alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 51072.

#### Protests 72163-K, etc., of Meakin & Ridgway, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of oat-meals or oatmeal saucers and chowder cups or puree cups the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Copeland & Thompson, Inc.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 85, C. D. 833) and *Johnson Bros.*v. *United States*(15 id. 113, C. D. 955). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
Order entered February 15, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00592-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

RUBEN A. LARAALVARADO, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F20-61117-U

ORDER

The clerk’s record filed in this appeal is defective. Many of the entries in 

the index of the clerk’s record do not contain the page number for the listed 

document. Some of the entries that do list a page number are incorrect.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appendix C, Rule 1.1(i) requires 

the clerk to “prepare and include after the front cover of the clerk’s record a 

detailed table of contents identifying each document in the entire record (including 

sealed documents), the date each document was filed, and, except for sealed 
documents, the page on which each document begins.” TEX. R. APP. P., App. C., 

R. 1.1(i) (emphasis added).

Because the clerk’s record for this appeal does not contain an index or table 

of contents that complies with the rule, we STRIKE the clerk’s record filed in this 

appeal, and we ORDER Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk, to file within

FIFTEEN DAYS from the date of this order the clerk’s record for this appeal that 

complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. (The clerk’s record for the 

companion case, court of appeals cause no. 05-22-00593-CR, trial court cause no. 

F20-61118-U, appears to comply with the rule regarding table of contents.)

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Felicia Pitre, Dallas 

County District Clerk, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

RECEIVABLES TRUSTEES OFFICERS CERTIFICATE

GRACECHURCH RECEIVABLES TRUSTEE LIMITED
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The undersigned officer of Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited, a private
limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Jersey, Channel
Islands (the Receivables Trustee), hereby certifies on behalf of the
Receivables Trustee and on his own behalf for purposes of the Investor
Certificate, as follows:



|1. |  | I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Director of the Receivables
Trustee;                                                                                                                                                         
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|2. |  | I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate on
behalf of the Receivables Trustee; and                                                                                                                         
|  
|3. |  | To the best of my knowledge, the Receivables Trustee has complied with
all conditions and covenants under the Relevant Documents for the issue of
the Investor Certificate for the period between October 24, 2002 and
December 31, 2002.

Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned
to such terms in the Registration Statement related to the above-referenced
issue of Investor Certificate.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name this 15th day of July, 2003.

|    |  |                                                  
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Richard Francis Sommers                      
|    |  | Name:  Richard Francis Sommers
Title:    Director
Exhibit 32.9

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 Managed Futures Index Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2008, 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 Managed Futures Index Series.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                      
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                          
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Managed Futures Index Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|



|                                                                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                           
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                               
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Managed Futures Index Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|

Date: November 26, 2008
### SERVE D DECEMBE R 9 , 201 1

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C , HAMSPORlAliO N ^-OKE TOFrRATION^ : •>i'^i ! I'. r ^w i (IL L \ 2 A iO-

- ^ 5

I N TH E MATTE

RO F 

### RECURREN T TRAININ GCENTER , INC . FAA DOCKE T No . CPIOGLOOI O (Equal Acces s to Justic e Action ) FDM S No . FAA-2010-097 3 

### ORDERO

N REMAN

D Thi s matte r

wa s remande dt o th e undersigne db y FA A Orde r No . 20 1 N12 , Novembe r

22 , 2011 , "t o resolv e th e remainin g issue s regardin g th e prope r awardunder th e EAJ A [footnote omitted]. " Thi s orde r set s out abriefin g schedul e fo

r th e parties . I n th e Equa

l Acces s t o Justic e Ac t

proceedin g o

n appeal before th e Administrator , Applican t Recurrent

Trainin g Center , Inc . ("Applicant" ) ha dsought leav e t o file asecon d brief- abrie f

i n additio n t o it s brie f

appealin g th e Initia

l Decisio n denyin g it s Applicatio n - i

n vie w of tli e statemen t

of Complainan t

Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("Complainant" ) i

n it s Repl y Brief

, p . 4 , tha t i t "no w ha s determine dtha t i t wa s not substantiall y justifie di

n th e proceedin g [below]. " (Applicant' s Petitio n fo r Leav e t o Fil e a n Additional Brief

