alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES E. FEE, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 211, 39 CMR 211

No. 21,676

March 21, 1969

*Lieutenant Commander E. M. Fulton, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. R. Larouche,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

We granted review in this case to determine whether Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838, had been complied with. The record reflects that, at the outset, a *pro forma*inquiry was made to determine whether the accused had been advised of his rights concerning counsel as set forth in Article 38(b) of the Code.

In United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149, decided March 7,1969, we held that this type of inquiry constituted *minimal*compliance with Article 38(b). However, as we stated in *Donohew:*

> *“We*believe the seriousness of the situation dictates that *the record should contain the accused’s personal response to direct questions incorporating each of the elements of Article 88(b), as well as his understanding of his entitlement thereunder.*

> *“Accordingly, the record in each special or general court-martial convened more than thirty days after the date of this*[Donohew] *opinion should reflect this requirement has been met.*United States v Rinehart, 8 USCMA 402, 24 CMR 212.” [Emphasis supplied in part.]

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
No. 51452.

#### Protests 123595-K, etc., of Marques Del Merito, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kebpe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination, because of breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gaugers’ returns as verified by the affidavits of the importers. The protests were sustained to this extent.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Form 10-KSB of MEDIANET GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Martin Berns, Chief Executive Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

/s/ Martin Berns
Martin Berns
Chief Executive Officer

March 31, 2007
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 13-319 

________________________________________________________________________ 

MARITIME INTERDICTION 

Cooperation 

 Protocol Between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the MARSHALL ISLANDS to 

the Agreement of August 5, 2008 

Signed at Majuro March 19, 2013 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
MARSHALL ISLANDS 

Maritime Interdiction: Cooperation 

 Protocol to the agreement of August 5, 2008. 

 Signed at Majuro March 19, 2013; 

 Entered into force March 19, 2013.
#### In the Matter of Damien Carillo, Respondent, v Justine Aliseo, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 396]

—In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Meyer, J.), dated March 9, 1994, which awarded custody of the parties’ six-year-old daughter to the petitioner.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US .738). Thompson, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD GEORGE LINDEN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2696 FCD GGH PS

vs.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; ORDER

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner, 

Defendant.

 /

On October 23, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for extension of time to file an

appeal from the order and judgment entered in this case on September 7, 2006. Plaintiff states

that he had back surgery on September 20, 2006, which requires a three-to-six month period of

recuperation, and seeks a 60-day extension of the deadline for filing notice of his appeal. 

Plaintiff has submitted supporting documentation.

Where, as here, an agency of the United States is a party to the action, Fed. Rule

App. Proc. 4(a)(1) (B) requires that a notice of appeal be filed within 60 days after entry of the

judgment or order appealed from. Fed. Rule App. Proc. 5(A) provides that a district court may

extend the time to file a notice of appeal if the motion is made no later than 30 days after the time

prescribed by Rule 4(a), and the moving party demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause.

Case 2:04-cv-02696-FCD-PAN Document 31 Filed 11/02/06 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

The unextended deadline for filing a notice of appeal in this action is November 6,

2006. Plaintiff has made a timely request and demonstrated good cause for extending that

deadline by 60 days, or until January 5, 2007. Accordingly, plaintiff’s October 23, 2006, request

to extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal in this action IS HEREBY GRANTED and

such deadline is extended to January 5, 2007.

So ordered.

DATED: 11/2/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH5:Linden2696.ext.app

Case 2:04-cv-02696-FCD-PAN Document 31 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 56484.

protest 169090-K (Los Angeles).

#### Walter Mann *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the' court found nothing therein tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector. The protest was therefore-overruled.
Exhibit 32






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of the smaller reporting company of DAM Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Klein, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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, 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; 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: August 16, 2010






By: /s/ MARK KLEIN


Mark Klein


Chief Executive Officer and


Chief Financial Officer
1

Sutton, Lisa

From: Lorang, Phil

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 11:54 AM

To: Frey, Nathan J.

Cc: Schillo, Bruce; Balserak, Paul; Sutton, Lisa; Coda, Tom; Brachtl, Megan

Subject: EPA response to Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563: SSM Petition 

Supplemental Proposal 

Attachments: SSM SIP SNPR_compar ver of 7-17_to_ver of 8-27-2014_1133.docx; EO12866_SSM 

Petition_2060-AR68_Supplemental Proposal_FRN_8-27-2014_1133.docx; Summary of 

Responses to EO 12866 Review Comments.docx

Nathan 

Attached please find (1) a new clean version incorporating edits to respond to the comments you conveyed on August 

20, (2) a redline comparison to the version submitted originally, and (3) a 1-page summary of how the comments were 

addressed. 

