alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Second Division,

December 29, 1941

No. 46749.

#### Protest 994967-G of Wm. J. Hirten Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

A sample of the merchandise was admitted in evidence. Several analyses were made, The Government chemist making the last analysis, which showed the merchandise .to be gold-plated, was called to testify as to his procedure. From the evidence presented the court found that-the brooches in question are gold-plated and the protest was therefore overruled.
| (1)   | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of California News Tech for the quarter                ended March                31, 2007 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended March                31, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial                condition and results                of operations of California News                Tech. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/                Marian Munz                    |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Marian                Munz                              |
|  Title:    |  Principal                Executive Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  May                9, 2007                              |
|   By: |   /s/                William White                  |
|  Name:     |  William                White                            |
|  Title:    |  Principal                Financial Officer              |
|  Date:     |  May                9, 2007                              |
(Reap. Dec. 8566)

#### Schmid Bros., Inc. John A. Conkey & Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 677, etc.

(Decided April 13, 1956)

*Henry L. Ziegel*for the plaintiffs.

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

Olivee, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the appraised values of the merchandise invoiced by W. Goebel; Bareuther & Co.; Rosenthal-Porzellan; Carl Schumann; and, Edelstein-Porzel-lanfabrik-Akt. covered by the appeals to reappraisement enumerated herein, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that Reappraisement Appeals 182807-A and 223122-A are abandoned only insofar as they concern merchandise invoiced by others than those above enumerated.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise invoiced by W. Goebel; Bareuther & Co.; Rosenthal-Porzellan; Carl Schumann; and Edelstein-Porzellanfabrik-Akt. and that such values were the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

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

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Elizabeth C. Bennett and others, *Appellants, v.*Mary Bundy and Martin Swornberger, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, .with costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 1000 1500 2000 1000 18 12 06 00 06/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.48 N 77.37 WMeters AGL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. KAMERON TODD MYERS, a/k/a Casper, Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 5028 (D.C. No. 4:19

- CR

- 00154

- CVE

- 1) (N.D. Okla.)

_________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

_________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH , Chief Judge, HARTZ and EID , Circuit Judges.

_________________________________ Kameron Todd Myers pleaded guilty to carjacking and associated firearms offenses pursuant to a plea agreement with the government under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 1 1( c )(1)( C ). In the plea agreement, the parties st ipulated to a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. At the sentencing hearing , the district court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced
Mr. Myers to 14 years’ imprisonment but imposed five

- year terms of supervised

r eleased on two of the firearms counts.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. F ILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### September 14, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 Mr. Myers appeal ed, challenging his sentence

. T he government then filed a motion to enforce the waiver of appellate rights contained in the plea agreement. The parties have since filed a joint motion to remand to the district court for resentencing

. In the joint motion, the government and Mr. Myers agree that the district court plainly erred in imposing a supervised release term other than was agreed upon in the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) (stating that the sentencing recommendation or request contained in the plea agreement “binds the court once the court accepts the plea agreement”). The government also states in the motion that “it does not seek to enforce t he waiver to the extent it applies to the error as to the length of supervised release.” Joint Mot. to Remand at 3. Consequently, w e grant the parties’ joint motion to remand, vacate the judgment, and remand to the district court for resentencing. The motion to enforce the appeal waiver and motion for stay are denied as moot.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam
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 Quarterly Report of American Surgical Holdings, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Zak W. Elgamal, President and 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:




1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o (d));
      and2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of American
      Surgical Holdings, Inc.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




AMERICAN
SURGICAL HOLDINGS, INC.




By:
            /s/
      Zak W. ElgamalZAK
      ELGAMALChairman
      & Chief Executive Officer
                and
      Principal Executive Officer




Date:
November 13, 2009
NLNK-2014.12.31-EX10.107


Exhibit 10.107





Iowa State University Research Park Corporation
2711 South Loop Drive, Suite 4050
Ames, Iowa 50010-8648


Memorandum of Agreement


DATE:    December 29, 2014


TO:        Carl Langren, CFO
NewLink Genetics Corporation
2503 S. Loop Drive, Suite 5100
Ames, IA 50010


FROM:    Steven T. Carter, President


		
	RE:
	ADDENDUM TO THE LEASE BETWEEN ISU RESEARCH PARK CORPORATION AND NEWLINK GENETICS CORPORATION DATED MARCH 1, 2010.




The following information constitutes changes to the Lease Agreement between ISU Research Park Corporation (Landlord) and NewLink Genetics Corporation (Tenant). Upon signatures of appropriate representatives of Landlord and Tenant affixed to this Memorandum, this Memorandum becomes a part of that Lease Agreement dated March 1, 2010.


