alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8526)

#### B. & S. Prod. Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 849755, etc.

(Decided January 20, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

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

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon a stipulation of fact entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the items of merchandise enumerated in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, and that such values were as set forth in said schedule “B.”

I further find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the items of merchandise enumerated *514in schedule “0,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, and that such values were as set forth in said schedule “C.”

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

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Schedule “B”

*Items Foreign value*

13 DM 6.70 per doz., less 2%, plus cost of cases, as invoiced

21 *tt*tjr *U ft tt it it tt it tt tt (C*

22 *tt ¶*7Q *tt tt it a u it tt tt tt tt*

24 *a*g *11 tt u u u it it tt it it*

25 *tt*g 0Q *tt tt tt tt tt a a tt tt it*

28 *tt*22 00 *U U (< l< li u u 11 11 u*

81 *a*g qq *tt tt tt it tt tt tt tt tt tt*

82 *tt*g QQ *tt tt tt tt it tt tt tt It tt*

91 *tt ¶*25 *u u u <( 11 u {< 11 l( u*

92 *a ¶*25 *11 u u u il li 11 (l u {(*

93 *ti*g yQ *tt tt tt tt tt tt tí tt tt tt*

94 *tt*g *tt ti tt tt tt tt tt tt tt tt*

99 *tt*22 go *lt u ei e( ce <e 11 (( 11 Ci*

Schedule “C”

*Items Cost of -production*

11 Invoiced unit price, plus cost of cases, as invoiced

12 DM 9.60 per doz., less 41^%, plus cost of cases, as invoiced

14 Invoiced unit price, plus cost of cases, as invoiced

15

41

42

43

44

45 DM 9.40 per doz., less 41}¿%, plus cost of cas(es, as invoiced

46 *tt*Q *it tí ti ti tt ti tt t it tt*

63 Invoiced unit price, plus cost of cases, as invoiced

64

65

66 DM 6.70 per doz., less 41]4,% plus cost of cases, as invoiced

67 *it*g gQ *tt tt tt tt tt tt tt it It tt*
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

JAMES L. LABER and LAURA M.

LABER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

CIV. S-04-2078-DFL-PAN(JFM)-PS

ORDER

This matter was referred to the assigned Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636, et seq., and Local Rule 72-

302. On March 27, 2006, Judge Moulds recommended that

defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. On April 5,

2006, plaintiffs filed objections to the findings and

recommendation. 

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

Case 2:04-cv-02078-DFL-PAN Document 54 Filed 08/04/06 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

magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 27,

2006, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted,

and 

3. This action is dismissed.

DATED: 8/3/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02078-DFL-PAN Document 54 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION OF            PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF            HYBRID DYNAMICS CORPORATION            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Darren Jensen, Principal Accounting Officer of Hybrid Dynamics Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.                I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial operations and results of operations of the Company.

| Date:  November 14, 2006                                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                             |
| By:  /s/ DARREN JENSEN        |
|                                                             |
| Darren Jensen                                                         |
| Principal Accounting Officer                                          |

----
Exhibit 99.1

 

**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 ofTippingPoint Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending January 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John F. McHale, Chairman of the Boardand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2. The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate, effective as of April 28, 2003.

 

/s/ JOHN F. MCHALE 

John F. McHale, 

Chairman of the Board and 

Chief Executive Officer 

 

Note 1: The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separatedisclosure document. 

 

Note 2: A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TippingPoint Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by TippingPoint Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4656 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4656

 To amend title 5, United States Code, concerning restrictions on the 
   participation of certain Federal employees in partisan political 
                   activity, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 10, 2024

  Mr. Grassley (for himself and Mr. Peters) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, concerning restrictions on the 
   participation of certain Federal employees in partisan political 
                   activity, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RESTRICTIONS ON PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITY.

