alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10165)

#### Christofle Silver, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 744714.

(Decided February 7, 1962)

*Jordan & Klingamari*for the plaintiff.

*William S. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The proper value for duty purposes of certain silverware articles exported from France is the subject of the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement.

*551The parties hereto have submitted the case for decision upon a written stipulation of fact, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court,

> 1- That the merchandise the subject of ,the above-entitled reappraisement appeal consists of household silverware articles exported from France in August 1960.

> 2- That said merchandise is not included in the Final List (T.D. 54521), published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956; and that on the date of exportation herein such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for exportation to thé United States pursuant to Section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the said Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> 3- That the export values for the date of exportation herein are represented by the entered values.

Upon the agreed facts, the court finds and bolds tbat export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a (b)), is the proper basis of value for the household silverware articles in issue and that said value is represented by the entered values.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 75-1597.

#### Brown et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
• CHniKTmAn 

SINC E 189 4 

••-•^^iOPf RATIONS 

^^(/^EC IS P j : IT 

Februat7 9. 2012 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

West Building Ground Floor. Room W12-140. 

_Wa^ngp_n, DC 20590. 

Re: Sun Countr y Slot Exemptio n - Docke t Numbe r FAA-2012-0089 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Sun Country Airlines has requested an exemption from the slot limit for Ronald Reagan Washington 

National Airport (OCA) set forth in § 93.123(a), to permit the FAA to create air carrier slots during 

certain limited hours for Sun Country's use. The proposed air carrier slots would replace two slot 

exemptions under DO T Order 2010-12-16 awarded to Sun Country. On January 6, 2012, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the DO T Order, and Sun Country 

will lose its existing service between DCA and Lansing's Capital Region International Airport. 

Specifically, Sun Country desires one daily slot during each of the 1000 and I 100 hours. The proposed 

exemption would permit Sun Country to continue operating its existing services and avoid an 

inequitable result of the Court's order. 

The Sun Country DCA service is essential to the economic growth of the Greater Lansing Region. The 

daily service is the only large aircraft (737-800) service to Washington Reagan Airport, in the state of 

Michigan outside of Detroit Prior to Sun Country, the regional community had requested the 

introduction of this service from numerous other airline operators without success. Accordingly, it is 

critical that the FAA take the necessary steps to ensure the continuation of the Sun Country slots at the 

established flight times in support of Greater Lansing's business and economic growth. 

'YoTir immediate approval'of this exemption^ so that Sun Country can begin'to'enter flights schedulesfor 

sale for the balance of 2012, will be greatly appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

T h e Christma n Compan y 

(hi^u^ 

Steven F. Roznowski 

Chief Executive-Officer 

The Chniimjn Company The Chriitm.5n Building 208 N. Capilol Avcnije Linsing. Michigan 48933-1 3^7
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4497 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4497

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to authorize the 
         use of individual training accounts for certain youth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 2024

  Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to authorize the 
         use of individual training accounts for certain youth.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Building Youth Workforce Skills 
Act''.

SEC. 2. YOUTH WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES.

    Section 129(c) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 
U.S.C. 3164(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(9) Individual training accounts.--Funds allocated as 
        described in paragraph (1) to a local area may be used to pay, 
        through an individual training account, an eligible provider of 
        training services described in section 122(d)(1) for training 
        services described in section 134(c)(3) provided to an in-
        school youth who is not younger than age 16 and not older than 
        age 21, or any out-of-school youth, in the same manner that an 
        individual training account is used to pay an eligible provider 
        of training services under section 134(c)(3)(F)(iii) for 
        training services provided to an adult or dislocated worker.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### William Somerville, *Appellant, v.*Charles H. Metcalf and others, *Respondents.*

Motion denied.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 18

- BS

- 727

IN RE KIFLOM T. MELES

Respondent

. Board Docket No. 18

- PD

- 018 Bar Registration Number 496336 DDN: 205

- 15, et al.

BEFORE: Easterly and McLeese , Associate Judges; and Nebeker , Senior Judge.

O R D E R (FILED

– July 19 , 2018)

On consideration of the affidavit of Kiflom T. Meles, wherein he consents to disbarment from the bar of the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 12, which affidavit has been filed with the Clerk of this cou rt, and the Report and

R ecommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, it is

ORDERED that the said Kiflom T. Meles is hereby disbarred by consent,

effective October 1, 2018.

The Clerk shall publish this order, but the affidavit shall not be publicly disclosed or otherwise made available except upon order of the court or upon written consent of the respondent.

The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be transmitted to the Chairman of the Board on Professional Responsibility and to th e respondent, thereby giving him notice of the provisions of Rule XI, §§ 14 and 16, which set forth certain rights and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the effect of failure to comply

therewith.

PER CURIAM
| (1)   | The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 Registrant |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated: December 6, 2010 |  /s/  Paul Goodman______                 |
|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |  Paul Goodman, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer |
|                          |                                                                        |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2332

WILLIAM C. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief

District Judge. (CA-04-43-2)

Submitted: February 3, 2006 Decided: February 13, 2006

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Rafael Melendez, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William C. Thompson appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to the Commissioner and affirming the

Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits. We must

uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported

by substantial evidence and the correct law was applied. See 42

U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir.

