alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 46733.

#### Protests 62621-K, etc., of Vegex, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 45107 the dried brewers’ yeast in question was held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as claimed.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - 18 CFR Part 385 
          - [Docket No. RM02-11-000] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. 

# ACTION:

Final rule: order redesignating proceeding. 

# SUMMARY:

On August 5, 2002, the Commission issued a final rule for a Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment as mandated by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. The final rule was designated “Order No. 890”. The Commission is redesignating “Order No. 890” as “Order No. 692”. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         February 16, 2007.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Secretary's Office, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8400. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On August 5, 2002, the Commission issued “Order No. 890, Final Rule” in the above-captioned proceeding.                     *Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule*, 100 FERC ¶ 61,159 (2002).                 

By this order the Commission redesignates the above-captioned proceeding as Order No. 692, Final Rule. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Nora E. Donovan, 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-4552 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4649 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4649

To amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954 by declaring that if all NATO 
 countries consent to the accession of Ukraine to NATO membership, the 
United States will have grounds for withdrawing from the North Atlantic 
                                Treaty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 9, 2024

Mr. Lee (for himself and Mr. Tuberville) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954 by declaring that if all NATO 
 countries consent to the accession of Ukraine to NATO membership, the 
United States will have grounds for withdrawing from the North Atlantic 
                                Treaty.

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

SECTION 1. GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM 
              NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY IF ALL NATO COUNTRIES CONSENT TO 
              UKRAINE BEGINNING THE NATO ACCESSION PROCESS.

    Section 408 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 (22 U.S.C. 1928) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Grounds for Immediate Withdrawal.--If the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization provides unanimous consent for Ukraine to begin the 
accession process, such action shall be grounds for the immediate 
withdrawal by the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty in 
accordance with Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                     EXHIBIT
                                     ITEM 11


              Statement Reference Computation of Per Share Earnings


         Basic earnings per share represents income available to common
stockholders divided by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding
during the period. Diluted earnings per share reflects additional common shares
that would have been outstanding if dilutive potential common shares had been
issued, as well as any adjustment to income that would result from the assumed
issuance. Potential common shares that may be issued by the Company relate
solely to outstanding stock options and are determined using the treasury stock
method.

         The weighted average number of shares used in the computation of basic
earnings per share was 680,356 for 2000 and 705,260 for 1999 and 684,838 for
1998. The weighted average number of shares used in the computation of diluted
earnings per share was 727,194 for 2000 and 758,765 for 1999 and 745,605 for
1998.




                                       6
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-41020 Summary Calendar

ANTHONY CHANEY Plaintiff - Appellant

versus JEFF WITTERSTAETER, Correctional Officer III; HAZEL KITCHEN, Lieutenant; ORLANDO JOHNSON, Correctional Officer III; SHENANE BOSTON, Counsel; JIMMY ROLLO, Captain; MELTON BROCK, Warden; BRAD DRISKELL, Correctional Officer III; JONATHAN HEATON, Correctional Officer III; TAMMY JOHNSON, Correctional Officer III; UP TAYLOR, Correctional Officer II; HENRY REECE, Sergeant; LELAND HEUSZEL, Warden; JOHN TAYLOR; UNIDENTIFIED MATTENHOFFER, Nurse; JAMES WARREN; ROY SIMON; TAMMY WHITE; VERNON JOHNSON Defendants - Appellees

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:96-CV-111

-------------------- September 26, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Anthony Chaney (“Chaney”), Texas state prisoner #656210, filed a pro se lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that numerous prison officials violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district courtNo. 99-41020 -2- granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissed Chaney’s claims. We have reviewed the briefs and the record. We have not reviewed the amended complaint in case number 9:96-CV-138 because it is not part of the record. See Sweet Life v. Dole , 876 F.2d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 1989). We conclude that granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants was correct for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court in its comprehensive opinions. See Chaney v. Witterstaetter , No. 9:96- CV-111 (E.D. Tex. June 29, 1999); Chaney v. Witterstaetter , No. 9:96-CV-111 (E.D. Tex. August 5, 1999). Chaney’s motion for the appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
(V. D. 4)

