alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Application of the New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, for the Appointment of Commissioners to Examine the Proposed Route of the New York, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company in the County of Livingston.

The like order in all respects as in the last 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ARTHUR HAROLSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2068 DFL KJM P

vs.

CLAIRE TESKE, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed March 28, 2006, plaintiff was directed to inform the court whether

he wished to proceed on the complaint dated September 30, 2004 or the amended complaint

dated July 6, 2005 or to file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint combining the

claims. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to respond to the court’s order would result in a

recommendation that the action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and

plaintiff has not notified the court as to how he wishes to proceed or otherwise responded to the

court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

Case 2:04-cv-02068-DFL -KJM Document 34 Filed 06/06/06 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

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 5, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

haro2068.fta

Case 2:04-cv-02068-DFL -KJM Document 34 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 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

 By order filed May 3, 2006, petitioner was granted an additional thirty days in which to 1

file a notice of appeal and a certificate of appealability application.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID L. FULBRIGHT,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2490 DFL PAN P 

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court's March 17, 2006 denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before 1

petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues

satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

Case 2:04-cv-02490-DFL-PAN Document 20 Filed 10/11/06 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

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s December 13, 2005 findings

and recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not issue in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/10/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02490-DFL-PAN Document 20 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10069)

#### Mattel, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 59421; 57203; 44065.

(Decided August 22, 1961)

*Glad, & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*William S. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

These three appeals for reappraisement are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto:

> 1. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof are limited to the merchandise shipped by Kokusi Boeki Kaisha, Ltd. of Japan.

> 2. That the merchandise was appraised under Section 402(b) of the Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, 2nd Session.

> 3. That at the time of exporation to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exporation to the United States, were the values found by the Appraiser less buying commission of 10% or 13% as noted on the invoices.

> 4. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A”, as heretofore limited, are submitted on this stipulation.

*444On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove indentified, is export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165), and hold that such statutory value therefor is the values found by the appraiser, less buying commission of 10 per centum or 13 per centum, as noted on the invoices.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 8689)

Entry No. 739655.

#### S. S. Kresge Co. *v.*United States

(Decided October 24, 1956)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub.*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

WilsoN, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, that the market value or the price of the merchandise on the invoices covered by the appeal for reappraisement above named, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Germany, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States was in each case the appraised value less the amount added under duress, packing included, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the 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 value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value in each case was the appraised value, less the amount added under duress, packing included.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### HARLAN J. FISCHER, Airman First Class, U. S. Air Force, Petitioner v WILLIAM B. KIEFFER, Lieutenant General, Commanding General, Eighth Air Force, U. S. Air Force, Respondent

19 USCMA 117, 41 CMR 117

*118Miscellaneous Docket No. 69-34

December 12, 1969

*David Burres, Esquire,*counsel for Petitioner.

*Colonel James M. Bumgarner*and Respondent. *Major Robert L. Bates,*counsel for

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

The petitioner seeks to enjoin his transfer from a base confinement facility to the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He was convicted by a general court-martial of several offenses in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and is awaiting appellate review of the conviction.

Petitioner’s contentions as to the illegality of the transfer are substantially similar to those in Reed v Ohman, Commander, Headquarters Command, United States Air Force, 19 USCMA 110, 41 CMR 110, decided this day. For the reasons set out in our opinion in *Reed,*we conclude that the proposed transfer does not violate Article 71, Code, supra, 10 USC § 871. It is also alleged that the petitioner is in a “state of physical debility,” resulting from a “form” of meningitis for which he was hospitalized, and that to subject him to restraint as rigorous as that provided at the Disciplinary Barracks is an abuse of discretion. See Article 13, Code, supra, 10 USC §813; Levy v Resor, 17 USCMA 135, 37 CMR 399. The petitioner maintains he has applied for leave to present evidence of his physical condition and “other circumstances” to the convening authority but “such permission has not yet been granted.” The Government represents that “in determining the nature and place of restraint, every consideration *will be*given to petitioner’s medical condition.” (Emphasis supplied.) The accused’s physical condition is indeed an appropriate subject of consideration in determining the nature of post-conviction restraint (Reed v Ohman, supra), and the petitioner may properly present such evidence directly to the convening authority. Since the issue has not yet been determined, however, there is, manifestly, no basis for charging an abuse of discretion.

The petition for relief is denied, without prejudice to such other future proceedings as may be warranted by existing circumstances.

Judge FERGUSON concurs.

