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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1716

JOSEPH F. GUTHRIE; KELLY PITTMAN GUTHRIE, Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v. ANTHONY EMERSON FLANAGAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00479-REP)

Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 31, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Emerson Flanagan, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph F. Guthrie, Kelly Pittman Guthrie, Appellees Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Anthony Flanagan seeks to appeal the district court’s orders entering judgment in favor of the Appellees on their claims of legal malpractice and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from that judgment. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order entering judgment against Flanagan and we affirm the court’s order denying Flanagan’s Rule 60(b) motion. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 208-13 (2007); see also United States v. Urutyan , 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009). Moreover, a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) does not bring up for review the merits of the underlying substantive judgment, nor does it toll the period for filing an appeal of the underlying judgment. Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978). Here, the district court’s judgment was entered on the docket on August 22, 2008. Although Flanagan initially filed a timely notice of appeal of that order, he voluntarily dismissed that appeal. Following the district court’s denial of

23 Flanagan’s Rule 60(b) motion on May 20, 2009, Flanagan filed a notice of appeal on June 18, 2009. Although this notice is timely as to the district court’s May 20, 2009 order, it is well out of time as to the court’s August 22, 2008 judgment. Accordingly, as Flanagan failed to file a timely notice of appeal of the district court’s August 22, 2008 judgment, and failed to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, this court does not have jurisdiction over that order. With respect to the court’s order denying Flanagan’s Rule 60(b) motion, we confine our review to the issues raised in

the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Flanagan’s brief alleges no error committed by the district court in denying his Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
No. 50469.

#### Protests 106911-K, etc., of W. N. Proctor Co. et al. (Boston, etc.)

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 57318.

protests 22778-K, etc. (New York).

#### Chinatown Emporium, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of mah jong sets composed of synthetic resin similar in all material respects to the synthetic resin articles the subject of Abstract 54651, the claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was sustained.
No. 50065.

#### Petition 6297-R of W. J. Byrnes & Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

A representative of the customs brokerage firm in whose name the petition was filed testified that in making this entry he followed the regular practice of entering at the invoice values; that he did not submit the invoice to the appraiser because he had found the exporter to be correct in the invoice .values given over a number of years; and that about 3 or 4 months subsequent to entry, he obtained information from the appraiser that there had been a raise in price, the effective date of which was a few days before the merchandise left Sweden. The witness stated that he had no intention to defraud the United States of any revenue or to mislead Government officials or conceal any facts in respect to this importation. Upon the record the court was of the opinion that the petitioner at the time of making entry had no information and knew of nothing that would raise a doubt in the mind of a reasonable and prudent'-man that the entered value of this merchandise was not the true market value. The petition was therefore granted.
A2 Flight Controller Settings for N919UV (S900)A2 Flight Control Channel M appingZenmuse Settings for the S900 Settings
No. 50483.

#### Protest 94697-K of Oceanic Trading Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The case was submitted upon the official papers. From the collector’s memorandum it appeared that the duress certificate covering entry 813041 was filed subsequent to entry, and cited as the case pending on appeal to reappraisement “Entry No. 6523 — San Francisco — Appeal No. 01482,” whereas the correct entry number was 6532 and the appeal number 7232. Inasmuch as it has been held that duress certificates in order to be sufficient must be filed at the time of entry, the court found no error in the collector's finding in this case. *(Ono Trading Co.*v. *United States,*23 C. C. P. A. 124, T. D. 47991, and *Sabine Transportation Co.*v. *United States,*3. Cust. Ct. 286, C. D. 256, cited.) It was held that there was no proof that the mistake in the certificate filed was a clerical error. *(McQuillan*v. *United States,*18 C. C. P. A. 215, T. D. 44401, cited.) The protest was therefore overruled.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. NO. CIV. S-04-1339 LKK CMK

PIER 1 IMPORTS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NOTICE (LOCAL RULE 78-230)

A hearing in this case is presently scheduled for July 18,

2005, at 10:00 a.m., on the Law and Motion Calendar of this court

pursuant to the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment

filed herein. Due to congestion on the court's calendar, the

motion will be continued until the next available law and motion

calendar. Accordingly, the hearing on the motion presently before

the court is CONTINUED to August 1, 2005, where it will be called

////

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-01339-MCE-AC Document 30 Filed 07/13/05 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

on the court's regularly scheduled Law and Motion Calendar,

beginning at 10:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 13, 2005

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01339-MCE-AC Document 30 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) 1:01cr455 (LMB)

)

ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI )

a/k/a “Shaqil,” )

a/k/a “Abu Khalid )

al Sahrawi,” )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

For the reasons stated on the record during a telephone

conference, the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration of the

