October 9, 1947. I find no authority in law for reliquidation by a collector after determination by this court on protest, save only a reliquidation in compliance with the mandate of the final judgment of this court. The reliquidations now before us are void and, therefore, not protestable on the merits.

*352When Congress created this court and conferred on it exclusive jurisdiction in the litigation of tariff matters, and relegated importers of such merchandise to the process of this court for redress against unlawful acts of collectors, it is not to be supposed that Congress intended to permit importers to be harassed, as these plaintiffs have been, by administrative defiance of final judgments, in this case entered 8 years ago.

The judgments of October 9, 1947, stand. They are final. They should be obeyed, and thus far they have not been obeyed. The collector should comply with them forthwith or stand in contempt of this court.
No. 51733.

#### Protest 120686-K of Siegfried Loewenthal Co. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Ekwall, 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 345, 392, 516, and 550, was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destinatior 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.
(Reap. Dec. 8178)

#### M. Furuya Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 7961; 82.

(Decided December 2, 1952)

*Philip Stein*for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to merchandise covered by the reappraisement appeals enumerated in the annexed Schedule A:

> 1. That this stipulation is limited to so much of said merchandise as is described in the invoices as clams in 5-ounce cans or tins or clams in 8-ounce cans *501or tins; said articles being appraised on the basis of the American selling price in accordance with the Presidential proclamation published in T. D. 47031.

> 2. That such merchandise is the same in all material respects as the imported clams involved in *United States*v. *Mutual Supply Co., et al.*and *Mutual Supply Co. et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 5950, 11 Cust. Ct. 461, and that the issues herein are the same in all material respects as the issues involved in said decision.

> 3. That upon the dates of exportation to the United States of the merchandise covered by these appeals, like or similar merchandise manufactured or produced in the United States was being freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal market of the United States in the ordinary course of trade and in the usual wholesale quantities, including all containers and coverings and all costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for delivery, at the following^prices per dozen cans or tins, less a cash discount of *íyí*per centum:

> *Per*

> *6-ounce size dozen*

> June 1, 1935, to Nov. 30, 1936 $.90

> *8-ounce size*

> June 1, 1935, to Nov. 30, 1936 $1.

> Less 1J4 per centum cash discount

> 4.That the record in said Reap. Dec. 5950 may be incorporated herein and that upon this stipulation these appeals may be deemed submitted, they being abandoned as to all merchandise except that referred to above.

On the agreed facts, I find the American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise described on the invoices as clams in 5-ounce cans or tins or clams in 8-ounce cans or tins, and that such values, for merchandise exported during the specified periods, are as follows:

> *Per*

> *6-ounce size dozen*

> June 1, 1935, to November 30, 1936_ $0. 90

> *8-ounce size*

> June 1, 1935, to November 30, 1936_ $1. 50

> Less 1 *Yi*per centum cash discount

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 46752.

#### Protest 760903-G of R. W. Gresham (Cleveland).

*427Opinion by

Cline, J.

When the case was called for trial the protest was submitted without evidence in support of the claim made. There being nothing in the record to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**Certification of Periodic Financial Reports**

 

I, Paul A. Lang, President of Arch Western Resources, LLC, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Periodic Report”) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)   information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Arch Western Resources, LLC.

 
|   | /s/ Paul A. Lang                                            |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Paul A. Lang                                                |
|   | President                                                   |
|   |                                                        |
|   |       Date: May 16, 2011 |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1125
KENNETH AJAGHA, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration & Naturalization Service. (A29-003-661) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996 Before HALL, MICHAEL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Joan E. Smiley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Ajagha, a native Nigerian, appeals from a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") order that denied his motion to reopen the decision of the Immigration Judge finding him deportable. We affirm. We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen under an abuse of discretion standard. INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). Denial of a motion to reopen "must be reviewed with extreme deference," since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to reopen. M.A. v. INS , 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (in banc). Ajagha seeks to reopen based on his recent marriage to an American citizen with a young son. In light of Ajagha's criminal history, a ma rriage entered into during the pendency of the deportation proceeding does not require a reopening of the case. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ajagha's motion to reopen. Accordingly, we affirm the BIA's order. 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
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ASBERRY,

Plaintiff,

v. NO. CIV. S-04-2467 LKK/PAN

CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendant.

 /

Defendant has submitted a request for reconsideration and/or

clarification of the magistrate judge’s June 8, 2005 order. The

moving party requests clarification of one portion of that ruling

which deals with the production of employee personnel files. This

court is in no position to clarify an order issued by the

magistrate judge and any request for clarification/reconsideration

should first be made to the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, the request for clarification and/or

reconsideration is hereby REFERRED to the magistrate judge to

clarify his June 8 order and/or reconsider it, if appropriate. 

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 40 Filed 06/23/05 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

Should the parties seek further reconsideration after the

magistrate judge rules on their request, they may then seek such

from the district court judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:June 23, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. for 

Lawerence K. Karlton 

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 40 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.46

 

, 20

 

 

Dear                       ,

 

In recognition of your extraordinary service as a director of Global GP LLC (“GPLLC”) during 20    , GPLLC hereby grants you, as of the date hereof, an award of                            (          ) unrestricted common units (“Units”) of Global Partners LP (the “Award”) under the Global Partners LP First Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).  The Award is fully vested upon grant and is subject only to the terms and conditions generally applicable under the Plan, any rules and regulations adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of GPLLC, and this letter.  Additionally, the terms of Global Partners LP’s insider trading policy are incorporated herein by reference.

