alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-04-218-CV

JAMES H. GENTRY, DELYTE J. GENTRY, 			      APPELLANTS

FEDERAL GUARANTY CORPORATION, 

FEDERAL FUNDING, INC. AND FIRST 

REALTY OF THE SOUTHWEST	

	V.

JACQUELINE EVANS STEWART 						APPELLEE

AS TEMPORARY GUARDIAN OF 

THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF

 DOROTHY LEE EVANS, AND 

JACQUELINE EVANS STEWART, 

TRUSTEE OF JACQUELINE EVANS 

STEWART TRUST  	

	----------

	FROM THE PROBATE COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On September 29, 2004, we notified appellants that their brief had not been filed as required by rule 38.6(a).  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a).  We stated we might dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellants or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within ten days a motion reasonably explaining the failure to file a brief and the need for an extension.  We have not received any response.

	Because appellants' brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

	Appellants shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM 		

PANEL D:	HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: October 28, 2004
(Reap. Dec. 8244)

#### Pacific Customs Brokerage Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 9047.

(Decided July 22, 1953)

*John C. Ray*for the plaintiff.

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

Ford, Judge:

The appeal listed above has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the appraised value of the merchandise involved herein is erroneous and contrary to law and should be corrected to Canadian $1,376 per 1,000 feet, less 9.09 per centum Canadian sales tax, plus wood rails and lags, as invoiced, and that there is no higher export value.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find the proper foreign value of the merchandise covered by this appeal to be Canadian $1,376 per 1,000 feet, less 9.09 per centum Canadian sales tax, plus wood rails and lags, as invoiced. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Exhibit 31****Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer****Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Michael J. Koss, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Koss Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;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 of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 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 (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the 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 or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: September 28, 2005   /s/ Michael J. Koss   Michael J. Koss  Chief Executive Officer, President and  Chief Financial Officer
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

DAVID RAY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2559 LKK KJM P

vs.

CSP-SOLANO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of

civil rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Three matters are before the court.

First, plaintiff has filed several requests for discovery. Plaintiff is informed that

discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are

at issue. All of the discovery requests and responses filed by plaintiff will be disregarded. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion asking that defendant Solomon be held in default

because he has not answered or otherwise pled. The record shows that defendant Solomon

appeared in this action on April 20, 2006, a little over a month before plaintiff brought his

motion. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02559-LKK -KJM Document 77 Filed 10/05/06 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

Finally, plaintiff asks that the court respond to plaintiff’s interrogatories and

requests for production of documents directed at defendant Parker because Parker is now

deceased. This is not a proper request. It will be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The following items filed by plaintiff shall be placed in the court’s file and

disregarded: July 13, 2006 responses to defendants’ discovery requests; August 1, 2006 “Motion

To Request Interrogatories;” August 1, 2006 “Motion For Request For Production Of

Documents;” August 1, 2006 “Motion For Request For Admissions By The Defendants;”

September 11, 2006 “Motion For Request For Admissions From Defendant Solomon;” and

September 11, 2006 “Motion For Request For Admissions From Defendant Rohrer.” Plaintiff is

cautioned that further filing of discovery requests or responses, except as required by rule of

court, may result in an order of sanctions, including, but not limited to, a recommendation that

this action be dismissed. 

2. Plaintiff’s May 26, 2006 request that defendant Solomon be held in default is

denied.

3. Plaintiff’s September 11, 2006 “Motion Requesting That The Court Review

The Deceased Dr. Robert Parker; Medical Records . . .” is denied.

DATED: October 4, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/mp

will2559.411(4)

Case 2:04-cv-02559-LKK -KJM Document 77 Filed 10/05/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

November 20, 1947

No. 52051.

#### North American Mercantile Co. *v.*United States,

petition 6353-R (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petition was dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Daymon Bodard, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Nova Energy, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 (the 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 or 78 o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: July 13, 2009  /s/ Daymon Bodard Daymon Bodard President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Nova Energy, Inc. and will be retained by Nova Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ January 22, 201 3

ERRATA

______________________

Appeal No. 2012

- 1094

HARRIS CORPORATION

v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION ,
Decided: January 17, 2013

Nonp recedential Opinion

______________________ Please make the following change:

Page 24 , line 17 , change “ noninfrignement ” to

-- noni n fring ement

-- .
June 1, 2015

Mr. Jeff Frommer Malka Media Group

51 Harrison St Hoboken, NJ 07030

Dear Mr. Frommer:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 30, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1351), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit 32.2

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P. (the
Partnership) for the quarter ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John D. Chandler, Chief Financial Officer of Magellan Midstream Holdings GP,
LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, 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 Partnership.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ John D. Chandler                     
|John D. Chandler, Chief Financial Officer
|Date: May 7, 2007                        

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership
and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0146 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0146

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 April 2007 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (COM(2005)0589 - C6-0004/2006 - 2005/0239(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0533 - 0533 *

P6_TA(2007)0146

Community vessel traffic monitoring ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 April 2007 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (COM(2005)0589 — C6-0004/2006 — 2005/0239(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0589) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 80(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0004/2006),

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

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0086/2007);

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] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
No. 64181.

protests 320953-K, etc. (Galveston).

#### Leslie B. Canion et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lighter fluid the same in all material respects as that the subject of *A. M. Ross-Smith*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 354, C.D. 2005), the claim of the plaintiffs 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOK T. LAU, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2351 WBS EFB PS

vs.

