alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8252)

#### Hohenberg *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 701904.

(Decided September 23, 1953)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED:

> 1. That the merchandise covered by the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement is wool yarn which was imported from Belgium;

> 2. That the market value or the price at the time of exportation of said merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of 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, is 232 Belgian francs per kilogram, plus 1.0378 per cent;

> 3. That the market value or the price at the time of exportation of said merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was offered for sale as referred to in paragraph 2 of this stipulation, but for exportation to the United States instead of for home consumption in the country from which exported, was not higher than the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was thus offered for sale for home consumption in that country;

> 4. That said appeal for reappraisement may be submitted for decision on this stipulation and on the invoice, entry and other official papers relating to the entry and appraisement of said merchandise covered by said appeal.

On tbe 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 the merchandise here involved, and that such value was 232 Belgian francs per kilogram plus 1.0378 per centum.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00134-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

JENNIFER RENEE JONES,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 1

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-2710-CR2

ABATEMENT ORDER

On August 6, 2015, this Court received a “Motion to Withdraw as Attorney” and 

a “Motion for Substitution of Attorneys” filed by attorney Walter M. Reaves Jr. and joined 

by attorney Guy Cox.1 In these motions, Reaves indicates that he wishes to substitute for 

Cox who has been representing appellee as appointed counsel.

 

1 Reaves has also filed a motion for extension of time to file “Appellant’s brief.” Notwithstanding 

the fact that Jennifer Renee Jones is the appellee in this matter, at this time, we take no action on the motion 

for extension of time or any other motion in the case.
State v. Jones Page 2

The appointment of counsel of an indigent defendant is under the sole authority 

of the trial court. See Enriquez v. State, 999 S.W.2d 906, 907-08 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, 

order); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 1.051(d)(1), 26.04(a) (West Supp. 2014); cf. Meza 

v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). During an appeal, the trial court 

retains jurisdiction to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant. See Enriquez, 999 S.W.2d 

at 908; see also Meza, 206 S.W.3d at 688.

Accordingly, we abate this appeal to the trial court to conduct any necessary 

hearings for a determination of Jones’s indigence and whether counsel should be 

appointed. Any hearing should be held within 28 days of the date of this Order. The 

supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records required by the rule, if any, are ordered to be 

filed within 42 days of the date of this Order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed September 3, 2015

Do not publish
Case No. 15,08?.

#### UNITED STATES v. FENWICK.

[5 Cranch, C. C. 562.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1839.

Criminal Procedure—Instructions—Sufficiency of Evidence.

It is error in a judge to instruct the jury that the evidence is sufficient to convict the defendant. The sufficiency is to be decided by the jury.

[Cited in Stettimus v. U. S., Case No. 13,-387; U. S. v. Taylor, 11 Fed. 473.]

[Cited in Territory v. Kee (N. M.) 25 Pac. 926.]

Error to the criminal court for Alexandria county, in a prosecution for perjury.

The judge had instructed the jury that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant [Francis Fenwick], who objected to the instruction, and took his bill of exceptions.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent)

was of opinion that the judge should not have instructed the jury that the evidence was sufficient; that question is for the jury.

Judgment reversed, and venire de novo to be awarded.
EXHIBIT
23.01  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-60430, 333-38696, 333-76804, 333-92232,333-131697 and 333-134654) and in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-87858, 333-111306 and 333-143198) of
Allos Therapeutics, Inc. of our report dated February 25, 2008
relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP  Denver, Colorado February 25, 2008
June 27, 1941

No. 46148.

Suit 4322.

#### United *States*v. *Frank P. Dow Co., Inc.*

C. D. 299 reversed. C. A. D. 169.
Case No. 9,781.

#### MOORE v. WILMARTH et al.

[4 Leg. Int. 195.]

Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

Nov. 5, 1847.

Execution —Imprisonment por Debt — Federal Courts — Following State Practice-Public and Private Debtors.

1. If a debtor, after suit in this court, takes the benefit of the insolvent laws of Massachusetts, he is entitled, under the acts of congress as to imprisonment for debt, to have an execution issued against his property alone.

[See Moan v. Wilmarth, Case No. 9,686.]

2. The body of a private debtor, when sued in a United States court, is imprisoned, or not. on execution, according to the laws and policy of the state in which the execution issues; but an execution against a debtor to the United States is governed by the uniform and fixed laws of congress.

[See Moan v Wilmarth, Case No. 9,686.]

Before WOODBURY, Circuit Justice.

