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

Ryan Russell Burgess,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2222 GEB PAN P

vs. Order

State of California,

Respondents.

-oOoApril 29, 2005, petitioner requested an extension of time to

file and serve a reply to respondent’s answer. Good cause

appearing, petitioner’s request is granted and time is extended

until 30 days from the date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: May 12, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02222-AK Document 15 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 51465.

#### Protests 649800-G, etc., of Manne & Weill (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser*& *Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7321
JOHN CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANGELA PICKNEY RUIZ, Hearing Officer; RUFUS E. MINCEY; JOHN I. NICHOLS; BENJAMIN MONTGOMERY; L. J. ALLEN; PARKER EVATT, in their individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-988-6-0AK) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Senn, STUCKEY & SENN, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Carter v. Ruiz , No. CA-95-988-6-0AK (D.S.C. July 26, 1996). 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
# United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit

No. 18

- 2241

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
Appelle e ,

v.

MANUEL VEGA

- MONSERRATE ,

Defendant

- Appellant

.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on December 5, 2022 , is amended as follows:

On page 2 , line 4 , " foregoing" is replaced with "following"
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4661]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5722]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determinations: ``Ike Taiga and Tokuyama Gyokuran: Japanese Masters of 
the Brush''

    Summary: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Ike Taiga and Tokuyama Gyokuran: Japanese 
Masters of the Brush'', imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, from on or about May 1, 2007, until on or about July 22, 
2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to 
be published in the Federal Register.
    For Further Information Contact: For further information, including 
a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 
453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: March 5, 2007.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E7-4661 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
ChiefJustice ^^^i*^^ Clerk 

### JamesT. Worthen ^aims^ Cathy S.Lusk 

## Twelfth Court ofAppeals Justices Chief StaffAttorney Sam Griffith Margaret i iiissey Diane DeVasto 

### Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Tommie Denson Mr. John Michael Orton 

### #687907 Assistant Attorney General Clements Unit Law Enforcement Defense Division

- 012 

### 9601 Spur 591 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Amarillo, TX 79107-9601 AUSTIN, TX 78709-1144 RE: Case Number: 12-04-00037-CV 

### Trial Court Case Number: 38,355 

### Style: Tommie Denson

v. T.D.C.J.-I.D., et al 

### Enclosed is a copy of the Memorandum Opinion issued this date in the above styled and numbered cause. Also enclosed is a copy ofthe court'sjudgment. Verytruly yours, CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK 

# Bv: fltfaiM. Mfi&i Katrina McClenny, ChiefDeputy Clerk CC: Hon. John Ovard 

### Judge James N. Parsons III 

### Ms. Janice Staples

1517 West Front Street • Suite354 • Tyler,TX 75702 • Tel: 903-593-8471 • Fax: 903-593-2193 ServingAnderson,Angelina. Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson. Houston. Nacogdoches. Rains. Rusk. Sabine. San Augustine Shelhw Smith. Triatt}. I'pshur. Van Zandt and Wood Counties www.12thcoa.courts.state.tx.us
EXHIBIT
31 (2)
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 BY PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14
 
 I, Robert
F. O’Connell, certify that:
 
 1.  I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Patriot National
Bancorp, Inc;
 
 2.  Based on
my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4.  The small
business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:
 
 (a)  Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b)  [Omitted
as permitted by Exchange Act Release No. 47986];
 
 (c)  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (d)  Disclosed
in this report any change in the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial
reporting; and
 
 5. The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 
 
 (a)  All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and
 
 (b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting.
 
 /s/
      Robert F. O’ConnellRobert
      F. O’ConnellSenior
      Executive Vice President(Principal
      financial officer)
 
 
 March 22,
2005
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-4384



# 
S ANA L EE S ANFORD ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-99-197) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 17, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Mary Lou Newberger, Acting Federal Public Defender, Brian J.Kornbrath, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, RayM. Shepard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM:Sana Lee Sanford appeals his 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.Sanford asserts that the sentencing court erred in considering evidence of drug quantities in determining relevant conduct at his sentencing hearing that was not reported in his presentence report. Sanford also complains that consideration of additional testimony from Government witnesses as to additional drug quantities was unfair because he was not sufficiently notified that the Government would be presenting such evidence. We find no error in the district court’s consideration of this evidence. See United States v. Thomas , 932 F.2d 1085 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Williams , 977 F.2d 866 (4th Cir. 1992). Next, Sanford asserts that the court erred in imposing a three-level increase in offense level under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3A1.2(b) (1998). We find no clear error in this regard. See United States v. Daughtrey , 874 F.2d 213, 217-18 (4th Cir. 1989). For these reasons, we affirm Sanford’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions of the parties are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. S ANFORD
Before the First Division,

January 13, 1943

No. 47902.