 

Please be aware that you are responsible for the payment of any applicable taxes due as a result of the grant of the Award.  The value of the Award will be reported on a Form 1099 issued to you at the end of the year, however; in the meantime you may want to consult your tax advisor to determine if you are required to make any quarterly estimated tax payments.

 

This grant is intended to fulfill the Plan’s purpose of promoting the interests of Global Partners LP (“Global”) by providing to employees, consultants and directors, such as yourself, incentive compensation awards for superior performance and encouraging you to devote your best efforts to advance Global’s business.

 

	
 
    	
Sincerely,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
cc:
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

BILLY VAUGHAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2549 DFL DAD P

vs.

TERESA SCHWARTZ,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file and serve a second amended

petition that complies with the court’s order filed February 8, 2006. Good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s February 27, 2006 request for extension of time is granted; and

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve his second amended petition; petitioner is directed not to submit an application to proceed

in forma pauperis.

DATED: March 7, 2006.

DAD:13:mp

vaug2549.111

Case 2:04-cv-02549-JAM-DAD Document 15 Filed 03/07/06 Page 1 of 1
20.04
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Principal Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our 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 results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ LEO F. WELLS, III                                         
|Leo F. Wells, III Principal Executive Officer November 7, 2006



|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                         
|Douglas P. Williams Principal Financial Officer November 7, 2006
##### 



EXHIBIT 9

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 on Form 40-F of Sun Life Financial Inc.
(the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of
the undersigned officers of the Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
his respective knowledge:



| | (1) |  | the Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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: February 17, 2004

/S/ Donald A. StewartDonald A. StewartChief Executive Officer


Date: February 17, 2004

/S/ Paul W. DerksenPaul W. DerksenChief Financial Officer
Before the First Division,

January 13, 1944

No. 49132.

#### Protests 827281-G, etc., of Bailey, Green & Elger (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of embossed metal buttons similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *244
      *Bailey*(30 C. C. P. A. 228, C. A. D. 237), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith certain of the items in question were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 349 as claimed. Others imported subsequent to the Czechoslovakian Trade Agreement (T. D. 49458) were held dutiable at 35 percent under the same paragraph and trade agreement, as claimed.
<PAGE>

                                     EXHIBIT
                                     ITEM 11



              Statement Reference Computation of Per Share Earnings



     Basic earnings per share represents income available to common
stockholders divided by the weighted-average number of common shares
outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share reflects additional
common shares that would have been outstanding if dilutive potential common
shares had been issued, as well as any adjustment to income that would result
from the assumed issuance. Potential common shares that may be issued by the
Company relate solely to outstanding stock options and are determined using
the treasury stock method.

           The weighted average number of shares used in the computation of
basic earnings per share was 671,676 for 1999 and 658,256 for 1998. The
weighted average number of shares used in the computation of diluted earnings
per share was 717,688 for 1999 and 712,861 for 1998.


                                     - 67 -
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

106) ll-E-66 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:06 AM Sheet 106 of 264 
Mar-24-97 05:23P Jesse Downhour 216-322-S330 

P.2 

P . 02 

A-94-52 

E-EFrom: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company: 

Contact Report 

Melanie Proctor, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

March 17,1997 

Mr. Mark Skrypek 

Innotech Industries, Inc. 

Telephone Number: (216) 322-8270 

Fax Number: (216) 322-8330 

>4 

Contact Summary: 

Ms. Proctor contacted General Industries to clarify infonnation provided in the 1993 EPA 

screening survey. When calling the contact phone number provided in the 1993 EPA screening 

survey, Ms. Proctor was informed the General bulustries is no loiiger ui business and that die 

production facility was purchased by Innotech, which can be contacted at (216) 322-8270. 

Mr <4 . Mark Skrypek at Innotech Industries was contacted to determine if Innotech 

Industries conducts the same production processes as General Industries and if Innotech 

bdustriesisa-ujorspi-tt^emis-lons. Mr. Skrypek explained that Innotech purchased ~r-fe 4SJe7_ 

General Industries m j^^aflef General Industries declared bankruptcy. According to Mr. 

Skrypek, Innotech Industries discontinued die bulk molding compound production that was 

conducted by General Industries. Mr. Skrypek pointed out that the only production process used 

by Innotech Industries is compression molding with sheet molding compound (SMC). 

According to Mr. Skrypek, the SMC is purchased from outside sources and not produced at 

Innotech Industries. 

When asked if Innotech Industries is a mty'or source of emissions, Mr. Skrypek explained 

that the facility only uses approximately 175,000 to 180,000 pounds of SMC per year, which 

would not make them a nuu'or source. However, Mr. Skrypek pointed out that Innotech 

Industries could expand in the future. 

Ms. Proctor explained that Innotech Industries would not be included into die EPA's 

National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants d__h»«» for the reinforced plastic 

composites industry because, based on this conversation, Innotech Industries does not have die 

potential to be major. _, , * /-. \ / / _. \ 

/ /7 J 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE 

(n
July 11 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TIFFANY DIGGS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00854

- CV V.

RANDOLPH DIGGS, JR. , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the final decree of divorce signed August 10, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find the trial court erred in dividing the parties’ marital estate. We therefore order that the portion of the divorce decree that divides the parties’ marital estate is REVERSED and ordered severed and REMANDED for proceeding s in accordance with this court’ s opinion.

Further, we find no error in the remainder of the divorce decree and order it AFFIRMED

.
We order appellee, Randolph Diggs, Jr., to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.