As you know, we are under a settlement agreement deadline of September 5 for signature of this proposed action. We 

are therefore eager to receive confirmation that the edits are satisfactory, and to receive your instruction to upload the 

notice (with the appropriate header) for formal clearance. 

Please call or email if there are any remaining questions or issue to be discussed. 

Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor 

Air Quality Policy Division 

919-541-5463 

From: Frey, Nathan J. [mailto:Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:16 PM 

To: Brachtl, Megan 

Cc: Lorang, Phil; Schillo, Bruce; Balserak, Paul; Sutton, Lisa; Coda, Tom 

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563: SSM Petition Supplemental Proposal 

Attached please find a summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 with respect to the EPA 

supplemental proposed rule entitled, State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown and Malfunction; Supplemental Proposal to Address Affirmative Defense Provisions in States Included in the 

Petition for Rulemaking and in Additional States.

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Nathan
Before the Second Division,

July 22, 1942

No. 47407.

#### Protest 68507-K of I. Magnin & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the woven silk mufflers in question are hemmed or hemstitched, wholly or in chief value of silk, valued at more than $5 per dozen, and not block printed by hand. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as to these items.
Exhibit 21

**SUBSIDIARIES**

OnDecember 10, 1999, the Company incorporated a wholly owned subsidiary, The London PET Centre Limited (“LPC”), a United Kingdom private limited company. LPC was organized to provide PET services in the United Kingdom. 

On December 17, 1999, the Company incorporated two wholly owned subsidiaries, Mobile PET Leasing Limited, a United Kingdom private limited company and Mobile PET Systems (UK) Limited, a United Kingdom private limitedcompany. Mobile PET Leasing Limited was organized to provide lease financing to LPC. Mobile PET Systems (UK) Limited is currently inactive. 

On March 15, 2001, the Company incorporated a whollyowned subsidiary, Radiodiagnostics Corporation, a Nevada corporation. Radiodiagnostics Corporation is currently inactive.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2007 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Margulies, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Richard Margulies

Richard MarguliesChief Executive OfficerDated: April 16, 2007

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to East Coast Diversified Corporationand will be retained by East Coast Diversified Corporation and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v HOWARD J. PALARDY, III, Fireman, U. S. Navy, Appellant

No. 29,109

February 14, 1975

*Captain T. O. Tottenham,*USMCR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel P. N. Kress,*USMC, and *Lieutenant Commander Harvey E. Little,*JAGC, USN, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

This case involves a problem which is substantially the same as that considered in *United States v Carey,*23 USCMA 315, 49 CMR 605 (February 7, 1975). Appellant, by his plea, admitted from the outset his guilt and did not contest the post-trial showing that the court-martial was properly constituted. Because these same factors were persuasive in calling for the affirmance in *United States v Carey, supra,*we deem it appropriate to take like action here. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Military Review is affirmed.

Judge Quinn did not participate in the decision of this case.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v KENNETH D. KELLER, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 165, 37 CMR 429

No. 20,241

July 28, 1967

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Major David J. Passamaneck,*and *Captain Robert R. Broxion*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major John F. Webb, Jr.,*and *Captain William R. Steinmetz*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

This is another general court-martial involving the question before us in United States v DuBay, 17 USCMA 147, 37 CMR 411. Pursuant to the holding in that case, the petition for review is granted; the decision-of the board of review is reversed; and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. The board will take action in accordance with the procedure outlined in United States v DuBay, supra.
May 18, 1953

No. 57351.

Suit 4719.

#### United States *v.*Zoltan Erdosi.

C. A. D. 509.
No. 49230.

#### Petition 6239-R of Marshall Field & Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The petition was dismissed.
#### In the Matter of Ricardo A. Di Rose, Appellant, v New York State Department of Corrections, Inspector General’s Office, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 1020]

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered January 12, 1994 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for the return of certain materials.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, filed a grievance as the result of an incident in which his cell was searched and certain property confiscated, and requested that the confiscated materials be returned. His grievance was denied and the materials in question were not returned, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. Inasmuch as this proceeding was not commenced within the statutory four-month time period set forth in CPLR 217 (1), we find that Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition as untimely.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5036 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the rate of the special 

pension payable to Medal of Honor recipients, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 

Mr. CRUZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the 

rate of the special pension payable to Medal of Honor 

recipients, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Monetary Enhance5 ment for Distinguished Active Legends Act of 2024’’ or 

6 the ‘‘MEDAL Act of 2024’’. 

