alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-50028

Summary Calendar

__________________

DORA IRVING,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-95-CV-324

- - - - - - - - - -

August 1, 1996

Before DAVIS, JONES and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dora Irving appeals the district court's affirmance of the

Commissioner’s decision denying Supplemental Security Income

(SSI) benefits. Irving contends that the Commissioner’s decision

was not supported by substantial evidence. A review of the

record indicates that the Commissioner’s determinations are

supported by substantial evidence.
No. 96-50028

- 2 -

Irving also argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ)

should have ordered a consultative psychiatric and/or 

psychological examination to determine whether she has a mental

impairment. Because Irving did not request a consultative mental

examination while the case was pending before the ALJ and did not

present any testimony of mental health professional or other

evidence of a mental impairment, she did not meet her burden to

show a mental impairment or raise a suspicion requiring the ALJ

to order a consultative examination. See Leggett v. Chater, 67

F.3d 558, 566-67 (5th Cir. 1995); Pierre v. Sullivan, 884 F.2d

799, 803 (5th Cir. 1989).

Irving also argues that the ALJ failed to complete a

standard Psychiatric Review Technique Form. The failure to

complete the form did not affect Irving's substantial rights. 

Mays v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1362, 1364 (5th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.
(Reap. Dec. 8713)

Entry No. W-05482.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 11, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Donlon, Judge:

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

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of all of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the invoices embraced in the Appeal to Reappraisement noted above, with the exception of the merchandise purchased from the Ohno Rubber Co. of Tokyo contained in cases No. 5903 to 5905 inclusive, at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised value less additions made to meet the advances by the Appraiser in similar cases covering the non-dutiable so-called (F. O. B.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage added by the importer on entry.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher domestic value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> ( IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal to Reap-praisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find and bold that the export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for determination of value of the merchandise here involved, except the merchandise purchased from Ohno Rubber Co. of Tokyo, contained in case Nos. 5903 to 5905, inclusive, and that such value of the respective items of merchandise are the appraised values, less additions made to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases covering the nondutiable so-called (f. o. b.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling, and lighterage.

The appeal, insofar as it relates to the merchandise purchased from Ohno Rubber Co. of Tokyo, contained in case Nos. 5903 to 5905, inclusive, is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
================================================================================
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  Quarterly  Report  of  Tamarack  Ventures,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date:  June 23, 2004

/s/ Robert Reukl
------------------------------------
Robert Reukl, Treasurer and Director
Principal Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 8514)

#### Coast Bearing and Specialty Co. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 14700; 11626; 3135.

*501(Decided January 12, 1956)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

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

OlivbR, Chief Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows concerning the merchandise referred to below:

> 1) As defined in section 402 (a-f), Tariff Act of 1930, there is for the merchandise involved in these appeals no foreign, export or United States value, but the cost of production of the merchandise is the invoice value, as follows: Item U-1217, $5.35 each; item U-1218, $6.25 each; both net packed.

> 2) On this stipulation these cases may be deemed to be submitted for decision.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in 402 (f) 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 values were the invoice values as follows: Item U-1217, $5.35 each; item U-1218, $6.25 each, both net packed.

Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise, they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4971 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4971

  To amend the Housing Act of 1949 to permit the assumption of loans 
    under the Doug Bereuter Section 502 Single Family Housing Loan 
                           Guarantee Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2024

   Mr. Welch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Housing Act of 1949 to permit the assumption of loans 
    under the Doug Bereuter Section 502 Single Family Housing Loan 
                           Guarantee Program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Homeownership Continuity Act 
of 2024''.

SEC. 2. ASSUMPTION OF LOANS UNDER THE DOUG BEREUTER SECTION 502 SINGLE 
              FAMILY HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

