alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(V. D. 59)

Entry No. 963698, etc.

#### E. Leitz, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 11, 1957)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This matter is presently before me on a remand from a classification proceeding decided by the first division of this court in *E. Leitz, Inc.*v. *United States,*36 Cust. Ct. 391, Abstract 59812. The judgment entered therein stated: “* * •* that the matters be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).”

The matter has been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the involved merchandise and that such values are as follows:

> Entry No. Merchandise United States dollars per each

> 905591 6 Polarizing Microscopes CM-U 110RU fitted with special $334. 04 level for stage UT-5.

> *“*6 wooden containers to fit_ 22. 96

> 909453 12 Microscopes ORTHOLUX with Binocular monocular tube 495. 60 OIYEESINE instead of binocular tube ORSEH.

> “ 12 wooden containers to fit_ 5. 60

> 973643 2 Polarizing Microscopes SY 110GZ_ 551. 04

> “ 2 wooden containers to fit_ 25. 76

> all items less 25 per centum discount

I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

*536Insofar as the action relates to all other merchandise, it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is *

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(B).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 3, 2010*

Decided March 4, 2010

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 09-3277

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DONALD RAY YOUNG, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 06-CR-332

Charles N. Clevert, Jr.,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

In this criminal case, Donald Ray Young appeals from a district court order that

granted a government motion to reduce his sentence for substantial assistance, see FED. R.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 09-3277 Page 2

CRIM. P. 35(b)(2), and argues that district court erred by refusing to consider the disparity

between crack and powder cocaine sentences. We affirm.

Young pleaded guilty in 2007 to knowing and intentional distribution of 50 or more

grams of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and was sentenced to ten years’

imprisonment followed by 5 years’ supervised release. In May 2009, the government filed a

motion to reduce Young’s sentence based on his substantial assistance to the government. 

At the hearing, Young argued that the court should also consider the disparity between

crack and powder cocaine sentences. The district court stated that it could not consider the

disparity. It granted the government's motion and reduced Young’s sentence by 20

months.

We have recently addressed the matter in United States v. Shelby, 584 F.3d 743, 749-50

(7th Cir. 2009), which held that, once district courts decide to grant a Rule 35(b)(2)

substantial-assistance motion, they may not then consider the factors articulated in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a), including any disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences. 

Young urges us to reconsider the matter, but concedes that Shelby controls. We recently

denied rehearing and rehearing en banc in Shelby, and Young offers no argument not

considered in that case. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s order.
Exhibit 32.6

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Frontier Long/Short Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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 Frontier Long/Short
Commodity Series.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                                  
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Long/Short Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                                    
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                                     
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                                         
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Long/Short Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: November 11, 2010
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 7/24/2012

Form REP-703

Rev. 0, 4/2012

Sample Number: 122993-001 Date Collected: 07/11/2012 08:40 Date Received: 7/11/2012

 Trip Blank

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 0.6 ng/L 0.5 0.2 BSS 07/20/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 122993-002 Date Collected: 07/11/2012 08:40 Date Received: 7/11/2012

 Field Blank

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 0.8 ng/L 0.5 0.2 BSS 07/20/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 122993-003 Date Collected: 07/11/2012 08:40 Date Received: 7/11/2012

Plant Outfall #001 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 3.6 ng/L 2 0.8 BSS 07/20/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 122993-004 Date Collected: 07/11/2012 08:05 Date Received: 7/11/2012

CPS Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 124 ng/L 10 4 BSS 07/20/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 122993-005 Date Collected: 07/11/2012 08:05 Date Received: 7/11/2012

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 4.9 ng/L J 5 2 BSS 07/20/2012 EPA 1631E

Mountaineer Plant, 122993 Page 1 of 2
THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit

J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 122993 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

          - [AAG/A Order No. 008-2007] 

                    Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Department of Justice (DOJ), United States Marshals Service (USMS) is removing the published notice of a Privacy Act system of records: “Justice/USM-003, United States Marshals Service Prisoner Transportation System,” last published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 6, 1991, at 56 FR 44101.                 

The notice of USM-003 is obsolete, as the records for USM-003 were incorporated into “Justice/USM-005, U.S. Marshals Service Prisoner Processing and Population Management/Prisoner Tracking System (PPM/PTS)” when USM-005 was first published as a new Privacy Act system of records on February 3, 1992, at 57 FR 4059. USM-005 has been subsequently updated. 