Tenant has requested and Landlord agrees to lease Suite 2140 (±6,770 rentable square feet), Building #2 at 2625 North Loop Drive, in the following manner:




	
							
	 
	Sq. Ft.
	Sq. Ft.
	Monthly
	Monthly
	Annual
	Annual

	Base
	Operating
	Base
	Operating
	Base
	Operating

	Term
	Rents
	Rents
	Rents
	Rents
	Rents
	Rents

	2/1/2015-
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	1/31/2018
	$10.50
	Actual
	$5,923.75
	Actual
	$71,085.00
	Actual

























Exhibit 10.107


NewLink Genetics Corporation Page Two
December 29, 2014




Tenant leases the space as is. Any modifications will be at the Tenant’s sole expense.  Tenant is responsible for all utility costs and operations. Subject to the terms of this Memorandum, Tenant agrees that all terms and conditions of the March 1, 2010 Lease and those described in this Memorandum shall remain in force.




Please sign and return both originals to my office by December 19, 2014 if you concur with the above terms. We will then send a fully executed copy for your records.




AGREED


FOR                    FOR
NewLink Genetics Corporation    ISU Research Park Corporation
/s/ Carl Langren            /s/ Steven Carter
VP Finance                Director
Title                    Title


12/29/2014                12/29/2014
Date                    Date
January 22, 2013 

Director, Chemical Control Division 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

EPA East 

Room4146 

1201 Constitution A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Re: EPA- HQ- OPPT- 2003 · 0012 

MJ !0: 58 

DuPont Chemicals and Fluoroproducts 

Chambers Works 

Deepwater, NJ 08023 

DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100 

PFOA Data Submittal- Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples 

December 2012 Sample Data 

Dear Chemical Control Division: 

Attached please find a summary of PFOA analytical results for the DuPont Chambers Works 

weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A in December 2012. In accordance with 

the current site NJPDES permit (NJ0005100, effective September 2011), these results are 

provided to NJDEP on a monthly basis via electronic discharge monitoring reports. The 

enclosures include two paper and two electronic copies of the analytical results from this 

monitoring period. 

Sincerely, 

Jacques Monteux: 

Unit Manager-Site Manufacturing Systems 

DuPont Chambers Works 

JM/clc 

Enclosures 

~,,- A\NS NO CB\ c \'! 
Copy to: 

Document Control Office 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

EPA East 

Room6428 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Ms. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter only) 

Principal Environmental Engineer 

NJDEP Division of Water Quality 

Bureau of Point Source Permitting - Region 2 

401 E. State Street 

P.O. Box029 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0029 

TT 1·· - .... 
Summary of Analytical Results 

662 - December 2012 

662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 

12/3/12 12/10/12 12/17/12 12/24/12 12/31/12 

0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 

1 1 1 1 1 

0.619 2.83 4.01 2.20 1.03 I 

i 

PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic Acid 

ug/L = micrograms per Liter 

I 

g/L- micrograms per liter or parts per billion (ppb) 

D = not detected (shown as <LOD) 

Q - not quantifiable (shown as <LOQ) 

D<LOD<NO<LOQ 

OD - limit of detection - 0.0233 ug/L 

OQ = limit of quantification = 0.1 00 ug/L 

amples were analyzed by Critical Path Services LLC. Reported results 

represent a single analysis, except for the sample collected on 12/31/12. 

Acceptable precision was obtained and the reported result for the sample 

collected on 12/31/12 represents the average of lab duplicate results. 1 

he NJDEP lab certification number for Critical Path Services LLC is PA072. 

orting limit Page 1 of 1 

cwk 662 grab results_dec12:Sheet1 

1/25/2013 2:49PM 

! 

f=
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13160-13161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4969]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Nevada)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 7 committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is 
soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. The TAP will use 
citizen input to make recommendations to the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, April 19, 2007, Friday, April 
20, 2007 and Saturday, April 21, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227, or 
206-220-6096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held

[[Page 13161]]

Thursday, April 19, 2007 from 12:30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time to 4:30 
p.m. Pacific Standard Time; Friday, April 20, 2007 from 8 a.m. Pacific 
Standard Time to 4:30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time; and Saturday, April 
21, 2007 from 8 a.m. Pacific Standard Time to 11 a.m. Pacific Standard 
Time at 950 Hotel Circle North, San Diego, California. The public is 
invited to make oral comments. Individual comments will be limited to 5 
minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written 
statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096, or write to 
Janice Spinks, TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 
or you can contact us at http://www.improveirs.org. Due to limited 
space, notification of intent to participate in the meeting must be 
made with Janice Spinks. Miss Spinks can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 
or 206-220-6096.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: March 14, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E7-4969 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Kelly HUGGINS v. STATE of Arkansas

RC 91-3

807 S.W.2d 660

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered April 29, 1991

*Christopher Carter,*for appellant.

*Winston Bryant,*Att’y Gen., by: *Clint Miller,*Sr. Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Kelly Huggins, by his attorney, has filed a motion for a rule on the clerk.