    Section 502(h)(10) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 
1472(h)(10)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(10) Assumption.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may provide for 
                the assumption of a current guaranteed loan made under 
                this subsection by any individual qualified to receive 
                a guaranteed loan under this subsection upon the 
                transfer to that individual of the property for which 
                the guaranteed loan was made.
                    ``(B) Release from liability.--If a borrower of a 
                guaranteed loan under this subsection transfers the 
                property for which the guaranteed loan was made to an 
                individual who assumes the guaranteed loan under 
                subparagraph (A), the transferor, and any co-borrower 
                or guarantor of the transferor, shall be relieved of 
                liability with respect to the guaranteed loan.
                    ``(C) Assumption of obligations, rights, and 
                interests.--The Secretary shall provide in each 
                assumption under subparagraph (A) for the assumption of 
                the obligations, rights, and interests under the terms 
                of the guaranteed loan or such other terms as the 
                Secretary determines appropriate.''.
                                 <all>
```
1 The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1971

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Carlos Penuelas-Santos, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 7, 1999 Filed: April 12, 1999

___________ Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Carlos Penuelas-Santos pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. At sentencing Penuelas-Santos argued, as relevant, thathe was eligible for relief under the “safety-valve” exception to the statutory minimum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2 (1998). After hearing testimony from two government witnesses, the district court 1 found that Penuelas-Santos was not entitled to safety-valve relief, and-2-

sentenced him to 60 months imprisonment (the statutory minimum) and four years supervised release. Penuelas-Santos appeals, and we affirm.After carefully reviewing the sentencing-hearing transcript, we reject PenuelasS antos’s argument that the court misinterpreted the language of section five of the safety-valve statute, as the court’s reading tracked the statute’s and Guideline’s plain language. See United States v. Akbani , 151 F.3d 774, 777 (8th Cir. 1998) (reviewing de novo district court’s legal interpretation of terminology in Guidelines). Furthermore, the burden was on Penuelas-Santos to show that he had satisfied the statute’s elements, and we do not believe the district court clearly erred in finding that Penuelas-Santos failed to truthfully provide all information he had “concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2(5) (1998); United States v. Weekly , 118 F.3d 576, 581 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), modifiedon other grounds , 128 F.3d 1198 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 611 (1997); United States v. Romo , 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir. 1996).
We also believe Penuelas-Santos’s claimof ineffective assistance of counsel would be more appropriately addressed in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding where a record can be fully developed. See United States v. Mitchell , 136 F.3d 1192, 1193 (8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.1  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 Annual Report of Basset Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report), I, Cosmo Palmieri, President 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  March 11, 2008 /s/Cosmo Palmieri     President
No. 64193.

protests 58/20648, etc. (Laredo).

#### Rio Grande Importing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of carrizo baskets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Chester K. Stoner*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2083), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
SCALE 1:24,000

SOUTHBRIDGE QUADRANGLE

1 0.5 0 1 MILE

1 0.5 0 1 KILOMETER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Prepared in cooperation with the OPEN-FILE REPORT 2006-1260-I

Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map

Surficial Geologic Map of the Southbridge Quadrangle, Massachusetts

Compiled by Janet R. Stone

2013

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1967.

Map was scanned, processed, georeferenced,

rectified, and cropped by the Massachusetts

Geological Survey.

Map units were modified from Moore (1978). Some postglacial

units were mapped using 2005 orthophoto images.

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

(SHEET 23 of 24)

(WALE

S)

(WE

B

S

TE

R)

(EAST BROOKFIELD)

72°0'0"W

72°0'0"W

72°7'30"W

72°7'30"W

42°7'30"N

42°7'30"N

42°0'0"N

42°0'0"N

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MASSACHUSETTS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AND OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (MassGIS),

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

Stone, J.R., compiler, 2013, Surficial geologic map

of the Mount Grace-Ashburnham-Monson-Webster

24-quadrangle area in central Massachusetts:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1260-I

Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1260/I.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 50 (Thursday, March 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12166-12167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4703]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 030807B]


New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is 
scheduling a public meetings of its Standardized Bycatch Reporting 
Methodology (SBRM) Committee in April, 2007, to consider actions 
affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 
Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for 
formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, April 9, 2007, at 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Mystic Hotel, 20 
Coogan

[[Page 12167]]

Boulevard, Mystic, CT 06355; telephone: (860) 572-0731.
    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, 
New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The committee will meet to further consider 
and develop all the alternatives under consideration for the SBRM 
amendment.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject 
of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to 
those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising 
after publication of this notice that require emergency action under 
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's 
intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-
0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 9, 2007.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7-4703 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
#### Regency Savings Bank, Plaintiff, v Norman Brodsky, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Mintz & Fraade, P. C., Formerly Known as Mintz, Fraade & Zeiger, et al., Third-Party Defendants and Fourth-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Harvey Haber, Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Fourth-Party Defendants. Regency Savings Bank, Plaintiff, v Norman Brodsky, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Mintz *&*Fraade, P. C., Formerly Known as Mintz, Fraade *&*Zeiger, et al., Third-Party Defendants and Fourth-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Norman Leben, Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Fourth-Party Defendants.

[633 NYS2d 38]

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about January 18,1994 and September 1, 1994, which, *inter alia,*respectively, denied fourth-party defendant-appellant Leben’s motion to dismiss the fourth-party complaint as against him for failure to state a cause of action, and which upon reargument reinstated the fourth-party complaint against fourth-party defendant-appellant Harvey Haber, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While the fourth-party plaintiffs may not seek indemnification for the fraud, misrepresentation, and failure to exercise due diligence alleged in the third-party complaint *(Glaser v Fortunoffof Westbury Corp.,*71 NY2d 643, 646-647), we sustain the fourth-party complaint as against appellants since the fifth and sixth causes of action thereof, liberally construed, are sufficient to state causes of action for contribution *(see, Taft v Shaffer Trucking, 52*AD2d 255; *Trustees of Columbia Univ. v Mitchell/Giurgola Assocs.,*109 AD2d 449). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          13,938
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                       758
<INVENTORY>                                     28,825
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,550
<PP&E>                                         111,632
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,280
<BONDS>                                         40,340
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,908
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,021)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,348
<SALES>                                         53,093
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,040
<CGS>                                           35,587
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,814
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,407
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,317
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,648
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,648
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,648
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14<F2>
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - BASIC PER SFAS 128
<F2>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - DILUTED PER SFAS 128
</FN>


</TABLE>
No. 65553.

#### Electro Motive Mfg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/12253 (New York).

Opinion by.

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ceramic bases similar in all material respects to those the subject of *John H. Faunce, Philadelphia, Inc.*v. *United Stales*(42 Cust. Ct. 196, C.D. 2085), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.