, filedJun e 8 , 2011) . Applicant' s petitio n wa s oppose db y Complainant . Th e Administrato r refraine dfromrulin g o n thes e pleading s i n vie w of th e decisio n t o remand . Applican t no w wil l ge t

it s chance . Th e partie s shal l submi t brief s a s follows :1 . Th e Applican t shal l addres s th e issue s raise db y Complainan t i n Complainant' s Repl y Brief regardin g th e prope r

awardunde r

th e EAJA b y January 9 , 2012 ; 2 . Complainan t

shal l file abrie f

i n respons e b y January 30 , 2012 . S O ORDERED . 

# c RichardC . Goodwi n U.S . Administrativ e La

w Judg e ^ Attachment

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No . CPIOGLOOI O (Equa l Acces s t o Justic e Act ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W1OOO '

ON E COP Y Charle s R . Barnett , III , Applicant' s Counse l 166 4 Moorlan dLan e Crysta l Lake , I L60014-298 5 TEL : 815-356-864 7 FAX : 815-356-704 2 Brian aMartino , Agency' s Counse l Grea t Lake s Region , AGL-7 M Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 230 0 Eas t

Devo n Avenu e DesPiaines,l L60018-469 6 TEL : 847-294-731 3 FAX : 847-294-749 8 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e IM WJudg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Sen'ic e wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r ser^'ic e i n perso n o r b y expeditedcourier

us e Ui e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration . 60

0 Independence Avenne . S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building

- Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D

C 20591 . Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk . AGC-430 .
No. 59072.

protest 244269-K (New York).

#### Fred F. Lane *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

Each unit of the merchandise in question, represented by exhibit 1, consists of a ring, composed of a metal spring, about *l}i*inches in diameter, covered with foam rubber. The foam rubber is sewn by hand, and *377small flowers or designs of undisclosed material and value have been placed around the article to cover the seam. The completed rings are used for catching drippings on liquor and wine bottles by placing them over the necks of the bottles. On the record presented, it was held that plaintiff failed to show that the merchandise at bar does not consist of artificial flowers in chief value of other materials, as classified, or that it is in chief value of india rubber, as claimed. On the authority of *Yardley & Co., Ltd., et al.*v. *United States*(41 C. C. P. A. 85, C. A. D. 533), the protest was overruled.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIKHAIL ABDELNOUR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70913

Agency No. A076-326-873

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Mikhail Abdelnour, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

FILED

JUN 03 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70913

denial of motions to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.

2008). We deny the petition for review.

As an initial matter, we decline to consider Abdelnour’s challenge to the

BIA’s 2003 order affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying Abdelnour’s

original application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because it

has already been considered and rejected by this court in Abdelnour v. Ashcroft,

No. 03-71488 (9th Cir. Sept. 7, 2004). See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317,

1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining under the ‘law of the case doctrine’ one panel of

an appellate court will not reconsider questions which another panel has decided on

a prior appeal in the same case). 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Abdelnour’s motion to

reopen because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Abdelnour failed

to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Syria to qualify for the

regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (requiring movant to produce

material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality

had changed).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Anthony Ciotti, Appellant, v New York Hospital et al., Respondents.