    Section 7323(b)(2)(B)(i) of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subclause (XIII), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subclause (XIV), by striking ``or'' at the end; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(XV) any Office of Inspector General established 
                under chapter 4; or
                    ``(XVI) any Office of Special Inspector General; 
                or''.
                                 <all>
```
STIPLUATION AND ORDER RE: DISMISSAL 

 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

27

28

Larry Caldwell (SBN 88867) 

CALDWELL & ASSOCIATES 

1380 Lead Hill Blvd., Suite 106 

Roseville, California 95661 

Telephone: (916) 774-4667 

Facsimile: (916) 797-4954 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Dean Herman (SBN 76752) 

MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP 

15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 500 

Encino, California 91436 

Telephone:(818) 783-5530 

Facsimile: (818) 783-5507 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE HINES, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

HARTFORD CASUALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

 _____________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

CASE NO. CIV-S-04-2071 DFL DAD 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 

DISMISSAL

Case 2:04-cv-02071-DFL-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 2
- 1 - 

STIPLUATION AND ORDER RE: DISMISSAL 

 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

27

28

Pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement, the parties to this action, by 

and through their respective counsel of record, confirm that they have stipulated 

that this entire action is to be dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear 

their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

DATED: July 21, 2005 CALDWELL & ASSOCIATES 

 By: /s/Larry Caldwell .

 Larry Caldwell 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

DATED: July 21, 2005 MICHELMAN & ROBINSON LLP

 By: /s/Dean Herman . 

 Dean Herman 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. This action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; 

2. Each party is to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

DATED: 7/25/2005 ______/s/ David F. Levi_________ 

 David F. Levi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-02071-DFL-DAD Document 23 Filed 07/25/05 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD ROSENBURG,

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-02668-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

THOMAS L. CAREY, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General

Order No. 262.

On August 10, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Case 2:04-cv-02668-GEB-GGH Document 16 Filed 09/28/05 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

Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

On September 14, 2005, respondent filed objections. 

Because the objections are untimely, they shall be disregarded. 

Local Rule 6-136(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 10,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas

corpus is denied.

Dated: September 28, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02668-GEB-GGH Document 16 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                   Ending
Class              Interest        Principal     Losses            Balance
<S>                <C>             <C>           <C>           <C>
A-1                  599,426.67    463,880.56         0.00     97,136,119.44
A-2                2,128,436.10          0.00         0.00    337,847,000.00
B                    209,352.20          0.00         0.00     32,584,000.00
C                    174,400.83          0.00         0.00     26,660,000.00
D                     58,135.79          0.00         0.00      8,887,000.00
E                    135,641.46          0.00         0.00     20,735,000.00
F                     48,447.58          0.00         0.00      7,406,000.00
G                    132,511.32          0.00         0.00     23,698,000.00
H                    115,943.21          0.00         0.00     20,735,000.00
IO                   212,324.56          0.00         0.00              0.00
J                     17,802.69          0.00         0.00      2,963,000.00
K                     80,092.04          0.00         0.00     13,330,159.00
R-I                        0.00          0.00         0.00              0.00
R-II                       0.00          0.00         0.00              0.00
R-III                      0.00          0.00         0.00              0.00


</TABLE>
#### James H. Hunger et al., Respondents, v Greece Towne Mall, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[634 NYS2d 16]

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff James Hunger was injured when a flexible hose used to transport concrete fell from a scaffold and struck him in the back. Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment against defendants Greece Towne Mall and Wilridge Property, Inc., on the issue of Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. Those defendants "had a nondelegable duty to provide proper safety devices to protect workers from injury 'in circumstances where there are risks related to elevation differentials’ *(Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co.,*78 NY2d 509, 514; *see also, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply,*82 NY2d 555; *Salzer v New York Tel. Co.,*[192 AD2d 1104]), including the risk of being struck by falling objects *(see, Fitzgibbons v Olympia & York Battery Park Co.,*182 AD2d 1069, 1070)” *(McCloud v Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp.,*203 AD2d 923). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—Labor Law.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