ANTONIO V. SILVA, P.C.,

Attorney at Law,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), the undersigned disqualifies himself from

participating in this matter. The Clerk of the court shall reassign this case to another Magistrate

Judge for all further proceedings, notify the parties, and make appropriate adjustments in the

assignments of civil cases to compensate for such reassignment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 25, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02351-WBS-DAD Document 50 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 61880.

#### Dynamo Tulle Importing Co., Inc., and H. W. Robinson Air Freight Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 311303-K, 314839-K, and 314840-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk veils or veilings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Elvic Import Corp.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 13, C. D. 1837), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

107) ll-E-67 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:06 AM Sheet 107 of 264 
P.2 

APR- 7-97 HON 14:59 CRANE COR TEC 

01/02/97 14:40 ©1B199410234 

FAX NO. 3352171 

PBS BTP NC 

P. 02 

©002/002 

A UJZ

dr, 

Contact Report 

Plastic Composites NESHAP 

From: Greg LaFlam, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

Melanie Proctor, PES 

Madeleine Siruro, EPA/ESD 

Dale: March 11,1996/April 1,1997 

CoM-iiict: Mark Smith, Joa Prior 

C'>*'Mi>any: Cor Tec, Wasliingion Court House, OH 

T^-pSioneNi:v\hen (614) 335-6262 

Cornet Six-'..ii-aj-y: * 

Discuss'* cl the facility's munufp.cUiiiug processes so tbat the processes cDuldbe assigned 

to ii-,-j proper subcategories. 'i'Jl*e facility nuuiufiwhiKs panels using gel coat or films, resin, glass 

rciuCurccnieiit, and plywood, fabrication is carried out in two separate process steps. 

The first step is a semi-continuous, batch process, gel coat application step. The gel coat 

is auiomatically sprayed onto film which is pulled past a reciprocating spray gun by a chain. No 

oven is used for curing, but emissions from gel coat application are sent to Ihc facility's 

ir.ctaerator. 

'Hie second step involves placing the gel coated film onto one of six special tables wliich 

operate as the bottom half of a mold for the panel. The resin is dispensed from perforated 

troughs which move down the tabic over the panel. A vacuum bag is then placed over the core, 

icsin, glass, and finish coat The ovens alternate from, one table to the next and combine with the 

bag to cure ihe panel in a 20-30 minute cycle. The cardboard troughs are dried in an enclosure. 

[April 1997 update: "Hra facility fonceily controlled styreae vapor emissions fiom trough filling 

and diying using the Incinerator, but is not presently doing so. These emissions arc low* and the 

f**wUly is not required to coatrol them under it*bperating permit The excess capacity ofthe 

incinerator is being used for otiier purposes.] 

The facility uses dibasic ester for cleaning (no methylene chloride). Filler content ofthe 

resin matrix is approximately 35 percent, but can be varied. Tiieir mixer has a small porthole to 

receive the filler (or it can be covered completely), The mixer shaft is mounted 1hiwgh th? top 

using bearing mounls, with no visible gaps. The company representatives believed that most 

mixers have no visible gaps in the top. 

REPORT IS ACCURATE
The HONORABLE ROBERT W. PRATT, United St ates District Judge for the * Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4008

___________ Lyle Robinson, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 15, 1998 Filed: June 8, 1998

___________ Before LOKEN and LAY, Circuit Judges, and PRATT, District Judge. *

___________ PER CURIAM. Lyle Robinson applied for social security disability and supplemental security income benefits on October 18, 1994, alleging a disability onset date of September 2, 1992. Following a hearing, the Commissioner’s administrative law judge denied the applic ation, finding that Robinson cannot perform his past work but has the residua l functional capacity to perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the economy,The HONORABLE RICHARD H. BATTEY, Chie f Judge of the United States 1 District Court for the District of South Dakota. -2- suchas dispatcher, order clerk, and gate guard. Robinson has a herniated disc in his back, which the ALJ found to be a severe impairment, curvature of the spine resulting from radiation treatment for kidney cancer when he was three years old, and various lesser im pairments. Critical to the ALJ’s adverse decision was his finding tha t Ro binson’s subjective complaints of disabling pain were “inconsistent, exaggerated , and not fully credible.” The Commissioner’s Appeals Council denied review, an d Robinson sought judicial review.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner , 1
co ncluding that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the ALJ’ s decision, in cluding his finding that Robinson’s testimony as to disabling pain was not entir ely credible. Robinson appeals. Having carefully reviewed the administrativ e record and the parties’ contentions on appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 1, 1997. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. To the extent Robinson raises a challenge to the vocational expert’s testim ony not presented to the district court, we conclude that contention is withou t merit. A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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

DEMIAN TREVOR O’KEEFE,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-04-1695 WBS GGH PS

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On October 12, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections were filed.

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-01695-GGH Document 27 Filed 01/10/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed October 12, 2005, are

ADOPTED; and

2. Defendant Alameida is dismissed from this action.

DATED: January 9, 2006

GGH:035

okee1695.jo

Case 2:04-cv-01695-GGH Document 27 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD   Document 11    Filed 01/12/06   Page 1 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD   Document 11    Filed 01/12/06   Page 2 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD   Document 11    Filed 01/12/06   Page 3 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD   Document 11    Filed 01/12/06   Page 4 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD   Document 11    Filed 01/12/06   Page 5 of 5

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-24T11:28:54-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
32.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL 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 Quarterly Report of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V,
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Kimberly A. Springsteen-Abbott, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




(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.







/s/Kimberly A.
      Springsteen-AbbottKimberly
      A. Springsteen –AbbottChief
      Financial OfficerMay
      15, 2009