alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

--PARTMENT OF 

.. vvSPORTATION 

OPERMIONS '.LI 'O 

0 :'H -8 P ?: OU 

Motion of 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

for confidential treatment under Rule 

12 (Form 41, Schedule B-7) 

DOT-OST-1996-1203 

MOTION OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. FOR 

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12 

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to; 

VIRASB VAHIDI 

Senior Vice President -

Planning 

American Airlines, Inc. 

P.O. Box 619616, MD 5628 

DFW Airport, Texas 75261 

WILLIAM K. RIS, JR. 

Senior Vice President -

Government Affairs 

/American Airlines, Inc. 

1101 17th Street, N.W. 

Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

CARL B. NELSON, JR. 

Associate General Counsel 

American Airlines, Inc. 

1101 17th Street, N.W. 

Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

(202) 496-5647 

carl. nelson(3aa . com (email) 

November 10, 2010 
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Motion of 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

for confidential treatment under Rule 

12 (Form 41, Schedule B-7) 

DOT-OST-1996-1203 

MOTION OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. FOR 

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12 

7\merican Airlines, Inc., under 14 CFR 302.12, hereby 

moves that the enclosed Form 41, Schedule B-7 for 3Q10 be 

accorded confidential treatment and be withheld from public 

disclosure. The information for which confidential treatment 

is requested pertains to American's airframe and aircraft 

engine acquisitions and retirements. As provided in Rule 12, 

this information is in a sealed envelope marked "Confidential 

Treatment Requested Under Rule 12." 

On June 5, 1995, by letter of James W. Mitchell, 

Director, Office of Airline Statistics, the Department granted 

confidential treatment for a 10-year period to similar data 

filed by American. For the reasons stated in Mr. Mitchell's 

letter, the Department should also grant confidential treatment 

to the data submitted herewith. 
- 2 -

WHEREFORE, American moves that the schedule submitted 

under seal with this motion be withheld from public disclosure 

under Rule 12 for a period of 10 years. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Gd-^M 9KJ 

CARL B. NELSON, JR. 

Associate General Counsel 

American Airlines, Inc. 

November 10, 2010
(Reap. Dec. 10472)

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 842987.

(Decided April 1, 1963)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement for decision upon stipulation, on the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402 (b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of tires and tubes, imported from Holland, here involved.

On the basis of said stipulation, I find the export values of the following merchandise identified on the invoice to be as follows:

> Tibes Peb 100 Tibes

> 1, 000 20 x 1.75 black $47. 63

> 10, 000 26 x 1.75 “ $59. 98

> 2, 000 24 x 1.75 “ $55. 57

> Tubes Pee 100

> 10, 000 26 x 1.75 $29. 55

> 2, 000 24 x 1.75 $28. 67

> 1, 000 20 x 1.75 $26. 02

As to the remainder of the merchandise specified on the invoice, I find the export value to be the invoice unit prices, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 23, 2021 *

Decided November 24, 2021

Before

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge

No. 20-1473

PETER GAKUBA, Plaintiff-Appellant ,

v

.
LARRY HENDERSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 19-cv-01273-NJR

Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Chief Judge

.

O R D E R

While incarcerated at the Vienna Correct ional Center in southern Illinois, Peter Gakuba sued multiple prisons and their staffs for a host of alleged violations of his constitutional and statutory rights. Upon screening the complaint, the district court severed the one lawsuit into several. This one concerns Gakuba’s claim that officials and staff members at Vienna failed to accommodate his self-reported seafood allergy. The

* After examining the briefs and reco rd, we unanimously agree that oral argument would not substantially aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited onl y in accordance with F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 32.1No. 20-1473 Page 2

district court denied Gakuba’s motion for a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from serving him fish, and Gakuba filed this interlocutory appeal. One month later, Gakuba was let out of prison on supervised release. Shortly thereafter, the district court granted the defendants’ moti on for summary judgment on the issue of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and entered final judgment. Because of his release and the resolution of his case, Gakuba ’s appeal is moot, and so we do not reach the merits of his arguments. See Chafin v. Chafin , 568 U.S. 165, 171–72 (2013).
First, Gakuba’s release from prison renders his claim for injunctive relief moot. See Koger v. Bryan , 523 F.3d 789, 804 (7th Cir. 2008). When Gakuba was released, the defendants stopped providing his food. The thre at he sought to enjoin no longer exists. See Loertscher v. Anderson , 893 F.3d 386, 392–93 (7th Cir. 2018). Gakuba argues that, because he is still on parole, he could be re incarcerated. But that is too speculative an injury to sustain a live controversy; we w ill not presume that Gakuba will disobey his conditions of release or engage in unlawful conduct. Id. See also Ortiz v. Downey , 561 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 2009).
Second, Gakuba appeals a denial of a preliminary injunction, but the district court has now entered a final judgment resolv ing the entire case. Because a preliminary injunction lasts at the latest until a final judgment, there is no relief we could provide for even an erroneous denial, and so the appeal is moot. See Auto Driveaway Franchise Sys. LLC v. Auto Driveaway Richmond, LLC , 928 F.3d 670, 674–75 (7th Cir. 2019). Whether the district court should have entered a pr eliminary injunction could be raised in an appeal from the final decision, Habitat Educ. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv ., 607 F.3d 453, 456 (7th Cir. 2010), although we note that Gakuba has not yet filed a notice of appeal.