#### Petition 6234-R of Commercial Decal Products, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It appeared from the testimony that this was the first importation of decalcomanias from England by the petitioning company. The broker was instructed to enter at the invoiced value. When securing information from abroad, at the request of the examiner, the witness testified he discovered he had purchased the merchandise from a jobber, whereas he believed he was purchasing from the manufacturer. Prior to trial, the case being appealed by the collector, a stipulation was entered into between counsel stipulating the correct dutiable value. This price represented the price of this jobber to the customers in England. From the record the court was convinced that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted.
(Reap. Dec. 8261)

#### Fred L. Waldron, Ltd. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5074.

(Decided November 25, 1953)

*Lawrence, Tultle & Harper*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

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

> It is hereby stipulated as follows between counsel for plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, concerning the merchandise referred to herein:

> 1) Said merchandise consists of canned corned beef from Argentina, and the issues herein involved are similar in all material respects to those in US v. International Commercial Co., 28 CCR 629, RD 8112.

> 2) The value or price at the time of exportation of said merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of Argentina in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States was as follows:

> Per case of 48 12-ounce tins, per dozen, $2.95 less 29.4 percent.

> 3) On or about the date of exportation of said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Argentina.

> 4) The record in above-cited case, RD 8112, may be incorporated herein and this case is hereby submitted for decision.

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 involved merchandise, and that such value was $2.95 per dozen 12-ounce tins, less 29.4 per centum.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 62598.

#### Wm. Shaland Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 58/788 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of shell water flowers the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 61346, except that the merchandise herein is in chief value of shell, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-449]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD07-7-000]


Conference on Competition in Wholesale Power Markets; Notice of 
Conference

January 9, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 27, 2007, the first in a series of 
conferences will be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) to examine the state of competition in wholesale power 
markets. The first conference will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 pm (EST) at 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in the Commission Meeting Room. All interested 
persons are invited to attend. A further notice with a detailed agenda 
will be issued in advance of the conference.
    A free webcast of this event will be available through http://www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this 
event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and 
locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to 
its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the 
free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in 
the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, 
visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Perkowski or 
David Reininger at 703-993-3100.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99f8fafafceaeaf0fbf0f5f0ede0d9fffcebfab7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="365755555345455f545f5a5f424f765053445518515940">[email protected]</span></a> or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or 202-208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with 
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this conference, please contact: Moon 
Paul, Esq., Office of the General Counsel--Energy Markets, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426. (202) 502-6136, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81cceeeeefafd1e0f4edc1e7e4f3e2afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="014c6e6e6f2f5160746d41676473622f666e77">[email protected]</span></a>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-449 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 47415.

#### Protests 832344-G, etc., of Cargill Grain Co. et al. (Seattle, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### The Lacustrine Fertilizer Company, *Respondent, v.*The Lake Guano and Shell Fertilizer Company and others, *Appellants.*

Order denying the defendant’s motion for leave to withdraw demurrer and to answer affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, unless defendant, within twenty days after service of taxed bills, pays all of plaintiff’s costs and disbursements in this action accrued since the service of the complaint (not already paid), including said costs of this appeal, and delivers to the plaintiff’s attorney an undertaking executed by the defendant and two sufficient sureties, each of whom shall justify in the sum of $10,000, to be approved by a justice of this court, conditioned that the defendant will pay any judgment that shall be recovered against it in this action, and that it will not remove any of the marl in dispute until the final determination of this action, unless sooner permitted to do so by the order' of this court, in which case the order appealed from is reversed and the defendant’s motion for leave, etc., is granted.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1686-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-1686-DR), dated March 3, 2007, and related determinations. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         March 6, 2007.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the Public Assistance program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 3, 2007: 

Baker, Crawford, McDuffie, Mitchell, and Taylor Counties for Individual Assistance. 

Sumter County for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

Baker, Clay, Crawford, McDuffie, Mitchell, Muscogee, Stewart, and Taylor Counties for Public Assistance. 

All counties within the State of Georgia are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison, 

Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management and Director of FEMA.

[FR Doc. E7-4433 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P