[Nowhere more fully reported; opinion not now accessible.]
Searched for **http://www.tva.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.tva.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
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

DANIEL JAMES LONGORIO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2650 DFL KJM P

vs.

B. JACOT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On May 23, 2006 defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On February 2, 2006 plaintiff was advised of the

requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may

be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be

grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

inherent power of the Court.” In the order filed February 2, 2006, plaintiff was advised that 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02650-JAM -KJM Document 16 Filed 07/20/06 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

failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be

dismissed.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the

date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the May 23, 2006 motion to dismiss. 

Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and shall result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: July 20, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp

long2650.46osc

Case 2:04-cv-02650-JAM -KJM Document 16 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Arlene A. Hughes, as Director of the Mental Hygiene Legal Service of the Fourth Department, on Behalf of John F., *1023Petitioner, v Thomas A. Maul, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, et al., Respondents.

[635 NYS2d 566]

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities that it is in John F.’s best interest to remain a resident at the 508 Church Street Intermediate Care Facility is supported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Caputo v Webb,*139 AD2d 735; *see generally, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 179-181). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wayne County, Strobridge, J.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-1025.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

TRADE 

Beef and Beef Products 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and PERU 

Effected by Exchange of Letters at 

Lima and Washington 

October 6 and 25, 2006 

with 

Annex 
 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.” 
PERU 

 Trade: Beef and Beef Products 

 Agreement effected by exchange of letters at 

 Lima and Washington October 6 and 25, 2006; 

 Entered into force October 25, 2006. 

 With annex.
Exhibit 4.(a).16





Unofficial Translation





[State Emblem]





The State of Israel


Ministry of Communications




General License for Partner Communications Ltd. for the Provision of


Mobile Radio Telephone (MRT) Services using the Cellular Method




Amendment No. 56





By virtue of the powers of the Minister of Communications under Article 4 (e) of the Communications Law (Telecommunications and Broadcasts), 5742-1982, that have been delegated to us, by all our other powers under any law and after having given Partner Communications Company Ltd. (hereinafter: “Partner”) the opportunity to present their arguments regarding this matter, we hereby amend the General License for the provision of mobile radio telephone (MRT) services using the cellular method granted to Partner on 7 April 1998,  as follows:





Amendment of Article 74





1.
The contents of Article 74 shall be marked as Article 74.1




2.
In sub-section 74.1(b) after "payment" shall come "monthly".


3.
After Article 74.1 shall come:







"74.2      The Licensee shall not be allowed to collect from a subscriber:




(a)
Payment for initiating a call;




(b)
Minimum payment for a call"





Amendment of Article 75





4.
Instead of sub-section 75.10(b) shall come:




" b) The payment for any airtime unit, at least for the duration of the first minute of the call, shall be constant.;"





Commencement





5.
This amendment shall become effective from the signature date of the amendment.




(17 June 2010)





(sgd)


________________


Moshe Cachalon


Minister of Communications
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

ISRAEL BARAJAS

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2282 LKK CMK P

vs.

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al.,

Respondents. 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 February 23, 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.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02282-LKK -CMK Document 16 Filed 03/28/06 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

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 February 23, 2006, are adopted in

full; and 

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to

exhaust state remedies. 

DATED: March 27, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02282-LKK -CMK Document 16 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the periods ending July 31, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report),

I, Martha Kretzmer, 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:

(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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 29th day of August 2006.





|                                 
|---------------------------------
|/s/ Martha Kretzmer              
|Martha Kretzmer                  
|President/Chief Executive Officer
|  | (1) | the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q      of Debut Broadcasting Corporation Inc. for the quarter ended March 31,      2008 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      quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, fairly      presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of      operations of Debut Broadcasting Corporation  Inc. |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/      Ronald Heineman                      |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Ronald      Heineman                          |
| Title: | Principal      Executive Officer and Director |
| Date:  | May 20,      2010                        |
|   |                                          |
| By:    | /s/      Sariah Hopkins                       |
| Name:  | Sariah      Hopkins                           |
| Title: | Principal      Financial Officer              |
| Date:  | May 20,      2010                        |
Before the First Division,

March 2, 1950

No. 54089.

#### Ciba Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 144401-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the estrogenic hormone passed upon in *Roche-Organon*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
No. 38875.