Court’s Order Striking All Aviation Evidence in This Case

(“Motion for Reconsideration”)(Docket #1684) is DENIED as to the

request that the Court reconsider its decision to preclude the

government from using the aviation witnesses and evidence with

which Carla Martin was involved in their case-in-chief, however,

the government’s proposed alternate remedy of allowing it to call

untainted aviation witnesses or otherwise produce evidence not

tainted by Ms. Martin has merit. Accordingly, that portion of

the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED, and it is hereby

ORDERED that the government provide the name or names of

such untainted witnesses to the defense no less than three days

before they are to testify, and provide to defense counsel all

appropriate Jencks material as well as untainted physical

evidence as soon as it is available; and it is further

ORDERED that the aviation witnesses are limited in their
2

testimony to the same parameters imposed on government witness

Aaron Zebley in the order of February 27, 2006 (Docket #1617);

that is, a government aviation witness may testify as to what the

United States government “could” have done to prevent the

attacks, had the defendant disclosed in August 2001 the facts

that he admitted in pleading guilty. The witness, or witnesses,

may not, however, testify as to what the United States government

“would” have done with this information, as such testimony would

be unduly speculative and misleading to the jury.

The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Order to 

counsel of record.

Entered this 17 day of March, 2006. th

/s/

 

Leonie M. Brinkema

United States District Judge

Alexandria, Virginia
SERVED SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

j::^mRTMENTOF 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' '^-?o9!rL¥P'^ 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS '' -' 'JPEnATIONS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

v-:!.! ^EP /U A S: 28 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10NM0006 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2010-0790 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated Case No. 2009NM700056) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached service list. 

SO ORDERED. 

\~_JiQiuMCvA.. Yoder - -^ 

Chief Administrative Law Judj 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP10NM0006 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430' 

Wilbur Wright Building -Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

David J. Bronczek, President 

Federal Express Corporation, Respondent 

nd Delivery Code 7622, Bldg G, 2 Floor 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, S'** Floor 

Memphis, nSr 38125 

Cynthia Chandler-Snell, Respondent's 

Counsel 

Feder^ Express Corporation 

Regulatory Division 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, V^ Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125 

TEL: 901-434-8361 

FAX: 901-434-8283 

Scott R. Morris, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton,WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floors Room E12-

320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the followiog address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building -Suite 2W1000, 

Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
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

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1269 GEB KJM P

vs.

SILVA GARCIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested a forty-five-day extension of time to file objections to the

court’s July 26, 2005 findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing, the court will grant

plaintiff thirty days. No further extensions will be granted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01269-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 08/17/05 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. Plaintiff’s August 8, 2005 motion for an extension of time is granted; in part

and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file

objections to the court’s July 26, 2005 findings and recommendations. No further extensions

will be granted.

DATED: August 16, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/kf

arms1269.36

Case 2:04-cv-01269-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                       K N ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                                    -----------------------
                                              1995            1994           1993            1992           1991
                                              ----            ----           ----            ----           ----
                                                                    (Dollars in Thousands)
<S>                                        <C>              <C>           <C>              <C>             <C>
Earnings:
    Income From Continuing Operations
 per Statements of Income                  $ 52,522         $15,321        $30,869         $36,342         $37,074
    Add:
      Interest and Debt Expense              34,316          32,009         31,478          27,608          24,298
      Income Taxes                           29,050          9,500          18,599          20,068          21,282
      Portion of Rents Representative
         of the Interest Factor               5,082           3,492          2,863           1,901           1,542
                                           --------         -------        -------         -------         -------
      Income as Adjusted                   $120,970         $60,322        $83,809         $85,919         $84,196
                                           ========         =======        =======         =======         =======
Fixed Charges:
    Interest and Debt Expense per
      Statements of Income
      (Includes Amortization of Debt
      Discount, Premium and Expense)       $ 34,211         $31,815        $30,909         $27,090         $24,091
    Add:
      Interest Capitalized                      105             338            965             842             207
      Portion of Rents Representative
         of the Interest Factor               5,082           3,492          2,863           1,901           1,542


      Preferred Stock Dividends of
         Subsidiary                               -               -             69           3,084           5,393
                                           --------         -------        -------         -------         -------
    Fixed Charges                          $ 39,398         $35,645        $34,806         $32,917         $31,233
                                           ========         =======        =======         =======         =======

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges             3.07            1.69           2.41            2.61            2.70
                                           ========         =======        =======         =======         =======
</TABLE>









                                           65
Before the First Division,

February 4, 1944

No. 49191.

