alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10771)

#### Kurt Orban Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 263; 14108.

*588(Decided June 9, 1964)

*Sharretts, Paley & Garter*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeals for a reap-praisement present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain wire strand, imported from Japan. »

The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed as follows:

> That the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement enumerated above consist of wire strand exported from Japan during the period beginning April 5, 1960 and ending May 28, 1960; that wire strand is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27, 1958; that on or immediately preceding the date of exportation of each shipment of wire strand covered by each of the appeals to reappraisement enumerated above, the prices at which wire strand, such as or similar to the wire strand described on the invoices covered by the instant appeals to reappraisement were freely sold, or in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal market of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was $254. per metric ton for wire strand of % inch diameter and $252. per metric ton for wire strand of %e inch diameter (United States funds).

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a (b)), is the proper basis of value for the wire strand in issue and that said value is $254 per metric ton for wire strand of %-inch diameter and $252 per metric ton for wire strand of %6-inch diameter (United States funds).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Agricultural Research Service 

# AGENCY:

Agricultural Research Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of intent. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Hepalife Technologies, Inc. of Boston, Massachusetts, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 5,532,156, “Hepatocyte Cell Line Derived from the Epiblast of Pig Blastocysts”, issued on July 2, 8, 1996 and to U.S. Patent No. 5,866,420, “Artificial Liver Device”, issued on February 1, 1999. 

# DATES:

                        Comments must be received within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of publication of this Notice in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Federal Government's intellectual property rights to this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the                           ( print page 10113)                        Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Hepalife Technologies, Inc. of Boston, Massachusetts has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.                 

Richard J. Brenner, 

Assistant Administrator.

 [FR Doc. E7-3935 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
EXHIBIT  32

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

	The undersigned, William K. Mackey, Interim Chief Executive Officer, and
Chief Financial Officer of United EcoEnergy Corp. (the Company), DO
HEREBY CERTIFY, that:

1.	The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this 14th of April, 2008.

							   /s/ Robert Hipple
							By .........................
							  Robert Hipple,
                                            Interim Chief Executive Officer
                                            and Chief Financial Officer

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to United EcoEnergy Corp. and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
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

ERNEST HARRIS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0939 LKK KJM P

vs.

ROBERT A. HOREL,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s Court of Appeal’s April 19, 2010 order, the Clerk

of the Court is directed to file petitioner’s May 18, 2007 application for writ of habeas corpus in

CIV-S-04-1906 FCD KJM P and docket it as a motion to amend. The Clerk shall also file a

copy of this order in CIV-S-04-1906 FCD KJM P and close this case. 

DATED: May 20, 2010. 

1

harr0939.mta

 

Case 2:04-cv-01906-GEB-CKD Document 52 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 1
p130206.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0206

Focus Ready Draft 1/31/2013

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ EV

PV (kg/yr): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1
p130206.eng

 

SAT (concerns) (01/18/2013):

Migration to groundwater: Slow

PBT rating: P2B1T1

Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 2
p130206.eng

 

 

 

Page 3
p130206.eng

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0206

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 4
p130206.eng

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0206

 

 

 

Page 5
p130206.eng

 

 

Page 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEE ARTERS : CIVIL ACTION NO: 02-4388

t/a GREENDALE BUILDERS :

:

 vs. :

:

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE :

CO., t/a, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA :

AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO :

ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, :

ET AL. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA:

Please enter my appearance as co-counsel for Plaintiffs, Lee Arters, Sara Arters, 

and Greendale Builders regarding the above captioned case.

________________________________

Frank J. Marcone, Esquire

Attorney I.D. #08967

127 Chester Pike

Ridley Park, PA 19078

610-595-1441

610-595-1448 (fax)

frankmarcone@comcast.net (e-mail)

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 20 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIK CANO

- PEREZ, AKA Erik Cano,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 70000

Agency No. A079

- 804

- 256

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 18, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Erik Cano

- Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal and asylum

and related relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de

novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 70000

deny the petition for review.

We do not consider Cano

- Perez’s contention s that the agency applied the

incorrect sta tutory definition to determine his Nevada conviction for forgery is an

aggravated felony or that it erred in making an adverse credibility determination

,

where the agency did not find him removable for having an aggravated felony

conviction, deny relief on that basis

, or make an adverse credibility finding

. See

Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) ( the court’s review is

limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA). We also do not consider

Cano

- Perez’s contention that the IJ erre d in considering factors for cancellation of

removal for certain non

- permanent residents under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) , where the

BIA considered only the factors for cancellation of removal for permanent

resident s under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). See id. at 986

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4658 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4658

To provide for the ongoing presence of certain structures at the Table 
                           Rock Lake project.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 10, 2024

  Mr. Schmitt introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the ongoing presence of certain structures at the Table 
                           Rock Lake project.

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

SECTION 1. TABLE ROCK LAKE, MISSOURI AND ARKANSAS.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Abandonment.--The term ``abandonment'' means, with 
        respect to an eligible structure, the allowance of the 
        structure to come into a state of disrepair without the 
        demonstrated intent to repair by the owner.
            (2) Eligible structure.--The term ``eligible structure'' 
        means a privately owned sewer and septic system--
                    (A) for which a license for a right-of-way has been 
                provided by the Secretary of the Army and is in effect 
                on the date of enactment of this Act;
                    (B) that is located on fee land or land subject to 
                a flowage easement; and
                    (C) that does not impact the reservoir level or 
                pose a failure risk to the dam of the Table Rock Lake 
                project.
            (3) Fee land.--The term ``fee land'' means the land 
        acquired in fee title by the United States for the Table Rock 
        Lake project.
            (4) Table rock lake project.--The term ``Table Rock Lake 
        project'' means the Table Rock Lake project of the Corps of 
        Engineers, located in Missouri and Arkansas, authorized as one 
        of the multipurpose reservoir projects in the White River Basin 
        by section 4 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218).
    (b) Presence of Eligible Structures.--The Secretary of the Army 
shall permit the ongoing presence of an eligible structure at the Table 
Rock Lake project until--
            (1) the abandonment of the eligible structure by the holder 
        of a license for right-of-way for the structure;
            (2) the failure of the eligible structure; or
            (3) the replacement of the eligible structure.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40381

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN GARCIA-GALLEGOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CR-613-ALL

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Garcia-Gallegos pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He appeals his 57-month sentence,

arguing that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. 

