alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 58992.

protests 155261-K, etc. (New York).

#### P. Robertet, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 66858.

#### B. A. McKenzie & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/390 (A) (Seattle).

*484Opinion by

Ford, J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that the merchandise, described on the invoice as “2000 pcs. #8%" x 16.5 yards Friction Tape (Crown),” and “5000 pcs. No. *8%” x*16.5 yds. Friction Tape, B & M Brand,” consists of a material approximately three-fourths of an inch in width, is in chief value of polyvinyl chloride, and is similar in use to cotton friction tape. It was further stipulated that the items, described on the invoice as “500 gross needle books (Filter Queen) Brand” are similar in all material respects to the cardboard needle holders involved in Abstract 63099. On the record presented, the claims of the plaintiff were sustained.
No. 58017.

protest 219137-K (New York).

#### The Norport Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0190 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0190

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 May 2007 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC (COM(2006)0397 - C6-0243/2006 - 2006/0129(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 102 E , 24/04/2008 P. 0090 - 0090 *

P6_TA(2007)0190

Environmental quality standards in the field of water policy ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 May 2007 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC (COM(2006)0397 — C6-0243/2006 — 2006/0129(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0397),

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0243/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0125/2007);

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

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

STEVEN RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2119 LKK GGH P

vs.

MARK SHEPHERD, et al., 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court's September 1, 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). 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,

Case 2:04-cv-02119-LKK -GGH Document 23 Filed 10/25/05 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

1

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be 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.

2

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 issues presented in the instant petition: 1) insufficient evidence to find petitioner

unsuitable for parole; 2) the BPT improperly classified petitioner’s murder as first rather than

second degree; 3) violation of the Equal Protection Clause; 4) violation of the Americans with

Disabilities Act; and 5) regulations unconstitutionally vague.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is

issued in the present action.

DATED: October 25, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02119-LKK -GGH Document 23 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

August 11, 1944

No. 49665.

#### Protest 95693-K/91183 of Clinton Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Walkee, J.

Following Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
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

LEONON ALSTON,

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

vs.

M. SANCHEZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 15, 2005, defendants lodged a request to vacate the date for

filing pretrial statements, and the pretrial conference and trial dates set in this court’s February

16, 2005 scheduling order. Defendants’ request is predicated on the pendency of their July 29,

2005 motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, defendants’ request will be granted. 

The parties will be relieved of their obligation to file pretrial statements until further order of

court and the pretrial conference set on the papers before the undersigned on November 25, 2005

will be vacated. A new pretrial conference will be set, if appropriate, following resolution of

defendants’ pending motion. The jury trial date of February 13, 2006 will also be vacated. 

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

1. Defendants’ November 15, 2005 request to vacate dates is granted;

Case 2:04-cv-02374-DFL -JFM Document 28 Filed 11/29/05 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

2. The parties are relieved of the obligation to file pretrial statements until further

order of court;

3. The pretrial conference on the papers before the undersigned on November 25,

2005 is vacated; and

4. The jury trial set before the Honorable David F. Levi on February 13, 2006 at

9:00 a.m. is vacated.

DATED: November 28, 2005.

/001; alst2374.vac

Case 2:04-cv-02374-DFL -JFM Document 28 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 61362.

protest 280747-K (New York).

#### M. B. I. Export & Import, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of jig-boring machines similar in all material respects to those the subject of-Abstract 61048, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOLIN ANDREWS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1107 DFL GGH P

vs.

THERESA GUZMAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 15, 2005, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to reopen this

action. The court has not screened the complaint or addressed plaintiff’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application, filed August 13, 2004, was not filed on

the form used by this district. The application also does not contain the required certification by

prison officials. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days of the date of this order plaintiff shall submit a completed in

forma pauperis application using the form sent to him by the court;

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01107-JAM-GGH Document 14 Filed 10/26/05 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

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff an in forma pauperis

application for a prisoner.

DATED: 10/25/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

and1107.am

Case 2:04-cv-01107-JAM-GGH Document 14 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2
May 1, 1958

No. 61886.

#### Keer, Maurer Company *v.*United States,

protest 218707-K (Philadelphia).

Abstract 61700. No action was taken on plaintiff’s application for rehearing. However, the decision and judgment of March 18, 1958, by order of the court, were vacated and set aside; the protest was amended; and said decision and judgment were thereby reinstated and revalidated as the decision and judgment of this court.
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONSI, Gary Eshleman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jafra Worldwide Holdings (Lux) S.àr.l.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.     Date November 14, 2005         /s/ GARY ESHLEMAN Gary Eshleman    Chief Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 8692)

Entry No. 773358, etc.

#### C. J. Van Houten & Zoon, Inc., et al. *v.*Uniten States

(Decided October 24, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

DoNloN, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that—

> 1. The merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of chocolate bars and other chocolate articles exported from Holland, the same in all material respects as those in *Bluefries New York, Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 8470, wherein it was held that cost of production as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the proper basis of value.

> 2. The record in said Reap. Dec. 8470 may be incorporated herein.

> 3. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved in the appeals for reappraisement listed in said Schedule A, there was no foreign value or export value or United States value for such or similar merchandise as defined in Sec. 402, Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, and the cost of production is therefore the proper basis of value.

> 4. The cost of production, as defined in Sec. 402 (f), (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, for the chocolate bars and other chocolate articles listed in Schedule B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is as set forth in said Schedule B.

> 5. The appeals for reappraisement listed in said Schedule A are submitted on this stipulation and are limited to the items set forth in said Schedule B, and abandoned as to all other items.

*546On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determination of value of the merchandise listed in schedule “B,” attached hereto and made a part of this decision, and that, for the respective items of merchandise, such value is as listed in said schedule “B.”

The appeals, as they relate to other merchandise, are dismissed. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

*547

*548
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4864]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday, March 2, 2012.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the event that the times 
or dates of these or any future meetings change, an announcement of the 
change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted 
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-4864 Filed 2-24-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 07/17 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
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

 The warden of the facility where petitioner is confined is

substituted as respondent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1); Rulle 2(a), Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases.

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Kenneth Stovall,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2364 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

Derral Adams, Warden,

Respondent.

-oOoJanuary 27, 2005, respondent1 requested leave to file and

serve an untimely response to the habeas petition with a motion

to dismiss the petition. Petitioner filed no opposition to the

request. Respondent’s request is granted.

So ordered.

Dated: April 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02364-LKK -PAN Document 8 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 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 Sitestar Corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Frank Erhartic, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Daniel Judd, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify to our knowledge and in our capacity as officers of the Company, 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 Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.





/s/ Frank Erhartic, Jr.

/s/ Daniel JuddFrank Erhartic, Jr.

Daniel JuddChief Executive Officer and President

Chief Financial OfficerMarch 30, 2011

March 30, 2011
Before the First Division,

March 1, 1950

No. 54074.

#### M. S. Cowen Co. *v.*United States,

protest 37040-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the articles the subject of *Rolls Razor, Inc.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 480), Abstract 51306, and Abstract 51893. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4398]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-336-000]


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-third Revised Sheet No. 25
Eighty-third Revised Sheet No. 26
Eighty-second Revised Sheet No. 27
Seventieth Revised Sheet No. 28

    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. 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#b6f0f3e4f5f9d8dadfd8d3e5c3c6c6d9c4c2f6d0d3c4d598d1d9c0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="662023342529080a0f080335131616091412260003140548010910">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4398 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>