[— NYS2d —]

—Motion by the respondents on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered August 18, 1993, to strike the arguments raised by the appellant for the first time in his reply brief. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 29, 1994, the motion was referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission of the appeal.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition and relation thereto, it is,

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the portions of the appellant’s reply brief which argue that: (1) the plaintiff was entitled to an inference as to the accuracy of his expert’s testimony as to the transport of the plaintiff’s mother, (2) the defendants failed to establish an "error in judgment” defense, (3) the Supreme Court erred in failing to give a circumstantial evidence charge, (4) the interrogatory removed the issue of whether the defendants timely diagnosed the plaintiff’s mother, and (5) the Supreme Court’s charge on "error of judgment” was erroneous, are stricken from the reply brief because they were raised for the first time in the reply brief *(see, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v LiMauro,*103 AD2d 514, *affd*65 NY2d 369). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Donald McRae, Appellant, v New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 677]

—Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered November 17, 1994 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding by order to show cause signed by Supreme Court on July 6, 1994, pursuant to which petitioner was required to, *inter alia,*serve the petition and any supporting affidavits upon respondent and the Attorney-*828General on or before July 20, 1994 and. file proof of service thereof at least seven days prior to the August 5, 1994 return date. The affidavit of service subsequently filed by petitioner failed to reflect service upon respondent, and the Attorney-General’s office, representing respondent, thereafter moved to dismiss this proceeding on the ground that petitioner had failed to obtain personal jurisdiction over respondent. Supreme Court granted the motion and imposed $20 in motion costs upon petitioner, and this appeal by petitioner followed.

"Failure of an inmate to satisfy the service requirements set forth in an order to show cause requires dismissal for lack of jurisdiction absent a showing that imprisonment presented obstacles beyond his control which prevented compliance” *(Matter of Gittens v*Selsky, 193 AD2d 986, 987). No such showing has been made here. The affidavit of service filed with Supreme Court only reflected service upon the Attorney-General, and although petitioner subsequently produced an affidavit purporting to demonstrate service upon respondent, such affidavit was not filed in accordance with the order to show cause and petitioner has offered no explanation for his failure to do so *(see, Matter of Alevras v Chairman of N. Y. Bd. of Parole,*118 AD2d 1020, 1021, *appeal dismissed*68 NY2d 753). Additionally, respondent denies receiving a copy of the petition and supporting papers and, absent a court order authorizing such service, personal jurisdiction over respondent may not be obtained by serving the Attorney-General *(see, Matter ofLowrance v Coughlin,*190 AD2d 915). As to the award of motion costs, assuming such an award was indeed permissible, we nevertheless agree with petitioner that it was inappropriate under the circumstances present here.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as imposed $20 in motion costs upon petitioner, and, as so modified, affirmed.
Before the Second Division,

June 4, 1948

No. 52365.

protests 844591-G, etc. (New York).

#### H. H. Schmidt Glove Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as 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 of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
No. 41800.

#### Protest 908915-G of Q. W. Lung & Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

The appraiser reported.that the merchandise consists of canned fish in lard. On the record presented it was held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 718 (b) as claimed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                     PEREZ-ABREU, AGUERREBERE, SUEIRO LLC
                         Certified Public Accountants

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                         -----------------------------


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form 10-KSB under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 of ECO-Rx, Inc. for the years ended December
31, 1999 and 1998 of our report dated June 14, 2000 with respect to the
financial statements of ECO-Rx, Inc. for the years ended December 31, 1999 and
1998.


PEREZ-ABREU, AGUERREBERE, SUEIRO LLC

Coral Gables, Florida
August 30, 2000

                                      40
Before the Third Division,

May 13, 1954

No. 58098.

protests 177327-K and 177328-K (Seattle).

#### Close & Stewart *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The record showed that the entries were liquidated on April 16 and February 1, 1951, respectively, and that the protests were filed on August 28, 1951. Since the protests were filed more than 60 days after liquidation, they were held untimely, and the motion to dismiss was granted. (Section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8143

RODERICK MCRAE, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

COLIE RUSHTON, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(9:07-cv-01521-HFF) 

Submitted: August 3, 2009 Decided: August 12, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Roderick McRae, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Roderick McRae seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that McRae has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 31.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Cosmo Palmieri, Treasurer of Oriole Inc. certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Oriole Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this 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; and

(c) 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 (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s) 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
the 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 control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) 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.

Dated: April 11, 2005

/s/ Cosmo Palmieri
------------------
Cosmo Palmieri
Treasurer
(Principal Financial  Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)