Darden, Judge:

I concur. See my separate opinion in Reed v Ohman, Commander, Headquarters Command, United States Air Force, 19 USCMA 110, 41 CMR 110.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHARLESTAE A. TAGGART,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 127 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
No. 61385.

protests 297450-K and 315482-K (New York).

#### Colonial Bead Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 59105, except that said stones are not faceted, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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 amended Quarterly Report of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Ricketts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Cano Petroleum, Inc. and willbe retained by Cano Petroleum, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| February 22, 2005 | /s/ Michael J. Ricketts |   |
|------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                   | Michael J. Ricketts     |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
1

Michael. B. Mukasey has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the

United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1198

___________

Pedro Aldaba Barrientos, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Michael B. Mukasey,1

 Attorney General *

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: December 12, 2008

Filed: January 8, 2009

___________

Before MELLOY, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pedro Aldaba Barrientos petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of

Barrientos’s motion to reopen removal proceedings. We deny the petition.
-2-

Barrientos, charged with being removable, was notified that his removal hearing

was scheduled for January 21, 2004, in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Prior to the hearing,

Barrientos moved for permission to participate by telephone from his attorney’s office

in Des Moines, Iowa. On January 21, 2004, the IJ denied the motion for a telephonic

hearing and entered an in absentia order finding Barrientos removable as charged.

Barrientos moved to reopen, asserting that telephonic hearings were routinely granted,

and that he had been present at his attorney’s office on the day of the hearing and had

been ready to participate. The IJ denied the motion to reopen, and the BIA affirmed

without opinion.

After careful review, we conclude the denial of the motion to reopen was not

an abuse of discretion because the mere submission of a motion for a telephonic

hearing did not relieve Barrientos of the obligation to personally appear at the hearing,

and Barrientos did not show exceptional circumstances to excuse his absence. See 8

U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) (removal order issued in absentia may be rescinded upon

motion to reopen, if alien demonstrates he did not receive proper notice of hearing or

failure to appear was attributable to exceptional circumstances); 8 U.S.C. §

1229a(e)(1) (defining exceptional circumstances); Alanwoko v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d

908, 914 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); cf. Tang v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 1192,

1195-96 (10th Cir. 2003) (submission of motion for change of venue did not excuse

alien’s failure to appear at hearing, and obligation to attend scheduled hearing

continued unless and until IJ granted motion; burden of inquiry regarding status of

motion remained on alien, and assuming that motion would be granted was not

exceptional circumstance beyond alien’s control).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 

______________________________
# ORIGINAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANEILED PR 22-0004 

### FEB 08 2022 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Court State of INAnntana IN RE PETITION OF DANIELLE S. VUKONICH FORREINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN THE BAR OF MONTANA ORDER

Danielle S. Vukonich has petitioned this Court for reinstatement to active status in the State Bar ofMontana. Thepetition indicates that Vukonich voluntarily chose inactive status on July 8, 2015. It is the Court's practice in such cases, given the amount oftime since Vukonich has been on active status, to require a character and fitnessreview and the completion ofcontinuing education. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner shall submit to an investigation conducted by the Commission on Character and Fitness, which, in its discretion, may be a limited investigation. Petitioner shall comply with the character and fitness process and timely produce information and documentation as requested by the Commission. The Commissionwill investigatePetitioner'scharacterandfitnessinaccordancewiththeRules ofProcedure ofthe Commission on Character and Fitness. The Commission will advise the Court whether the Petitioner has been certified, conditionally certified, or denied certification. If the Commission denies certification, the Commission will issue written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decision pursuant to Section 5(c)(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Character and Fitness. If the Petitioner is certified or conditionally certified by the Commission on Character and Fitness, the Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice of law in Montana upon payment of appropriate dues and fees and penaltiestothe State Bar ofMontana. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if admitted, within six months ofadmission to the active practice of law, Petitioner shall submit to the Board of Continuing Legal Education, P.O. Box 577, Helena, MT 59624, proof of attendance at thirty hours of approved ContinuingLegal Education tobe credited to the time Petitioner was on inactive 02/08/2022

Case Number: PR 22-0004status. This may include approved credits previously obtained by Petitioner duringthe last

two years, ifany. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis order to the Petitioner and the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this day ofFebruary, 2022.