DISMISSED
Before the First Division,

March 8, 1944

No. 49249.

#### Protest 99436-K of S. H. Kress & Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the articles in question are similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 48170, the record in which case was incorporated herein. The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1537 was therefore sustained.
#### Widner *v.*Walsh.

The statute contemplates the personal seal of the judge to a bill of exceptions, and not the seal of the court. The mistake or default of the judge will not he allowed to prejudice the rights of litigants.

*Error to Probate Court of Boulder County.*

Mr. Alpi-ieus Weight, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Beekley *&*Blake, for defendant in error.

Elbert, J.

An objection is taken that the bill of exceptions is not properly sealed by the judge, and cannot be considered as part of the record. It is claimed by the defendant, and not contested by the plaintiff in error, that *419the seal affixed to the original bill of exceptions was the seal of the probate court, and not the personal seal of the judge. This we .think otherwise sufficiently evident. The *locus sigilli*is to the left of and apart from the signature, and within the scrawl are written the words “seal” and “ probate court.”

The statute contemplates the personal seal of the judge, and not the seal of the court. This bill of exceptions is, therefore, not sealed as required by law, and cannot be regarded as part of the record. *City of Denver*v. *Capelli,*decided at last term *(ante,*p. 236).

The bill of exceptions was prepared, presented and settled within the time limited by the order of the court. No laches are properly chargeable to the plaintiff. The mistake or default was that of the judge, and must not be allowed to prejudice the right of the parties litigant.

Thirty days time is therefore given the plaintiff in error to perfect his bill of exceptions, and apply for leave to file the same, if he should so desire.
[Cite as State v. Threatt , 2020-Ohio-331.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2019-P-0111 - vs - : KEITH A. THREATT, : Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal f r om the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2017 CR 00248.

Jud g ment: Dismissed.

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 ( For Plaintiff-Appellee )

. Keith A. Threatt, pro se, PID# 760-996, Lake Erie Correctional Institution, 501 Thompson Road, P.O. Box 8000, Conneaut, OH 44030 ( Defendan t -Appellant )

.

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J. {¶1} On December 16, 2019, appellant, Keith A. Threatt, pro se, file d a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal, pursuant to App.R. 5(A). N o notice of appeal was

filed in the trial court. {¶2} App.R. 5(A) provides: {¶3} “After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App. R. 4(A) for the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be take n by a defendant with leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following clas ses of cases:2 {¶4} “(a) Criminal proceedings; {¶5} “(b) Delinquency proceedings; and {¶6} “(c) Serious youthful offender proceedings. {¶7} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellan t to perfect an appeal as of right. Concurrently with the filing of the motion, the movant shall file with the clerk of the trial court a notice of appeal in the form prescribed by App.R. 3 and shall file a copy of the notice of the appeal in the court of appeals. * * *.” (Emphasis added.) {¶8} In the present case, appellant’s motion is procedurally defecti ve because he failed to file a notice of appeal in the trial court concurr ently with the filing of his motion for leave to appeal in this court. {¶9} Accordingly, appellant’s motion is hereby overruled, and this m atter is

dismissed. {¶10} We note that appellant is not barred from filing a new motion f or leave to file a delayed appeal, along with a notice of appeal, which com plies with the rules of

court.

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J., MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.
Before the Third Division,

April 20, 1949

No. 53047.

#### L. Bamberger & Co. *v.*United States,

petition 6691-R (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petition was dismissed.
#### International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 66, AFL-CIO, *v.*Hallstrom et al., Appellants.

Argued October 7, 1968.

Before Bum, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*629reargument refused December 27, 1968.

*Anthony S.*Guido, with him Gleason, *Cherry <&*Guido, for appellants.

*Sanford A.*Segal, with him Gats, *Cohen &*O’Brien, for appellee.

November 12, 1968:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Decree affirmed. Costs on appellants.