#### James H. Rhodes & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 712026.

(Decided November 25, 1953)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

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

MollisoN, Judge:

This is a valuation proceeding which arose by reason of a judgment rendered by the first division of this court in the case of *James H. Rhodes & Co.*v. *United States,*decision reported in 26 Cust. Ct. 424, Abstract 55525 (affirmed in *United States*v. *James H. Rhodes & Co.,*40 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 1, C. A. D. 488), declaring the appraisement herein to have been void and remanding the matter to a single judge of this court for the determination of the proper dutiable value pursuant to the provisions of section 2636 (d) of the Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Act of 1948 (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).

Counsel for the parties have stipulated and agreed in this proceeding as follows:

> *368IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of the pumice covered by the above-entitled reappraisement at which such or similar pumice was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Italy in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, was $7.50 per 1,000 kilos plus $2,572.05 for 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, and that the foreign value was no higher.

. On the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the dutiable value of the pumice here involved, and that such proper dutiable value was $7.50 per 1,000 kilos plus $2,572.05 for the statutory items of “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.”

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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 

Donnell Kinnard,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2472 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

David Runnels, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoMarch 11, 2005, the court imposed a $250 filing fee. Since

plaintiff submitted his complaint before the filing fee

increased, plaintiff must pay a $150 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1914(a)(2000).

Accordingly, March 11, 2005, order is vacated insofar as it

directed plaintiff to pay a $250 filing fee. Plaintiff must pay

a $150 filing fee.

So ordered.

Dated: May 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02472-FCD-PAN Document 8 Filed 05/26/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 55263.

#### Cyma Watch Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 158567-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**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 of Essential Innovations Technology Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jason McDiarmid, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 
|   | (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/ Jason McDiarmid

Jason McDiarmid

Chief Executive Officer

June 8, 2007

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE M., DONALD M., SR, and DONALD

M., JR., by and through his guardian ad litem,

DONALD M., SR.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DUNSMUIR JOINT UNION SCHOOL

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

CIV S-04-2411 MCE PAN 

ORDER 

—NFN—

Defendants move to compel plaintiffs’ answers to interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33,

37. As oral argument is unnecessary to resolve this matter, the February 15, 2006, hearing is

vacated and the court issues this order. E. D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(h).

Defendants Paganini and Raine propounded interrogatories upon plaintiffs November

7, 2005; defendants Morris, Schmitt, Pagnani and Raine propounded a separate set of

interrogatories upon plaintiffs December 9, 2005. Plaintiffs’ responses were due, respectively,

on December 7, 2005, and January 8, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02411-MCE -EFB Document 49 Filed 02/17/06 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

Despite requests by defense counsel and promises by plaintiffs’ counsel, plaintiffs

have not responded to either set of interrogatories. Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter

to plaintiffs’ counsel on January 13, 2006, but received no response. Defense counsel has filed a

declaration demonstrating plaintiffs’ “total failure to respond,” exempting compliance with the

joint statement requirement. E. D. Cal. L. R. 37-251(e). 

A party served with interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33 is obliged to serve answers or

objections and any answers provided must be verified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b). These obligations

must be satisfied within 30 days unless that time is modified in writing by the parties. Absent

such an agreement, all objections and claims of privilege are waived when the deadline imposed

by Rule 33 expires. Richmark Corporation v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1474

(9th Cir. 1992) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the

time required constitutes a waiver of any objection”); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th

Cir. 1981)).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs shall provide verified

answers to defendants’ interrogatories, without objection or claim of privilege, within twenty

days from the date of this order. 

DATED: February 17, 2006.

006.duns2411.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02411-MCE -EFB Document 49 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 2
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 June 30, 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 OfficerAugust 13, 2009
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4803 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 31143 State Highway 65 in Pengilly, Minnesota, as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Richard Arne Koski 

Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4803 ES

1 SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT RICHARD ARNE KOSKI 

2 POST OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 31143 State Highway 65 in 

5 Pengilly, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘First Lieutenant Richard Arne Koski Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘First Lieutenant Rich11 ard Arne Koski Post Office’’. 