|   | Historical Image Display:Image Title:BAHIA DE PONCE AND APPROACHESDownload Map/Chart(right-click):25683-12-1985.jpgShare this page:TweetImage Metadata:Image:        			25683-12-1985Type:        			Nautical ChartYear:        			1985Scale:        			1:20000Publisher:        			NOAA-NOSSize:        			41.0 x 34.0 |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

Privacy PolicyDisclaimerNOAA's National Ocean ServiceNOAAU.S. Department of Commerce
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Woodard, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 480]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this Court dated July 29,1985 *(People v Woodard,*112 AD2d 454), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 8, 1983, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and Thompson, JJ., concur.
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

CLAUD CAVINESS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2388 GEB EFB PS

vs.

GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary

of the Navy, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

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

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

assignments of civil cases to compensate for such reassignment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 29, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02388-GEB-DAD Document 36 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 1
Tuesday April 2 8

, 2015 meetings with Navajo Nation 2:00 and 3:00 pm

In person

Navajo Nation/Visitors

Stephen Etsitty

Harrison Tsosie

April Quinn

Jim Staudt

Jill Grant

Bethany Fisher

Derek Dyson

Greg Jones

Simon Boyce

Anthony Peterman

Eugen ia Quintana

Raju Bisht

K elly Barr

– SRP (2:00 pm only)

Jim Pratt

– SRP (2:00 pm only)

Bob Roessel

– SRP (2:00 pm only) E PA

Janet McCabe (3:00 pm only)

William Niebling

Joe Goffman (2:00 pm only)

Pat Childers (2:00 pm only)

Phone

Navajo Nation/Visitors

Greg Kelly

Sam Woods

Martin Ashley

Michelle Henry

Ar b in Mitchell

Bidtah Becker

David Palumbo (US BOR) (3:00 pm

only) EPA Region 9

Amy Zimpfer

Ann Lyons

Anita Lee

Deborah Jordan

OAR

- OAQPS and OGC

Greg Green

Chebryll Edwards

Angela Hackel

Melanie King

Kevin Culligan

Nate Topham

Rick Vetter

- OGC
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 14.(a).1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Partner
Communications Company Ltd. (hereafter "Partner") for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003, and to the incorporation by reference into the Registration
Statement on Form F-3 filed on December 26, 2001 and related prospectus of
Partner, of our report dated March 30, 2004, on the financial statements of
Partner, which are included in the Form 20-F of Partner.

We also consent to the reference to our firm in Partner's above referenced
annual report under the caption "Selected Financial Data".

                                            /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman
                                            ------------------------------------
Tel-Aviv, Israel                            Kesselman & Kesselman
                                            Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)

April 29, 2004
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 

Ronald P. Foster,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2557 RRB PAN P

vs. Order

M. D. McDonald, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoDecember 2, 2005, defendants requested an extension of time

to serve discovery responses. Good cause appearing, defendants’

request is granted and time to is extended until January 4, 2006.

So ordered.

Dated: December 6, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 24 Filed 12/06/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Document Capture Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief, that:




(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: March 16, 2011/s/M. Carolyn EllisM. Carolyn Ellis, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Document Capture Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Document Capture Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 58066.

protests 202661-K, etc. (Boston).

#### W. N. Proctor Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States,*27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “ Clean Content under T. D. 53159” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
Opinion issued July 25, 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 2 3
- 00 306
- CV

——————————— MCDANIEL HOMES, LLC AND GERALD RYAN MCDANIEL ,

Appellant s /Cross
- Appellees

V. THOMAS MOORE AND KRISTY MOORE , Appellee s /Cross
- Appellants

On Appeal from the 1 22nd District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 20
- CV
- 0766

MEMORANDUM OPINION On April 20, 2023 , appellant s /cross

- appellees , McDaniel Homes, LLC and Gerald Ryan McDaniel (collectively, “appellants”) , filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s January 23, 2023 judgment. On April 21, 2023,2

appellees/cross

- appellants, Thomas Moore and Kristy Moore (collectively, “appellees”) , filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s January 23, 2023 judgment. On June 26 , 2023, appellants and appellees filed a n “Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” In the motion, the parties represent ed that they had “settled all their claims,” and they requested that we dismiss their appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 42.1( a)(2 ). No other party has filed a notice of appeal , and n o opinion has issued. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 42.1 (a)(2), (c). Accordingly, we grant the parties’ motion and dismiss the appeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP . P. 42.1(a) (2), 43.2 (f)

. We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss

.