alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10443)

#### Enco Chemical Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 983513.

(Decided February 11, 1963)

*Eugene R. PicJcrell*for the plaintiff.

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

WilsoN, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following agreement and stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff herein and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, defendant, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. The merchandise marked “A” and initialed BS by Examiner B. Strumin-ski on the invoice herein consists of Sodium Perborate, exported from West Germany in April of 1961, which was appraised on the basis of foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938.

> 2. It is claimed that there is no foreign value as defined, supra, for such or similar merchandise, and that the merchandise should have been appraised on the basis of export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, supra.

> 3. The merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues in *United States*v. *Philipp Brothers Chemicals, Inc.,*A.R.D. 134 (decided June 13, 1961), wherein it was held that no foreign value as defined in section 402(c), supra, existed for such or similar merchandise, and that the proper basis of appraisement was export value, as defined in section 402(d), supra.

> 4. The record in *United States*v. *Philipp Brothers Chemicals, Inc.,*A.R.D. 134, be incorporated in the record herein.

> 5. At the time of exportation of the merchandise marked “A” as aforesaid, the price at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal market of West Germany, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost for all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States was $10.50 per 100 lbs. less ocean freight and insurance.

> 6. This appeal may be submitted on this stipulation.

On. tbe agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise herein involved *395and that such, value was $10.50 per 100 pounds, less ocean freight and insurance.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 467 

To modify the age requirement for the Student Incentive Payment Program 

of the State maritime academies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 

Mr. PETERS (for himself, Mr. YOUNG, Mr. CRUZ, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. 

BRAUN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To modify the age requirement for the Student Incentive 

Payment Program of the State maritime academies. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Changing Age-Deter5 mined Eligibility To Student Incentive Payments Act’’ or 

6 the ‘‘CADETS Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 467 IS

1 SEC. 2. AGE REQUIREMENT FOR THE STUDENT INCENTIVE 

2 PAYMENT PROGRAM OF THE STATE MARI3 TIME ACADEMIES. 

4 Section 51509 of title 46, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(i) AGE REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may make 

7 an agreement under this section only with a qualified stu8 dent who will meet the age requirement for enlistment in 

9 the Navy Reserve at the time of graduation from the acad10 emy.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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

ANTONIO LARREN TAYLOR,

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-2123-GEB-KJM-P

vs.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On May 9, 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 twenty 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02123-GEB -KJM Document 25 Filed 06/28/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 9, 2006, are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner’s November 21, 2005 application for a writ of habeas corpus is

dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

Dated: June 27, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02123-GEB -KJM Document 25 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           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-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Eric A. Alden, chief executive officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13a-14(b)
            or 15d-14(b) 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.

Date: January 29, 2004

                                        /s/ Eric A. Alden
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Eric A. Alden
                                        Chief Executive Officer
Before the Third Division,

February 20, 1951

No. 55249.

#### Henry Coehler Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 138067-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLIFFORD LEE BAIR, No. CIV-S-04-2257 MCE/GGH P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

FOLSOM STATE PRISON, ET AL., 

Respondents. 

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely

filed a Notice of Appeal of this Court's November 17, 2005,

denial of his Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Before

Petitioner can appeal this decision, a Certificate of

Appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P.

22(b).

A Certificate of Appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02257-MCE -GGH Document 25 Filed 12/15/05 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be 1

specifically identified, the standard for issuance of a

Certificate of Appealability is the same as the standard that

applied to issuance of a Certificate of Probable Cause. 

Jennings, at 1010.

The Certificate of Appealability must “indicate which specific

issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(3).

A Certificate of Appealability should be granted for any

issue that Petitioner can demonstrate is “‘debatable among

jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.’” Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir.

2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).1

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right in the following issue presented in the

instant petition: Whether Petitioner has a liberty interest in

parole. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Certificate of

Appealability is issued in the present action.

DATED: December 14, 2005 

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02257-MCE -GGH Document 25 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

June 18, 1962

No. 66865.

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

protests 60/27893, 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.
No. 47896.

#### Protests 634738-G, etc., of Samuel Danzig (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 9511)

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 705873; 701606.

(Decided September 25, 1959)

*John Irwin Dugan*for the plaintiff.

*George Goehr cm Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the respective parties hereto, as follows:

> 1. The American Selling Price, as that term is defined in Section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, of the merchandise involved in the appeals enumerated above, for the year herein stated, was as follows:

> *Item Yea/r American Selling Price*

> Tas Sodium 1958 $1.90 per lb. less *1%*net packed

> 2. Each appeal is limited to the merchandise above described and is abandoned as to all other merchandise, if any, and hereby submitted for decision.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise herein involved and that such value for the merchandise covered by *494the appeals herein at the time of exportation heretofore indicated was as hereinabove set forth in the stipnlation of submission.

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

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

TIMOTHY JACKSON SEELEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1800 DFL CMK P

vs.

THERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On June 28, 2005, plaintiff filed an “opposition to motion to dismiss CC-II Cry as

a defendant.” That document was not served on defendants. Plaintiff is advised that every

document submitted to the court for consideration must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P.

5. Documents not to be served electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S.

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

documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on the defendants. 

Every document submitted conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se)

must include a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to

defendants or their attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and

(c).

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 46 Filed 07/14/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 28, 2005

“opposition to motion to dismiss CC-II Cry as a defendant” is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff

is cautioned that failure to properly serve any documents subsequently filed in this action, and

failure to include a proper certificate of service with such filing, may result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed.

DATED: July 13, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/kf

seel1800.35 

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 46 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 60875.

#### Orient Expert Trading Company *v.*United States,

protest 271101-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
304(m) CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE EPA-HQ- OW-20 10 - 0824 DCN CBM00 687 THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Thermal OxidizerContaminatedair streamTemperaturecontroller andrecorderCombustionChamberThermocoupleFanExhaust toatmosphereBurnerthroatBurnercontrolvalveBurner fuel
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**SAMUEL BROWN III, NATURAL PERSON, AND AS JOINT TENANT** 

**TRUSTEE WITH THE RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP,** 

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA**

**DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BUREAU OF INDIVIDUAL TAXES, MEGAN** 
**SWISHER, AND DANIEL P. MEUSER,**

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 66 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**

**the Order of the Commonwealth Court**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 9th day of May, 2016, the Petition for Allowa nce of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D.L. RUNNELS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:04-cv-776-TLN-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with the court’s June 2, 2015 and July 1, 2015 orders (ECF Nos. 

285 and 289), plaintiff has submitted a motion to secure the attendance at trial of five incarcerated 

witnesses. ECF No. 290. Plaintiff has made the required showing, and the court hereby 

GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to secure the attendance at trial of incarcerated witnesses Oatey 

(CDCR #H25273), Wash (CDCR #T68036), Thrower (CDCR #J05979), and Sandley (CDCR 

#T52235). The court will issue writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum to secure these witnesses’ 

attendance in the weeks leading up to the February 8, 2016 trial. 

 Plaintiff’s motion does not identify proposed witness Dwayne Richardson by CDCR 

number. In searching the department’s online inmate database 

(http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/search.aspx), the court could not locate a “Dwayne” Richardson. 

///// 

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 291 Filed 09/24/15 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

The database does list a “Dewayne McGee Richardson,” with CDCR #T32684. Within 30 days 

of the date of this order, plaintiff shall inform the court whether his proposed witness is Dewayne 

McGee Richardson, CDCR #T32684. Plaintiff has made the required showing to secure the 

attendance at trial of his proposed witness Richardson, and upon receipt of the correct identifying 

information for Mr. Richardson, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion to secure his attendance at 

trial. 

 So ordered. 

DATED: September 23, 2015. 

 

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 291 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 2
No. 61879.

#### John Heathcoat & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 296155-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *E. C. Carter & Son, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 368, C. D. 1889), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11005-11006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4396]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-334-000]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

March 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 1, 2007, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheets with a proposed effective date of April 1, 2007:

Eighty-second Revised Sheet No. 25
Eighty-second Revised Sheet No. 26
Eight-first Revised Sheet No. 27
Sixty-ninth Revised Sheet No. 28
Twenty-second Revised Sheet No. 31

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.

[[Page 11006]]

Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 
copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e686b7c6d61404247404b7d5b5e5e415c5a6e484b5c4d00494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a8eeedfaebe7c6c4c1c6cdfbddd8d8c7dadce8cecddacb86cfc7de">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4396 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
##### 



EXHIBIT 6

COMMENTS BY AUDITORS ON CANADA-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REPORTING DIFFERENCE

In the United States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of
an explanatory paragraph following the opinion paragraph to identify
circumstances in which accounting changes affect consistency such as the
matters described in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements. Our
report to the shareholders dated February 12, 2004 is expressed in accordance
with Canadian reporting standards which do not require a reference to such
circumstances in the auditors report when the items are properly accounted for
and disclosed in the consolidated financial statements.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chartered Accountants
Toronto, Ontario
February 17, 2004
No. 61876.

#### Arthur J. Humphreys *v.*United States,

protests 274865-K, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stiuplation of counsel that the merchandise consists of yellow cedar the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Border Brokerage Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 179, C. D. 1923), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8539)

#### Chelsea Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 29233-1/2.

(Decided February 3, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

JOHNSON, Judge:

Tbis appeal for reappraisement bas been submitted for decision upon tbe following stipulation of counsel for tbe parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the *526merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the invoice units of value set forth under Column 11 in German currency, packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher export value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal to Re-appraisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of merchandise here involved, and that such values were the invoice units of value set forth under column 11 in German currency, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.