Passed the Senate December 19 (legislative day, December 16), 2024. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4803 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostRichard Arne Koski Post Office’’. Pengilly, Minnesota, as the ‘‘First Lieutenant al Service located at 31143 State Highway 65 in
No. 45002.

#### Protest 874877-G of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliveb, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of squawker balloons in part of bamboo similar to those the subject of Abstract 40493. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 was therefore sustained.
No. 63110.

#### F. C. Mackay *v.*United States,

protests 215345-K, etc. (Pembina).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fresh or frozen boneless pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 59714, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WAYNE ELMORE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2657 GEB PAN P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 17, 2006, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the

complaint on defendants. Process directed to defendant Franklin was returned unserved because

“unable to locate.” Plaintiff must provide additional information to serve this defendant. 

Plaintiff shall promptly seek such information through discovery, the California Public Records

Act, Calif. Gov’t. Code § 6250, et seq., or other means available to plaintiff. If access to the

required information is denied or unreasonably delayed, plaintiff may seek judicial intervention.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff one USM-285 forms,

along with an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed October 14, 2005;

Case 2:04-cv-02657-GEB-EFB Document 44 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

2. Within sixty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and

submit the attached Notice of Submission of Documents to the court, with the following

documents:

a. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Franklin; 

b. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed October 14, 2005; and

c. One completed summons form (if not previously provided) 

or show good cause why he cannot provide such information.

DATED: September 7, 2006.

14/mp

elmo2657.8e(2)

Case 2:04-cv-02657-GEB-EFB Document 44 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 3
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

DAVID WAYNE ELMORE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2657 GEB PAN P 

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 1 completed USM-285 forms

 2 copies of the October 14, 2005 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02657-GEB-EFB Document 44 Filed 09/07/06 Page 3 of 3
No. 59020.

protest 247439-K (New York).

#### H. A. Gogarty, Inc. *v.*United States,

*359Opinion by

Ekwali, J.

An examination of the official papers disclosing nothing that would warrant the court in disturbing the finding of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00699-CV

Philip Emiabata and Sylvia Emiabata, Appellants

v.

Shirley Borgmann, Appellee

FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-GN-22-005152, THE HONORABLE CLEVE WESTON DOTY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants’ brief was originally due on March 13, 2023. On April 10, 2023, this 

Court sent a notice to appellants informing them that their brief was overdue and that a failure 

to file a satisfactory response by April 20, 2023, would` result in the dismissal of this appeal for 

want of prosecution. To date, appellants have not filed a brief or a motion for extension of time.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Jones*

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: May 4, 2023

*Before J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice (Retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. 

See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

KAI STRICKLAND WALKER,

Appellant,

v.

EDGAR WIGGINS, JR.,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-3051

[June 15, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Francis Viamontes, Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE15-

005415.

Kai Strickland Walker, pro se, Deerfield Beach.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 19867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08172]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Friday, April 11, 2014, 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. EDT.

PLACE: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW., 
Washington, DC 20237.

SUBJECT: Notice of meeting change of the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors.

SUMMARY: The Broadcasting Board of Governors (Board) previously 
announced that it will be meeting at the time and location listed 
above. The subject matter of the meeting has been changed to add the 
discussion and consideration of two resolutions concerning U.S. 
international media strategy for Iran.
    The prompt and orderly conduct of business required this change and 
no earlier announcement was possible.
    This meeting will be available for public observation via streamed 
webcast, both live and on-demand, on the agency's public Web site at 
www.bbg.gov. Information regarding this meeting, including any updates 
or adjustments to its starting time, can also be found on the agency's 
public Web site.
    The public may also attend this meeting in person at the address 
listed above as seating capacity permits. Member of the public seeking 
to attend the meeting in person must register at https://bbgboardmeetingapril2014.eventbrite.com by 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on April 
10. For more information, please contact BBG Public Affairs at (202) 
203-4400 or by email at pubaff@bbg.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

Oanh Tran,
Director of Board Operations.
[FR Doc. 2014-08172 Filed 4-8-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```