alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 55307.

#### Anglo-Oriental Importing & Rug Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 127040-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2007058EN.01001101.xml

| 13.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/11

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4000 — Inco/Falconbridge

(pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001)

(pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 58/04)

Written procedure

On 20 January 2006, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘Merger Regulation’) by which the undertaking Inco Limited (‘Inco’, Canada) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Falconbridge Limited (‘Falconbridge’, Canada) by way of a public bid announced on 11 October 2005.

At the end of the first phase of the investigation, the Commission concluded that the concentration raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. The Commission opened phase II of the case on 24 February 2006.

The Commission issued a Statement of Objections on 8 May 2006, to which Inco responded on 22 May 2006.

No access to file issues have been raised with the Hearing Officer in this case. I have not been asked to verify the objectivity of the market tests.

An oral hearing was held at the parties' request on 29 May 2006.

Involvement of third parties

I admitted eight undertakings as third parties according to Article 11(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (‘Implementing Regulation’). With a view to informing them of the nature and subject matter of the procedure, pursuant to Article 16 of the Implementing Regulation, they were sent a non-confidential version of the Statement of Objections, and only two attended the oral hearing.

In the light of the commitments proposed and having analysed the results of the market test, the draft decision concludes that the proposed concentration is compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement.

In the light of the above, I consider that the rights to be heard of all participants to the present proceeding have been respected.

Brussels, 27 June 2006

Serge DURANDE

---
Case No. 16,100.

#### UNITED STATES v. FISHER.

[Cited in U. S. v. Hall, Case No. 15,281, and U. S. v. Pomeroy, Id. 16,065. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, the undersigned officer of Goldman Sachs
Hedge Fund StrategieS LLC, hereby certifies that Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund
Partners II, LLC's (the "Company") Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                            /s/ Tobin V. Levy
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Name:   Tobin V. Levy
                                            Title:  Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  August 15, 2005

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
Before the First Division,

December 18, 1957

No. 61408.

protests 227527-K, etc. (New York).

#### Morris Berger, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, G. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52836), for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 30 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by T. D. 51898, for imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted.
* 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. 97-41245

Summary Calendar

MATHEW VARUGHESE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CV-427

September 25, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mathew Varughese appeals the denial of his petition for a writ

o f habeas corpus. Varughese contends that his counsel was

ineffective for not objecting to: argument made by the State

asking the jury to consider his race as a basis for his conviction,

testimony that his daughter wrote in her diary that he abused her,

and testimony regarding the bad character of Indian men. Varughese

also argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to

interview the State’s exp ert or the defense expert about whether2

the burns on his shirt were cause d by a “flash fire” and for

failing to offer evidence that his fingers were burned in the fire.

The district court granted Varughese’s motion for certificate

of appealability (COA) concerning whether Varughese’s counsel’s

failure to object to argument made by the state asking the jury to

consider his race as a basis for his conviction prejudiced his

defense. Varughese in his brief to this court raises the

ineffectiveness-of-counsel issue, including matters for which the

district court denied COA. Varughese later submitted a letter to

this court specifically requestin g that we consider all five

claimed deficiencies of trial counsel in our resolution of the

ineffective-assistance issue, rather than the single deficiency

certified by the district court.

In this case there is some question as to whether a district

court, using the COA procedure, can divide a claim of ineffective

assistance into subparts for appellate review. There is also some

question as to whether, assuming the issue is divisible, Varughese

properly requested review of the issues that were not granted COA.

See United States v. Kimler

, No. 97-203 20, 1998 WL 442846, at 1

(5th Cir. Aug. 5, 1998); Lackey v. Johnson

, 116 F.3d 149 (5th Cir.

1997). Nevertheless, we need not reach these questions because,

even if we were to consider all claims of ineffective assistance,

we would deny relief because these arguments are without merit. We

have carefully reviewed the record and the briefs, and, essentially

for reasons adopted by the district court concerning this issue, we3

AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. S ee Varughese v. J ohnson

,

No. 4:96-CV-427 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 26, 1997)(unpublished).

AFFIRMED.
(Reap. Dec. 9533)

#### Bohemia Import Co., Inc. S. Stern, Henry & Co. v. United States

Entry No. 802158.

(Decided November 5, 1959)

Siegel, Mandell & Davidson for the plaintiffs.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purposes of certain chandeliers is before the court for determination.

the time of ex- portation to the United States, at which time such or similar merchan- dise 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 the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, ready for shipment to the United States, was at the invoice unit values, less 50 per centum, less 10 percent, packed. It was further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher domes- tic value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise

It was 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.

Upon the agreed facts of record, the court finds and holds that ex- port value, as that value is defined in section402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(d)), is the proper basis for determining the is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. � 1402(d)) is the proper basis for determining the *531value of the chandeliers in controversy and that said value is represented by the invoice unit values, less 50 per centum, less 10 percent, packed. As to all other merchandise, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2016 (the Report) of TICC Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jonathan H. Cohen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Jonathan H. CohenName: Jonathan H. Cohen Date: August 5, 2016
AMENDMENT
                                    ---------
                                       TO
                                       --
                       CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                       ----------------------------------
                                       OF
                                       --
                         RIO VISTA ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.
                         ------------------------------

1.   The name of the Limited Partnership is RIO VISTA ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.

2.   The address of the General Partner is hereby changed to:

                          820 GESSNER ROAD, SUITE 1285
                                HOUSTON, TX 77024

     It is declared that the undersigned General Partner executed this Amendment
to Certificate of Limited Partnership as its act and deed.