#### Protests 765004-G, etc., of Boutross Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
FISCAL YEAR [YEAR] SPREADSHEET FOR SMALL, RURAL SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM AND RURAL LOW-INCOME SCHOOL PROGRAM

State:

NCES 

LEA ID State ID District Name Mailing Address City Zip Code Telephone Nature of Correction Is the LEA defined as rural by

the State?Average Daily AttendanceIs county population densityless than 10 persons/sq. mile?Percentage of children fromfamilies below poverty lineDoes LEA

meet low-income

poverty requirement?Does each school in LEA havelocale code of 6,7, or 8?FY [Prior Year] Title II, Part Aallocation amountFY [Prior Year] Title II, Part Dformula allocation amount -PLEASE LEAVE

BLANK

FY [Prior Year] Title IV, Part Aallocation amount - PLEASELEAVE

BLANK

FY [Prior Year] Title Vallocation amount - PLEASELEAVE

BLANK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Public Burden Statement:

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to 
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to 

average 40 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this 

collection is required to obtain or retain benefit (ESEA Section 6212/6221). Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20210-4537 or email ICDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1810-0646. Note: Please do not return the completed REAP application to this address.

If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form write directly to: 

Email: REAPSEA@ed.gov

Subject: SRSA Application Status
### 7/21/2005 Page / Of Revised INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT This report revised based on revised Initial Review Engineering Report of6/29/2005. Case Number: P040605 Assessor: Flessner ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES Scenario#: 1 Number ofRelease Sites: . Release Activity: Manufacturing Ielease Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE 

### Total Releases: 

# I (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 

### Release Days/yr: 

# [7 17 . Per Site Release: (kglday) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kg/day) Remarks:

Consumer use expected?



### [Parameter Ex 

### ased 

# IPersistent[Exceedance value] Drinking (Surface) Water Dose (mg/kg/day) Fish Ingestion Dose (mg/kg/day) Inhalation Dose (mg/kg/day) GroundwaterDose (mg/kg/day) SurfaceWaterRelease after treatment(kg/yr) TotalRelease AfterTreatment(kg/yr)

Conumer Exposure Dose?INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page 

### 2 of / CASE NUMBER:P040605INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page of

### /( CASE NUMBER: P040605Page 1o INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Case Number: P040605 Assessor: ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES Scenario#: 2 Number ofRelease Sites: . Release Activity: Processing, a Ielease Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN _FGTV 

### Total Releases: FUGTI (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kg/yr) 

### Release Days/yr: 

# [ 1[ . Per Site Release: (kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day) Remarks:* INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page 6 of f(6 CASE NUMBER:P040605INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page 4 Of 

### ( CASE NUMBER: P040605INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT ae 

# oV

Case Number: P040605 Assessor: ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES Scenario#: 3 Number ofRelease Sites: . Release Activity: Processing, b elese Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE 

### Total Releases: 

# I (kglyr) (kg/yr) (kg/yir) (kglyr) (kglyr) 

### Release Days/yr: 

## 77 1 Per Site Release: (kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day) Remarks:INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Pageg Of( CASE NUMBER:P040605INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page 

## ' Of(6 CASE NUMBER: P040605INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page / of

# /

Case Number: P040605 Assessor: ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES Scenario#: 4 Number ofRelease Sites: Release Activity: Use, a

elease Description: WATER -LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE Total Releases: (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 

### Release Days/yr: 

# [ 1 Per Site Release: (kg/day) (kglyr) (kg/yr) (kglyr) (kg/day) Remarks:INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page 

### // of 1/6 CASE NUMBER:P040605INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page 

### 12 of/(- CASE NUMBER: P040605INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORTPae1of0

Case Number: P040605 Assessor: ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES Scenario#: **5** Number ofRelease Sites: Release Activity: Use, b Ielease Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVEQ 

### Total Releases: (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) 

## Release Days/yr: 

# F . %

Per Site Release: (kglday) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kg/day) Remarks:INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page /'/ CASE NUMBER:P040605INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page 1$-of 16( CASE NUMBER: P040605
Patrick Kelly <kellyp@api.org>

10/25/2013 06:01 PM

To Group A-AND-R-DOCKET@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135: Supplemental 

Comments of the American Petroleum Institute

2 attachments

Tier 3 Supplimental Supplimental Comment.pd Comment.pdf HDS_092013_Future HDS_092013_Future US Trends in Adoption Adoption of LD Autom Technologies.pd Technologies.pdf

To whom it may concern:

The American Petroleum Institute is submitting the attached supplemental comments to the subject

Docket for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Rule on Control of Air Pollution from

Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards.  Please note these are in addition to

the supplemental comments filed yesterday, 10/24/13.

Sincerely,

Patrick Kelly

API