#### Petition 6335-R of L. Bamberger & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

This case involves merchandise purchased in June 1941, and entered in November of that year. At the trial the president of the customs brokerage company making entry testified that the shipment in question was the first made by his principal and that prior to entry he (the customhouse broker) submitted the invoice to the appraiser at Newark but found there was no other information than that shown on the invoice. He thereupon made entry at the invoice price of $1.45 per square meter. Later, however, when he received notice of appeal taken by the collector he took the matter up with the foreign department of the petitioner and was advised "that they had had information that the price had advanced from the in voiced price to * * * $1.85.” He further testified that he himself did not have that information at the time he made entry and that after he received it he instructed his attorneys to agree with the Govern*255ment that the proper dutiable value was $1.85. It does not appear just when the principal received the information or that the agent ever consulted the principal with respect to the correct value, or took occasion to advise him concerning such value until he learned of an advance by the action of the collector in calling for reappraisement. The Government called to the stand the examiner at New York upon whose suggestion the Newark collector had taken the appeal to reappraisement. He stated that the price had steadily advanced from $1.45 in June to $1.85 in November and that it was not a sudden jump. The court was of the opinion that prudence would require a business man to check on the price of a new type of merchandise entered 5 months after purchase, and stated that the mere fact that the agent made a routine request of the examiner for information, standing alone, does not entitle the petitioner to a finding in its favor. On the record presented the petition was denied. *Finsilver*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 332, T. D. 41250) and *Stone*v. *United States*(13 id. 337, T. D. 41251) cited.
|   | Exhibit 32(a), Form 10-K/A |
|--------|----------------------------|

|   | Kansas City Life Insurance Company |
|--------|------------------------------------|

 

**KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

Year            Ended 2007

The            undersigned certify that the registrant’s Form 10-K report fully complies with            the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15            U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report fairly            represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations            of the registrant.

 

 

/s/ R. Philip            Bixby

             

R.            Philip Bixby

President, Chief Executive Officer,

and            Chairman of the Board

 

 

 /s/ Tracy W. Knapp

Tracy            W. Knapp

Senior            Vice President, Finance

Date: March 12, 2008
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

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1152 MCE GGH P

vs.

J.G. ARCEO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 28, 2006, plaintiff, a state prisoner, requested that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), the action is dismissed.

Accordingly, the Clerk of Court shall close this case. 

DATED: 8/9/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

jenk1152.59ggh

 

Case 2:04-cv-01152-MCE -GGH Document 44 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN M. O’CONNOR, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

16 USCMA 126, 36 CMR 282

No. 19,028

March 11, 1966

*Colonel Joseph L. Chalk, Lieutenant Colonel Jacob Hagopian,*and *Captain Melvin K. Najarían*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Joseph J. Crimmins, Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper, Captain John D. Jackson,*and *First Lieutenant Maurice J. Kutner*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

This case involves the same lecture by the Staff Judge Advocate, Fort Devens, Massachusetts, to officers of the command, as was before us in United States v Albert, 16 USCMA 111, 36 CMR 267. At trial, defense counsel ex^ pressly declined to *voir dire*the court members who indicated they had attended the lecture. However, he moved for a change of venue on the ground the lecture “might lead them to adjudge sentences greater than they might otherwise have adjudged.” The motion was denied.

Our discussion in the *Albert*case of the substance of the lecture sustains the law officer’s ruling. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judge Kilday concurs.

FERGUSON, Judge

(dissenting) :

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Albert, 16 USCMA 111, 36 CMR 267, this day decided.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65317-65318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27217]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7661]

Determination Under the Foreign Assistance Act and the Department 
of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Acts

    Pursuant to Section 654(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
as amended (FAA), notice is hereby given that the Deputy Secretary of 
State has made a determination pursuant to Section 620H of the FAA, and 
Section

[[Page 65318]]

7021 of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related 
Programs Appropriations, 2010 (Div. F, Pub. L. 111-117), and similar 
provisions in prior-year appropriations acts, and has concluded that 
publication of the determination would be harmful to the national 
security of the United States.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: October 4, 2011.
William J. Burns,
Deputy Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-27217 Filed 10-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-27-P
```
No. 58540.

protests 190930-K, etc. (Boston).

#### Hallowell, Jones & Donald *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159, which was issued following *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492). In that case, it was held that the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of .the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content Under T. D. 53159” in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Michael Anthony Lewis,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-1136 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

David L. Runnels, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoPursuant to the order made January 26, 2005, petitioner has

filed a status report stating he is attempting to exhaust

available state remedies. Petitioner shall notify the court and

respondents forthwith when he has exhausted available state

remedies.

So ordered.

Dated: May 31, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01136-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/31/05 Page 1 of 1