     Dated as of September 17, 2003


                                        RIO VISTA GP LLC,
                                        the sole general partner

                                        By:  /s/ Ian T. Bothwell
                                           ----------------------
                                             Ian T. Bothwell, Treasurer
                                             Authorized Officer


<PAGE>
**Exhibit 32(b)**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Form 10-Q ofFrederick County Bancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,I, William R. Talley, Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) theinformation contained in such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.
| /s/ William R. Talley, Jr.                      |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| William R. Talley, Jr.                          |   |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00632

- CV

Americo M. Flores v. Paccar Financial Corp.

On Appeal from the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 2115

- 12

- F

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered thi s cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 27, 2014
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4872 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4872

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt sports betting 
                   from the tax on authorized wagers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2024

   Ms. Cortez Masto (for herself and Mrs. Hyde-Smith) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt sports betting 
                   from the tax on authorized wagers.

    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 ``Withdrawing Arduous Gaming Excise 
Rates Act'' or the ``WAGER Act''.

SEC. 2. SPORTS BETTING EXEMPT FROM THE EXCISE TAX ON AUTHORIZED WAGERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 4402 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Sports betting not prohibited under state law or 
        tribal compact.--On any wager which--
                    ``(A) is not prohibited under--
                            ``(i) the law of the State in which 
                        accepted, or
                            ``(ii) an approved Tribal-State gaming 
                        compact executed in accordance with the Indian 
                        Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), 
                        and
                    ``(B) is placed with respect to any sporting 
                event.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to wagers placed after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and reco mmendations of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2170

___________ Marc Joseph Arens, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Robert Fletcher, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 14, 2006 Filed: June 27, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Minnesota inmate Marc Joseph Ar ens brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Ramsey County Sheriff Robert Fletcher, alleging civil rights violations by county jail staff. The district court 1 dismissed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and Arens appeals. Having reviewed the record de novo, see Cooper v. Schriro , 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per cu riam), we conclude dismissal was proper. SeeVaughn v. Greene County, Ark. , 438 F.3d 845, 851 (8th Cir. 2006) ( “[I]t-2- is well settled the doctrine of respondeat superior is inapplicable to section 1983 claims”). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8160 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8160

    To prohibit the breaching of federally operated dams in certain 
                 circumstances, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2024

 Mr. Newhouse (for himself, Mr. Fulcher, Mr. Zinke, Mr. Rosendale, and 
  Mr. Bentz) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the breaching of federally operated dams in certain 
                 circumstances, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Breaking Irresponsible Energy and 
Commercial Habits Act'' or the ``BREACH Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON BREACHING OF FEDERALLY OPERATED DAMS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary of the Army may not breach a federally operated dam if the 
Secretary determines that such breach--
            (1) would result in an increase in carbon emissions by more 
        than 10 percent;
            (2) would make the body of water impacted by the breach 
        less navigable for commercial interests; or
            (3) would result in an increase of at least 10 percent of 
        the price of any products, including agricultural products, 
        shipped via the body of water impacted by the breach.
    (b) Consultation.--In making the determinations required under 
subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
            (1) consult with the Secretary of Energy with respect to 
        the determination described in subsection (a)(1);
            (2) consult with the Secretary of Transportation with 
        respect to the determination described subsection (a)(2);
            (3) consult with the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
        Secretary of Commerce with respect to the determination 
        described in subsection (a)(3); and
            (4) consult with the relevant agencies in the State in 
        which the dam proposed to be breached is located.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.'s 333-62903 and 333-38724) pertaining to the Academic Systems
Corporation 1992 Stock Option Plan (1992 Plan), the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan
(2000 Plan) and the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (2000 ESP Plan) of our
report dated March 2, 2001, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) of
Lightspan, Inc. for the year ended January 31, 2002.




                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                            -----------------------------
                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP




San Diego, California
May 29, 2002
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00490-CR

Filiberto Ramon II a/k/a Filiberto Ramon

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

197th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2016-DCR-897-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED AS 

MODIFIED. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 4, 2018
#### FRANK H. SCHWARTZ, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Messrs. Nugent, Busso & Tumulty*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Frederieh Xlaessig*for the respondent.

March 26, 1968.

Denied.
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

NORMAN WASHINGTON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2291 FCD KJM P

vs.

RICHARD W. SANDHAM, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 28, 2005, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the

complaint on four defendants. Process directed to defendant Richard Sandham was returned

unserved. 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 form,

along with an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed October 28, 2004; and

Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM Document 11 Filed 07/27/05 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 Richard Sandham; 

b. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed October 28, 2004; and

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

or show good cause why he cannot provide such information.

DATED: July 26, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/kf

will2291.8e

Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM Document 11 Filed 07/27/05 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

NORMAN WASHINGTON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2291 FCD KJM P

vs.

RICHARD W. SANDHAM, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

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

order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 1 completed USM-285 form

 2 copies of the October 28, 2004 

 Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM Document 11 Filed 07/27/05 Page 3 of 3
No. 56494.

protests 95898-K, etc. (New York).

#### United States Raw Skins Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333), the claim at 50 percent under paragraph 915, plus the additional duty under paragraph 924, was sustained. Other items of the merchandise, stipulated to be similar to the knit fabric passed upon in Abstract 51342, were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 914, plus the additional duty under said paragraph 924.