alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - 19 CFR Part 208 

# AGENCY:

United States International Trade Commission. 

# ACTION:

Correcting amendment.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Commission published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         on February 27, 2007 (72 FR 8624) amending its rules of practice and                               ( print page 11288)                            procedure to add a new part 208. The amendment is an interim rule and became effective on the date of publication. The notice published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on February 27 inadvertently identified two subsections as § 208.7(c). The Commission is amending § 208.7 by designating the second paragraph (c) as paragraph (d).                     

# DATES:

Effective on March 13, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        William Gearhart, Senior Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, 202-205-3091 (e-mail:                         *william.gearhart@usitc.gov*); or Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission, 202-205-2000 (e-mail:                         *marilyn.abbott@usitc.gov*).                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

# List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 208

      - Administrative practice and procedure
      - Business and industry
      - Customs duties
      - Imports
      - Investigations

Accordingly, 19 CFR part 208 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: 

# PART 208—INVESTIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO COMMERCIAL AVAILABILITY OF TEXTILE FABRIC AND YARN IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES 

1. The authority citation for part 208 continues to read as follows: 

Authority:19 U.S.C. 1335; 19 U.S.C. 3721(c). 

§ 208.7 

2. Amend § 208.7 by designating the second paragraph (c) as paragraph (d). 

Issued: March 6, 2007.

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

 [FR Doc. E7-4456 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
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

ANDRE RIDER, 2:04-cv-1809-GEB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

S. KERNAN,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On May 22, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Petitioner 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.

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01809-GEB -CMK Document 23 Filed 07/14/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 22, 2006, are adopted in 

 full;

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and

failure to comply with court rules and orders; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.

Dated: July 13, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01809-GEB -CMK Document 23 Filed 07/14/06 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

1

 It appears that petitioner may be attempting to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. If such a petition is filed, on the proper form, then the court would have

jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s claims.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP L. WRIGHT,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2651 LKK KJM P

vs.

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT,

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a California prisoner, has filed a document seeking a “writ of mandate /

prohibition.” Petitioner asks that this court enter an order directing respondent to rule upon a

request for collateral relief filed by petitioner concerning petitioner’s criminal conviction. This

court does not have jurisdiction to issue such an order.1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 

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, petitioner may file written

Case 2:04-cv-02651-LKK -KJM Document 3 Filed 05/19/05 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. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner 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: May 18, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

wrig2651.dis

Case 2:04-cv-02651-LKK -KJM Document 3 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
32




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 Case Financial, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Michael Schaffer,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Lawrence Schaffer, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, respectively certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




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







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









/s/
      Michael SchafferMichael
      Schaffer
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              January
      13, 2010/s/
      Lawrence SchafferLawrence
      Schaffer
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              January
      13, 2010
No. 59016.

protest 236433-K (New York).

#### Atlantic Steel & Iron Co. and H. A. Gogarty, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of aluminum alloy rods similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Mohawk Iron & Steel Co.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 274, C. D. 1533), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 59028.

protest 230931-K (Los Angeles).

#### James G. Wiley *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the articles the subject of Abstract 57716, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 51744.

#### Protests 43646-K, etc., of F. B. Ackerman et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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

DIRECTV, INC., a California

corporation, 

 

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-2057-GEB-DAD

vs.

ALLEN VIGGERS,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, et seq., and Local Rule 72-

302. 

On November 30, 2005, the magistrate judge filed

findings and recommendations herein which were served on the

parties and which contained notice to the parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed

within ten days. No objections to the findings and

recommendations have been filed.

Case 2:04-cv-02057-GEB-DAD Document 36 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

2

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: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 30,

2005, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is granted

in part and denied in part;

3. Judgment is entered against defendant Viggers on

DirecTV’s claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) and 47

U.S.C. § 605(a), but not on the claim pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 

605(e)(4); and

4. No damages are awarded for defendant Viggers’

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a), however, $1,000 in damages,

plus plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in the

amount of $2,118, is awarded for defendant’s violation of 47

U.S.C. § 605(a).

Dated: December 20, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02057-GEB-DAD Document 36 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 59594.

protest 144898-K (Pembina).

#### Norman G. Jensen *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items described as “Western White Spruce” or “Western White Spruce (Picea Glaueea)” on the invoice are, in fact, Western white spruce, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**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 Essential Innovations Technology Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jason McDiarmid, Chief Executive Officer and 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/ Jason McDiarmid

Jason McDiarmid

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer

June 23, 2008

 

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.
No. 42903.

#### Protests 730249-G, etc., of Shalom & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case 2:04-cv-02559-LKK -KJM   Document 8    Filed 08/25/05   Page 1 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02559-LKK -KJM   Document 8    Filed 08/25/05   Page 2 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02559-LKK -KJM   Document 8    Filed 08/25/05   Page 3 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02559-LKK -KJM   Document 8    Filed 08/25/05   Page 4 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02559-LKK -KJM   Document 8    Filed 08/25/05   Page 5 of 5

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-21T19:16:51-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1
Amendment
to the
Restricted Stock Award Agreement
(Subject to Time-Based Restriction)


This AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”), effective as of August 19, 2016, is by and between Black Knight Financial Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and [   ] (the “Grantee”). 