                    Therefore, the notice of “Justice/USM-003, United States Marshals Service Prisoner Transportation System” is removed from the Department's listing of Privacy Act systems of records notices, effective on the date of publication of this notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

Dated: March 8, 2007. 

Lee J. Lofthus, 

Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

[FR Doc. E7-4960 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-04-P
(Reap. Dec. 9551)

#### R. E. Mathewson *v.*United States

Entry No. 9119.

(Decided December 7, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Dowd,*Assistant Attorney General *(Sheila N. Ziff,*trial attorney), for tbe defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

The merchandise involved in this case consists of an Arriflex 16-millimeter motion-picture camera and parts, imported from Western Germany on or about August 30, 1958. The merchandise was invoiced and entered at various unit values totaling DM 5,956.50 and was appraised as entered.

When this case was called for trial, the plaintiff appeared in person, and counsel for the Government stated:

> Mbs. Ziff : Tour Honor, this is a case involving Airoflex *[sic]*16-millimeter motion picture camera and accessories.

> The importer is appearing personally without counsel, and having checked with the examiner, it now appears that the matter is subject to stipulation. We would wish to enter into a stipulation.

> The issue is whether the entered value or the lower value should constitute the appraised value of the merchandise, and based upon information received subsequent to appraisement, we are willing to stipulate that the proper appraised value of this merchandise is 3,930 Dutch *[sic]*marks for the Airoflex [sic] camera 16-millimeter, NR-7374, and the entered unit value for all other items, all of which, including the Airoflex *[sic]*camera, are less *32y2*per cent discount, plus 80 cents, cost of packing.

> Mb. Mathewson : So agreed.

On the record presented, I find that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as added by section 2 of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein, and that such value is DM 3,930 for the Arriflex 16-millimeter motion-picture camera, and the unit entered values for all other *563items, all of which, including the camera, are less 32% per centum discount, plus 80 cents, cost of packing.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brent Bales, the Chief
Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the managing owner of The Frontier Fund, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Frontier Fund.



/s/ Brent BalesBrent BalesChief Financial Officer of Equinox FundManagement, LLC, the Managing Ownerof The Frontier FundSeptember 24, 2004




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or any other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to The Frontier Fund and will be retained by The Frontier Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## \,t>A \*if>\



# . . .. , ©OUHTOFCRIWilNALAPPEALS 

# \ri/2\-\A.tofAW/«Ana-rtDhi \eS\ex JAN 122015 rr^iA'vaa A_rU/-.or Th^_ 

# T**aS^JfVyZLPvmUXail^sAs AbetAcosta,Clerk

P.O. (Sol V>3o2 ' 

# AosV.a -n-ur -\n\\



# OvA.jVI:WoH,XF^A 2L\Klf\Iof \AaWs£>pxr £ha\W\<iiu\/i \V>^ ^aVAiJ o>F%\^Z2haMiK\n ii^^lMM^nVV, a>\A_M^ £oA\fi/Alou\ Wr^LZ>)A» (W^A oil \K^. \/»al z^ur^V/f^awn-KlAa.^^ 

# \\a;^Zjdu4A^.Av^A aWdain/A rai&sA,


# Z2ha/^ Jaguar*j ajvAV»3'jWiwi»AaJKk.tci W\^o^J/^'/Yj^A.^WI

aViD>J W\ %VuT £ou/+ Af.K\L^^\alrtAr m%°X IkUvU'I of \4aksa_r 

# ^zy-pLK CrM/°&e' ^<A FacY, awA ak\n iuA^al /^M.^vfv!^l.\A k-

# ^tV/2_c ajv\ aoraji^AY^. ar^oLjaV ^or Yh^ Y^i a\ ^ouAs /y^/A. 

# VvlorYViLi or kl^Y^^iYW .SVakli" oV W/izs. ^Aia^K-ld *ik\5W»h^k\Y


# aWY YV\/- ^zjAjt' av]a/\£.K\/£rr -Wna-VA^^i.oa LkvWlin^r iall wh,v_h_L aw h^Fdl. * 

# I\k\l| /^OKLfiiz2.ra-lioa iiAWitLr MaJW vjrlV k Y\i_i a^^aWL1 

# <3/i°3+\i_|



# A_aWi_ ITLku "AYu 0^i£

^.

# , .••,.._ . f?iw;^A A screen .°rint from AbleTerm session (I 0248] 01:47 PM 12/31/2003 Cause: 05-20934A-01010 (32791] 

### StyJLe^j.-Benny Earl Hunter ..,,,,, 

### Of-fei.s'*fc-^R-@bbery --.^ *.«.; Court ___^_Ei;le date —.-*:-^t-t-orney : Memo' 42nd Judicial District C 

### 01/02/2003. ,(3,6.3 days). Watson, .MichaeiCa.^......

1. 2. 3 . 4 . 5: 6. 7. 8.