2 ChiefJustice

6/13:>

ftlJus iL
# C_2008227EN.01003301.xml

| 4.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/33

---

Corrigendum to information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to national regional investment aid

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 180 of 2 August 2007
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 180 of 2 August 2007

(2008/C 227/10)

On page 16, Aid No XR 107/07, against the entry ‘Annual budget’:

for:

‘RON 5 720 million’,

read:

‘RON 5,72 million’.

---
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4867 

To require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct, and 

submit to Congress a report describing the results of, a study that 

analyzes housing programs and services for older individuals under the 

Older Americans Act of 1965. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2024 

Mr. KELLY (for himself, Ms. MURKOWSKI, and Mr. KAINE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Comptroller General of the United States 

to conduct, and submit to Congress a report describing 

the results of, a study that analyzes housing programs 

and services for older individuals under the Older Americans Act of 1965. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Housing Options for 

5 Older Adults Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4867 IS

1 SEC. 2. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON ACCESS TO HOUSING 

2 FOR OLDER INDIVIDUALS. 

3 Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 

4 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

5 shall conduct, and submit to Congress a report describing 

6 the results of, a study that analyzes housing programs and 

7 services for older individuals under the Older Americans 

8 Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), including— 

9 (1) an analysis of the Interagency Coordinating 

10 Committee on Healthy Aging and Age-Friendly 

11 Communities that— 

12 (A) assesses any metrics used by the Com13 mittee to evaluate the success of the Commit14 tee’s activities and related Federal programs; 

15 (B) evaluates interagency coordination of 

16 Federal housing programs for older individuals; 

17 and 

18 (C) assesses the availability of affordable 

19 housing for older individuals as the result of 

20 interagency coordination; 

21 (2) an analysis of any overlap between, and 

22 gaps in, housing programs and services that assist 

23 older individuals in obtaining accessible and afford24 able housing that achieves the objectives of the 

25 Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et 

26 seq.), including programs under the Administration 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4867 IS

1 for Community Living, the Department of Housing 

2 and Urban Development, and other Federal pro3 grams, as applicable, and the availability, accessi4 bility, and demand for such services; 

5 (3) an analysis of the availability of affordable 

6 housing for such older individuals, to the extent such 

7 information is available and taking into consider8 ation incomes and geographic and demographic 

9 trends; and 

10 (4) any recommendations to improve the sup11 ply, accessibility, and affordability of housing for 

12 older individuals and coordination of services pro13 vided under the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 

14 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) and other related Federal pro15 grams, as applicable. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(C. D. 264)

#### Case & Co. *v.*United States

United States Customs Court, Second Division

(Decided December 12, 1939)

*Strauss & Hedges*for the plaintiffs.

*Webster J. Oliver,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the defendant.

*311Before Tils on, Fínchelos, and Dallingeb, Judges

Tilson, Judge:

Tbe merchandise, the proper dutiable classification of which is involved in these suits, consists of laces, silks, and other articles imported from Great Britain between January 1, and July 1, 1934. Duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 90 per centum under paragraph 1529 of the Tariff Act of 1930. In addition thereto a so-called countervailing duty was also assessed on certain items of said merchandise under the provisions of section 303 of said act. The plaintiffs make claims for lower rates of duty, but the claim relied upon and urged in their brief filed herein is that the assessment of the so-called countervailing duty was contrary to the treaty with Great Britain of July 3, 1815, by reason of the treaty then in effect with Germany.

The case was submitted for decision upon the official record, without the introduction of any evidence by either party.

Counsel for neither party have cited us to any act of the Secretary of the Treasury where he, under the provisions of said section 303, ascertained and determined, or estimated the net amount of this bounty or grant, and declared the net amount so determined or estimated. However, in the absence of any showing by the plaintiffs that the Secretary of the Treasury failed to comply with the provisions of section 303, we shall assume for the purposes of this case that the provisions of said section were complied with.

In view of the fact that the plaintiffs have offered no evidence to establish that the so-called countervailing duty imposed upon the items of merchandise in this case was not also imposed upon all like or similar articles imported from other countries, the plaintiffs’ claim must fail. So far as this record shows the same amount of countervailing duty was assessed upon the importation of like or similar articles of merchandise from all other countries. We are not permitted to substitute assumption for proof. Were we able to find from, this record that like or similar merchandise was imported into the United States from Germany or other countries enjoying similar treaty rights with the United States without the payment of this countervailing duty it is quite possible our conclusion would have been different.

In view of the state of the record before us it is unnecessary for us to attempt any construction or interpretation of the treaties involved in connection with said section 303. All the claims of the plaintiffs Are therefore overruled. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.