Mr. Justice Musmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.
EX-10.10(a)



 Exhibit 10.10(a) 
 June 1, 2014 
 Krom River Trading AG 
 Walker House 
 87 Mary Street 
 George Town 
 Grand Cayman KY1-9002 
 Cayman Islands 
 Attention: Mr. Giles Hill 

 

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear
Mr. Hill: 
 We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the
“Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2015 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	 Commodity Advisors Portfolio, L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 KR Master Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Spectrum Currency 


 Please
acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mrs. Alice Lonero at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any questions I can be reached at 212-296-1304. 

Very truly yours, 
  

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Alice Lonero

		 	  

		 	 Alice Lonero

		 	Chief Financial Officer 
	
	KROM RIVER TRADING AG
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Mike Cartier    /s/ Itay SimKin

		 	  



			
	Print Name:	 	 MIKE CARTIER    ITAY
SIMKIN



			
		
	AL/sr
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 55 (Thursday, March 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5254]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5726]


Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; Permanent 
Waiver of Missile Proliferation Sanctions Against Sectors of Chinese 
Government Activities

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: A determination has been made to waive permanently the import 
sanction against certain activities of the Chinese government that was 
announced on September 19, 2003, pursuant to the Arms Export Control 
Act, as amended.

DATES: Effective Date: March 12, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Durham, Office of Missile Threat 
Reduction, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, 
Department of State (202-647-4931).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A determination was made on September 13, 
2006, pursuant to section 73(e) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
U.S.C. 2797b(e)), that it was essential to the national security of the 
United States to waive for an additional six months the import sanction 
described in Section 73(a)(2)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
U.S.C. 2797b(a)(2)(C)) against the activities of the Chinese government 
described in section 74(a)(8)(B) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
U.S.C. 2797c(a)(8)(B))--activities of the Chinese government relating 
to the development or production of any missile equipment or technology 
and activities of the Chinese government affecting the development or 
production of electronics, space systems or equipment, and military 
aircraft (see Federal Register Vol. 68, no. 182, Friday, Sept. 19, 
2003). This action was effective on September 18, 2006.
    On March 12, 2007, a determination was made pursuant to section 
73(e) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(e)) that it is 
essential to the national security of the United States to waive 
permanently the sanctions, effective from the date of expiration of the 
previous waiver (March 18, 2007).
    These measures shall be implemented by the responsible agencies as 
provided in Executive Order 12851 of June 11, 1993.

    Dated: March 14, 2007.
John C. Rood,
Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and 
Nonproliferation, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E7-5254 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8292 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

penalties for unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 8292 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Taxpayer Data Protec3 tion Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PENALTIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED DIS5 CLOSURES OF TAXPAYER INFORMATION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and 

7 (5) of section 7213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

8 1986 are each amended by striking ‘‘$5,000, or imprison9 ment of not more than 5 years’’ and inserting ‘‘$250,000, 

10 or imprisonment of not more than 10 years’’. 

11 (b) DISCLOSURES OF RETURN INFORMATION OF

12 MULTIPLE TAXPAYERS TREATED AS MULTIPLE VIOLA13 TIONS.—Section 7213(a) of such Code is amended by add14 ing at the end the following new paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(6) DISCLOSURES OF RETURN INFORMATION

16 OF MULTIPLE TAXPAYERS TREATED AS MULTIPLE

17 VIOLATIONS.—For purposes of paragraphs (1), (2), 

18 (3), (4), and (5), a separate violation occurs with re19 spect to each taxpayer whose return or return infor20 mation is disclosed in violation of any such para21 graph.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 8292 RDS

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to disclosures made after the date 

3 of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification of Litigation Trustee Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Information Resources, Inc. Litigation ContingentPayment Rights Trust for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of theirknowledge:

 

(1)    TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ MONICA  M. WEED |   |   |
|---------------------|--------|--------|
| Monica M.  Weed     |   |
| Litigation  Trustee |   |
| November 12,  2004  |   |

 

 

This certification accompaniesthe Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemedfiled by the Registrant for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended.

 

----
December 11, 1956

Reap. Dec. 8716.

#### *D. N. & E. Walter & Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. Reap. Dec. 8609. Motion by plaintiff.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Interchange Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuer other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the small business issuer, is made known to
us by others within the small business issuer, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: August 12, 2005
    
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer and Chairman(Principal Executive Officer)
Order entered October 23, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 01700
- CV ORCA ASSETS, G.P., L .L.C., Appellant

V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ET AL . , Appellee s On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 12
- 05303



### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s October 21, 2014 unopposed second motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief. Appellant shall file its reply brief by OCTOBER 29, 2014

.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUS TICE
#### Same *v.*Same.

Two appeals. Each appeal dismissed, without costs to either party.