His attorney, Christopher O’Hara Carter, admits that the failure to file the record in time was due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5, 1979, *In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases,*265 Ark. 964.

The motion is therefore granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Appellant further moves for a declaration that he is indigent *393under Supreme Court Rule 28. That motion is granted.

Appellant’s counsel moves to dismiss his previous petition to withdraw as counsel. That motion, too, is granted.
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

JON STEVENS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2124 MCD GGH P

vs.

TERESA SCHWARTZ, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a number of documents which

indicate that he has not received respondent’s answer, which was filed on May 20, 2005, and

appears to have been properly served upon petitioner at his current address of record on that date.

On June 10, 2005, this court filed an order construing petitioner’s June 3, 2005

request for a 30-day stay while he was out to court as a request for an extension of time to file a

reply to an answer he had not yet received and granted him 60 additional days to file his reply. 

See Order filed on June 10, 2005. The order was served on petitioner at CMF-Vacaville and

DVI. 

Petitioner’s subsequent filings, dated June 23, 2005, July 1, 2005, August 1, 2005

and September 8, 2005, indicate that petitioner has returned to CMF-Vacaville but has failed to

Case 2:04-cv-02124-MCE -GGH Document 28 Filed 09/14/05 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

receive respondent’s answer. The court will disregard plaintiff’s filings to the extent that they are

wrongly premised on an assumption that respondent did not file and serve an answer. However,

due to petitioner’s changes in location during the relevant time, the court will direct respondent

to re-serve petitioner at this time and will grant petitioner a 30-day extension of time from the

time the answer is re-served to file any reply.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s inapposite requests, filed on June 23, 2005, July 1, 2005, August 1,

2005 and September 8, 2005, are denied; 

2. Respondent, despite having apparently properly served petitioner at his current

address of record as of May 20, 2005, is directed, due to petitioner’s having been out to court, to

re-serve petitioner, within 10 days, once again; and

3. Petitioner is granted a 30-day extension of time from the time of respondent’s

re-service to file any reply.

DATED: 9/13/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:009

stev2124.dis

Case 2:04-cv-02124-MCE -GGH Document 28 Filed 09/14/05 Page 2 of 2
my UAS with the largest possible letters by placing the word "Experimental" or assigned number or name, based on request/ruling of FAA, on UAS fuselage. The equivalent level of safety will be provided by having the UAS marked on its fuselage as required. 14 CFR 91.7 (a)

As there will be no airworthiness certificate for the aircraft, should this exemption be granted, no FAA regulatory standard will exist for determining airworthiness. Given the size of the aircraft for maintenance and use of safety check list prior to each flight an equivalent level of safety will be provided.

14 CFR 91.9 (b) (2)

Given the size and configuration, the UAS has no ability to carry a flight manual on the aircraft. There is no room, capacity, or pilot on board to adequately carry flight manual. A equivalent level of safety will be maintained by keeping the flight manual at ground control point where the pilot wil) have immediate access to it.

14 CFR 91.103

As FAA approved flight manuals will not be provided for the aircraft an exemption will be needed. Normal procedures including but not limited to; reviewing weather, flight battery requirement, landing and takeo ff distances, along will all of those found in attachment "DJI Pilot Training". An equivalent level of safety will be provided by preflight protoco) to properly match the machine.

14 CFR 91.109

UAS and remotely piloted aircraft do not have fully functional dual controls. Flight control is achieved through the use of a control box that communicates with the aircraft via radio communications. The equivalent level of safety provided because neither a pilot nor passenger will be carried in the aircraft, and by the speed and size of
the aircraft.

14 CFR 91.113 (a) and (b)

I can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by current regulations because my UAS does not carry pilot nor passenger. While helpful, a pilots' license will not ensure remote control piloting skills.

14 CFR 91.121

The UAS may not have a barometric altimeter, but instead does have a GPS altitude read out. I believe an exemption may be needed. An equivalent level of safety is achieve by the operator receiving live flight data monitoring and confirming current altitude along with altitude of launch site shown on GPS altitude indicator.

14 CFR 91.203 (a) and (b)Similar to, 14 CFR 91.9 (b) (2), given the size and configuration, the UAS has no ability to carry certificate and registration documents on the aircraft. There is no room, capacity, or pilot on board to adequately such documents. An equivalent level of safety wili be achieved by keeping these documents, to the extent they are applicable to the UAS, at the ground control point where pilot has immediate access to them.

14 CFR 91.405 (a), 14 CFR 91.407 (a) (1), 14 CFR 91.409 (a) (2), 14 CFR 91.417 (a) and (b)

Given these section only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate, theses sections do not apply to this applicant. As a safety precaution, operator will perform preflight inspections and ensure UAS is in working condition before initiating each flight.