. 9. 10.
12 . 13 . Date Event



### - SUBPOENA RETURNED/UNSERVED (£} JAILTIME DATA TRIAL COURT'S CERTIFICATION OF STIPULATION OF EVIDENCE PLEA ADMONISHMENTS



## - SUBPOENA RETURNED/SERVED £0 JUDGMENT-AND SENTENCE' DOCKET SHEET LETTER INMATE CORRESPONDENCE Yes No No 

### No (/ o&t~>fli\l&& No \s~ Yes 

### No VNo \s~ Yes Yes 12/29/03 12/17/03 12/12/03 12/12/03 .12/12/03 12/12/03 12/12/03 12/12/03 12/11/03 12/11/03 12/09/03 12/09/03 Vj.ew 1 / 

### •.•i_-__«j-» T-_ QUACIi Yc3 /"

- SUBPOENA RETURNED/UNSERVED** C3 J Yes V



## - SUBPOENA RETURNED/SERVED (?0 Yes TAB to select ; ' • ' Page

-Exit • F2-Add Selection: 10 F4-Setup F6-Scan Volume

MCR8 MCR8 MCR8 MCR8

1 of 2 Page

181 178 179
180

OVR

F8-Next

V


### Screen P-rint from AbleTerm session (172.16.02481 01:47 PM 12/317200: 

### Cause: 05-20934A-01010 (32791] Style: Benny Earl Hunter 

### Off. : Robbery

1. 2. 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7. 8. 9. 10. Date 12/0 9/03 12/08/03 12/08/03 12/05/03 12/03/03 12/02/03 

### 1JL/02/0 3 ;:o~27To7o3 02/05/03 Event 

### -SUBPOENA RETURNED/SERVED*[}J STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT MOTION TO QUASH*•MISCELLANEOUSMOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE DISCOVERY ORDER WAIVER OF ARRAIGNMENT i-i. Ui/u6/v3

- rTGTICE SERVE INDICTMENT S —-NOTICE SERVE INDICTMENT* ' FELONY INDICTMENT TAB to select 12. 01/02/03 13. 01/02/03 View 1 / Court File date Attorney
Memo
Yes Yes Yes J/ Yes 1/ 

### Yes x/ Yes^ Yes V Yes ]/" No j^ No Ye<? Yes No 42nd Judicial District 

### 01/02/2003 (363 days) Watson, Michael B. Volume Page

75 2007

Page 2 of 2 OVR

Fl-Exit F2-Add Selection: 2 F4-Setup F6-Scan F7-Prev
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50015

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDRES GUZMAN-PERALTA, also known as Marcos

Quintana-Beltran, also known as Javier

Guzman-Perez, also known as Jose Hector Esparza,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-03-CR-239-ALL-SS

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Andres Guzman-Peralta appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Guzman-Peralta contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 04-50015

-2-

been alleged in his indictment. Guzman-Peralta maintains that he

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Guzman-Peralta acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Distributed Energy Systems Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John A. Glidden, principal 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, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 10, 2006



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|                                           
|/s/ John A. Glidden                        
|John A. Glidden Principal financial officer



47
#### In the Matter of 542 Tavern, Inc., Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 96]

—Determination of respondent State Liquor Authority dated April 13, 1994, suspending petitioner’s on-premises liquor license for 40 days and imposing a $1,000 bond forfeiture, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Fern Fisher-Brandveen, J.], entered July 25, 1994) is dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence that petitioner on three separate occasions sold alcoholic beverages to persons it knew or had reason to know were under 21 was provided, with respect to the first occasion, by the testimony of the police officer who witnessed the sale and verified the age of the customers, with respect to the second occasion, by the testimony of the underage customers and the police officer who witnessed the sale, and with respect to the third occasion, by the testimony of the underage police agent and the police officers who engaged him. The testimony of petitioner’s bartenders that they did not sell any alcoholic beverages to any customers without following the procedure petitioner had in place for checking and verifying identification raised issues of credibility that are for respondent to resolve (see, *Matter of Stork Rest, v Boland,*282 NY 256, 267). The penalty is commensurate with an offense committed on three separate occasions within 25 days *(cf., O.F.B.,*
      *281
      *Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*212 AD2d 373). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.