              WHEREAS, the Grantee was previously granted an award (the “Award”) of  restricted shares of the Company’s Class A common stock on May 26, 2015, in exchange for the Grantee’s profits interest award of Class B Units in Black Knight Financial Services, LLC granted to Grantee on [   ], 2014; and


              WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend the Restricted Stock Award Agreement, pursuant to which the Award was granted (the “Award Agreement”);


              NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be bound, the parties hereby agree as follows. 
                      
		
	      
	1.      Section 2(a)(i) of the Award Agreement is amended to read as follows:


“If the Grantee’s (A) employment or service as a Director or Consultant is terminated by the Company or a Subsidiary without Cause or (B) employment agreement with the Company or a Subsidiary provides for severance benefits upon a termination for “Good Reason” and the Grantee terminates employment for Good Reason in accordance with the employment agreement, then any Shares of Restricted Stock that would have vested within the 12 months immediately following the date of the Grantee’s termination (had the Grantee’s employment or services not terminated) shall vest as of the date of termination.  Except as otherwise provided in the previous sentence, if the Grantee’s employment or service as a Director or Consultant is terminated by the Company or Grantee for any reason, including as a result of the Grantee’s death or Disability, the Grantee shall, for no consideration, forfeit to the Company the Shares of Restricted Stock to the extent such Shares are subject to a Period of Restriction at the time of such termination.”
2.    A new Section (iv) shall be added after Section 2(a)(iii) to read as follows:
“(iv)    The term “Disability” shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Grantee’s employment, director services or similar agreement with the Company or a Subsidiary.  If the Grantee’s employment, director services or similar agreement does not define the term “Disability,” or if the Grantee has not entered into an employment, director services or similar agreement with the Company or a Subsidiary, the term “Disability” shall mean a total or permanent disability of Grantee that would entitle the Grantee to long-term disability benefits under the Company’s or a Subsidiary’s long-term disability plan in which Grantee is eligible to participate.”  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Grantee have caused this Amendment to be duly executed, effective as of the date first set forth above.
       
BLACK KNIGHT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
        
       
By:  ______________________________
Thomas J. Sanzone
President and Chief Executive Officer 
                          
GRANTEE


__________________________________
[                         ]
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-715 

________________________________________________________________________ 

MARITIME TRANSPORT 

 Agreement Between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and VIETNAM 

Signed at Washington March 15, 2007 

 
 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.” 
VIETNAM 

Maritime Transport 

 Agreement signed at Washington March 15, 2007; 

 Entered into force July 15, 2007.
No. 55271.

#### Milton Snedeker Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 152898-K (New York).

Johnson, Judge:

The merchandise in this case consists of Dinky toys. The plaintiff claims that the collector failed to make an allowance in duties because of the shortage of toys in case 1099-D. The collector’s letter of transmittal, admitted in evidence, discloses that duty was assessed upon the merchandise for the reason that the importer failed to file an affidavit of short shipment within the time prescribed by the customs regulations.

At the trial the report of the discharging inspector was admitted in evidence as collective exhibit 1, together with all the papers in the case. Prom the report made by the inspector four cases were landed in bad order. An examination of the cases took place on the pier by the customs officer, a representative of the steamship company, and a representative of the importer. As to case 1099-D, 4 boxes of No. 521, 1 box of No. 25R, 6 boxes of No. 49, 2 boxes of No. 27A, 2 boxes of No. 25P, 2 boxes of No. 25M, and 2% boxes of No. 14A, a total of 19% boxes, were found short out of the case, and so reported by the discharging inspector.

In the case of *United States*v. *Washington State Liquor Control Board,*34. C. C. P. A. 118, C. A. D. 352, wherein the collector assessed duty upon missing bottles out of five cases, which were alleged not landed from the importing vessel, the appellate court, citing *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.,*34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351, held that the issue in shortage cases is not whether there was a compliance with the customs regulations, but the issue was one of non-importation and that evidence may properly be introduced before the Customs Court to establish that such shortage existed at the time of unlading. In the case of *Meadows, Wye & Co.*v. *United States,*12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 396, T. D. 40583, the appellate court held that where discharging inspectors took a list of the contents of some of a number of boxes of imported merchandise, and a comparison of that list with the invoice shows a deficiency, a *prima facie*showing is made of shortage and its *pro tanto*extent, and that stich shortage is referred back to the time the importation crossed the customs line.

In view of the evidence before the court as to the bad order of the case at the time of unlading, and that certain of the boxes of toys were found missing from the case by the inspector, judgment will be entered in favor of the plaintiff directing the collector to reliquidate the entry and refund all duties taken upon the Dinky toys covered by case 1099-D as contained in the boxes reported by the discharging inspector as short. In all other respects the protest is 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE BRIDGETTE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0436 DFL PAN P

vs.

D. RUNNELS, Warden, 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 December 2, 2004, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has 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-00436-DFL-EFB Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 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 December 2, 2004 are adopted in full;

and 

2. The claims against defendants D. Runnels and Susan Cook are dismissed

without prejudice. 

DATED: 9/28/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 70 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 23

- 12673 Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus JACQUELINE SUSIE MASON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:22

- cr
- 20547

- JEM

- 2

____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-12673 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/30/2024 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 23

- 12673

Before W ILLIAM P RYOR , Chief Judge, and R OSENBAUM and G RANT , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED

. See United States v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

- 53 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that a sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily, and assessing whether a sentence appeal waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily depends on whether it was clearly conveyed to the defendant that she was gi ving up her right to appeal under most circumstances); United States v. Grinard

- Henry , 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error). USCA11 Case: 23-12673 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/30/2024 Page: 2 of 2