Garcia-Gallegos’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523

U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Garcia-Gallegos contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of
No. 05-40381

-2-

the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). GarciaGallegos properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in

light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises

it here to preserve it for further review. 

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

CERTIFICATION

I,Michael J. Ricketts, certify that:

1.            I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CanoPetroleum, Inc.;

2.            Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

(a)          designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)          evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)          disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.          The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

(b)          any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
| February 9, 2007               |   |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                           |   |   |
| /s/ Michael J. Ricketts        |   |   |
| Michael J. Ricketts            |   |   |
| Principal Accounting Officer   |   |   |
| (Principal Accounting Officer) |   |   |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 23.2 Independent Auditors Consent We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-84958, 333-38020 and 333-34746) on Form S-8 of Grant Prideco, Inc. of
our report dated May 4, 2004, with respect to the balance sheets of voestalpine
Tubulars GmbH & Co KG as of March 31, 2004 and 2003, and
the related statements of income for the years then ended, which report appears in Amendment No. 1 to
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 of Grant Prideco, Inc. Vienna, Austria
September 30, 2004 KPMG Alpen-Treuhand GmbH
Wirtschaftsprüfungs- und Steuerberatungsgesellschaft /s/ Mag. Helmut Kerschbaumer
    
    /s/ Mag. Rainer Hassler
 Wirtschaftsprüfer und Steuerberater
(Austrian Certified Public Accountants)
No. 61889.

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States,

protests 291205-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential and integral parts of machines chiefly used in the household for making noodles or pastry; that said machines are mechanical contrivances which utilize, modify, or apply energy or force and transmit motion, not containing electrical elements as essential parts thereof; and that the specified parts are in chief value of metal, the items entered for consumption prior to June 30, 1956, were held dutiable at 13% percent under paragraph 372, as modified, *supra,*and the items entered subsequent to said date at 13 percent under said paragraph, as modified, *supra.*
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-116 

________________________________________________________________________ 

NUCLEAR MATERIAL 

Fuel for Research Reactor 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and OTHER GOVERNMENTS 

Signed at Warsaw and Vienna 

January 8, 12, and 16, 2007 

 with 

Annexes 
 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.” 
MULTILATERAL 

Nuclear Material: Fuel for Research Reactor 

 Agreement signed at Warsaw and Vienna 

 January 8, 12, and 16, 2007; 

 Entered into force January 16, 2007. 

 With annexes.
-1- 

DEFENDANTS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES PUSUANT TO RULE 26(a)(1) 

Farmer, Murphy, Smith

&

Alliston

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

CRAIG E. FARMER (SB# 61086) (SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) 

FARMER, MURPHY, SMITH & ALLISTON

3640 American River Drive, Suite 150 

Sacramento, CA 95864 

Telephone: (916) 484-3500 

Fax: (916) 484-3510 

Attorneys for PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY RISK INSURANCE COMPANY, SPECIALTY RISK 

INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and 

PROGRESSIVE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVEN EDDINGFIELD and CHRISTINE 

EDDINGFIELD, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY RISK 

INSURANCE COMPANY, SPECIALTY RISK 

INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

PROGRESSIVE HOME INSURANCE 

COMPANY and DOES 1-20, inclusive, 

 Defendants.

Case No. CIV S-04-2676 FCD/DAD 

STIPULATION FOR AN AMENDED 

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER 

Whereas the parties have been pursuing mediation and discovery, and have been awaiting 

medication set for July 7, 2005, before proceeding if necessary to complete discovery, it is hereby 

agreed by the parties and the Court that good cause is established to extend the following deadlines as 

set forth below. 

The following dates are hereby amended from the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order filed on 

or about March 1, 2005. 

1. Part IV - Discovery - The plan proposed by the parties in the Joint Status Report filed 

February 18, 2005, shall be modified so that non-expert depositions will be completed by August 31, 

Case 2:04-cv-02676-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 07/07/05 Page 1 of 2
-2- 

DEFENDANTS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES PUSUANT TO RULE 26(a)(1) 

Farmer, Murphy, Smith

&

Alliston

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

2005. 

2. Part V - Disclosure of Expert Witnesses - The initial designation date shall be changed 

form August 1 to August 15, 2005, and the rebuttal designation date shall be changed from August 

22, 2005, to August 31, 2005. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: June ____, 2005. FARMER, MURPHY, SMITH & ALLISTON 

 By: __________________________________ 

 Craig E. Farmer 

Dated: June ____, 2005. DIVELBISS & BONZELL, LLP 

 By: __________________________________ 

 Scott A. Bonzell 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 6, 2005. 

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 Frank C. Damrell, Jr. 

 Judge of the United States District Court 

R:\docs\Progressive Ins\Eddingfield v. Progressive\Pleadings\p-Stipulation for Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order.doc 

Case 2:04-cv-02676-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 07/07/05 Page 2 of 2