7 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

8 Congress finds the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 5036 IS

1 (1) The Medal of Honor is the highest and 

2 most prestigious military decoration of the United 

3 States. 

4 (2) To earn the Medal of Honor, ‘‘the deed of 

5 the person . . . must be so outstanding that it clear6 ly distinguishes his gallantry beyond the call of duty 

7 from lesser forms of bravery’’. 

8 (3) The actions of Medal of Honor recipients 

9 inspire bravery, and the willingness to give all, in 

10 those who serve in the Armed Forces and those who 

11 will serve in the future. 

12 (4) Those listed on the Medal of Honor Roll ex13 emplify the best traits of members of the Armed 

14 Forces, a long and proud lineage of those who went 

15 beyond the call of duty. 

16 (5) Pursuant to section 1562 of title 38, United 

17 States Code, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 

18 pay monthly to each living person whose name has 

19 been entered on the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 

20 Coast Guard Medal of Honor Roll a special pension. 

21 (6) Recipients of the Medal of Honor have 

22 earned a substantial and historic increase to such 

23 special pension in recognition of their conspicuous 

24 gallantry, unwavering commitment, and heroic ac25 tions above and beyond the call of duty. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 5036 IS

1 SEC. 3. INCREASE IN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

2 SPECIAL PENSION PAYABLE TO MEDAL OF 

3 HONOR RECIPIENTS. 

4 (a) INCREASE IN SPECIAL PENSION PAYABLE TO

5 LIVING MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS.—Paragraph (1) 

6 of section 1562(a) of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘$1,406.73’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘$8,333.33’’. 

9 (b) AMOUNT OF SPECIAL PENSION PAYABLE TO

10 SURVIVING SPOUSES.—Paragraph (2)(A) of such section 

11 is amended— 

12 (1) by striking ‘‘special pension under this sec13 tion’’ and inserting ‘‘monthly’’; and 

14 (2) by striking the period and adding at the end 

15 the following: ‘‘a special pension under this section 

16 at the rate of $1,489.73, as adjusted from time to 

17 time under subsection (e).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-444]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-54-000; Docket No. CP06-55-000]


Broadwater Energy LLC; Broadwater Pipeline LLC; Notice of 
Interagency Meeting on the Proposed Broadwater LNG Project Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement

January 9, 2007.
    On January 16, 2007, in response to a request from Connecticut 
State Senator Leonard A. Fasano, Chairman, Connecticut LNG Task Force, 
the staff of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) will conduct a meeting 
with Connecticut state agencies and officials regarding the proposal to 
construct and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal and 
natural gas pipeline (referred to as the Broadwater LNG Project). The 
meeting location and time are as follows: Town Hall, Mayor's Conference 
Room, 250 East Main Street, East Haven, Connecticut 06512, 203-468-
3204, 2 p.m. (EST).
    For additional information, contact the Commission's Office of 
External Affairs at 866-208-FERC (3372).

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-444 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
September 3, 2015

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This letter is to inform y ou that the following informati on is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-2582). This informati on is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture a nd Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove clos ed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information desc ribed above by 9/17/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 27, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30901

Summary Calendar

 

EMMANUEL SHAR,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, CHRISTINE DAVIS,

 Respondents-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 03-CV-549

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Emmanuel Shar, formerly federal detainee # 18548-265, a

native and citizen of Liberia, was ordered removed to Liberia

on September 12, 2002. After being detained at Oakdale for over

six months, Shar filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition seeking to

be released based on his allegation that there was no reason

to believe that his removal would occur in the reasonably
No. 03-30901

-2-

foreseeable future. The district court denied the petition, and

the instant appeal was filed.

The United States Attorney has now informed the court

that Shar has been removed from the United States and has been

deported to his native country of Liberia. The Government moves

to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on factual

mootness. The Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the

appeal is DISMISSED as MOOT. Shar’s petition for a preliminary

injunction is DENIED as MOOT.