1996). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error or

abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the order on the

reasoning of the district court. See Thompson v. Commissioner,

Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CA-04-43-2 (W.D. Va. Sept. 25, 2005). We

also deny Thompson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 23**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTAUDITORS

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-KSB ofCommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc. and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-109138 and 333-119988) of our report, dated March 3, 2008, relatingto the consolidated statements of condition of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc. asof December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years endedDecember 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005.

 

 
| /s/ Trice Geary & Myers LLC |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
| March 3, 2008                   |

 

----
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-189

LT Case No. 2019-357-CJ

_____________________________

N.C., A CHILD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. 

Timothy R. Collins, Judge. 

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell Dixon, 

Special Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Darcy Townsend, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

September 19, 2023 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

WALLIS, EISNAUGLE, and SOUD, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
STATE OF WASHINGTON 

### DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341

September 5, 2014

Dennis McLerran Regional Administrator U.S. EPARegion 10 1200 SixthAvenue Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101
RE: PSD Perruitting ofGreenhouse Gases, Results ofUARG v. EPA Supreme Court Decision and Washington's State Implementation Plan



## DearMr~, **~"-'D** The Washington State Department ofEcology (Ecology) requests that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10 (Rl0) withdraw a portion ofour requestto approve the state PSD regulations into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The specific provision that Ecology is withdrawing is thatportion ofWAC 173-400-720( 4)( a)(vi) that incorporates §52.21 (b)( 49)(v) byreference. ·The state regulation was submitted on January 14,2014 to RIO for SIP approval. The minor New Source Reviewprovisions in Chapter 173-400 WAC have previously been proposed for approval byRl0. The case UARG v. EPA, decided bythe Supreme Court ofthe United States on June 23,2014, determined EPA did not havethe authority to require PSD perruitting ofnew sources when only the greenhouse gases were above the perruitting thresholds established for the program in40 CFR 51.166.(b)(48) and 52.2l(b)(49). Ecology adopted the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21, as it existed onAugust 13, 2012, by reference into state regulations. EPAhas assistedEcology in identifying the specific subsection that the Supreme Court has indicated to be invalid. The Court Order withthe final vacatur ofthe provisionhas not yet been issued, nor has actionbyEPAto remove the vacated text from 40 CFR 52.21 beenproposed.Mr. Dennis Mcl.ettan September 5, 2014 Page2 However to align withthe Supreme Court decision and to facilitate expeditious SIP approval of Ecology's PSD program, we ask that EPA endorse ourrequest to remove the inconsistent language from consideration in Washington's SIP submittal. Ecology is not proposing to remove this subsection from its ownregulation. We are only withdrawing the provision from consideration as a component ofthe PSD program approved into Washington's SIP. Ecology plans onimplementing the state rule as currently adopted, including the greenhouse gas permitting provisions adopted by reference by WAC 173-400-720(4)(a)(vi). Ecology will continue to work with applicants to clarify issues related to the specific differences between the EPA and Ecology PSD permitting programrequirements. Ifyou have any questions or require additional information, please contact AlanNewman at (360) 407-6810. Sincerely,



# ~ Stu Clark Air Quality Program Manager

Cc: Debra Suzuki, EPA Region 10 DonnaDeneen, EPA Region 10 JeffHunt, EPA Region 10 Maia Bellon, Director Ecology· AlanNewman, Ecology

SAC/mt
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, certifies that to the best of her knowledge (1) this Quarterly Report of CNL
Lifestyle Properties, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of June 30, 2009 and
December 31, 2008, and its results of operations for the quarters and six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008.



|                      |  |  |  |                                                                       
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |  |  | /s/ Tammie A. Quinlan                                                 
|Date: August 14, 2009 |  |  |  | TAMMIE A. QUINLAN Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES, Petitioner v BOARD OF REVIEW NOS. 2, 1, 4, U. S. Army Judiciary, Respondents

17 USCMA 150, 37 CMR 414

Miscellaneous Docket Nos. 67-4, 67-5, 67-6

July 21, 1967

*Captain William R. Steinmetz*argued the cause for Petitioner. With him on the brief were *Colonel Peter S. Wondolowski, Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major John F. Webb, Jr.,*and *Captain Robert E. Davis.*

*Major Jack G. McKay*argued the cause for Respondent.

*Lieutenant Colonel Jacob Hagopian*argued *amicus curiae.*

Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam:

This action involves the same controversy as United States v DuBay, et al, 17 USCMA 147, 37 CMR 411, this day decided. The order of the board of review directing certain steps therein is vacated, and the board is instructed to follow the procedures outlined in United States v DuBay, supra.
No. 50508.

#### Protests 58672-K, etc., of Hauser & Reisfeld, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 32.4

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 Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2007, 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 Graham Series.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: August 13, 2007
Before the First Division,

January 16, 1943

No. 47919.

#### Protest 44027-K of C. J. Tower *&*Sons (Buffalo).

*375Opinion by

Olives, P. J.

At the time of trial it was stipulated that the merchandise consists of old, discarded, junk .X-ray films, in chief value of cellulose acetate, which had been exposed and developed, and no longer fit for use in taking X-ray or other pictures. Two witnesses testified in behalf of the plaintiff. Upon the record in this case the merchandise in question was found to be waste as defined in *Harley Co.*v. *United States*(14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 112, T. D. 41644). *Central Vermont Railway Co.*v. *United States*(10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 31, T. D. 38260) cited.

It is contended by counsel for the plaintiff that the provision in paragraph 31 (a) (1) for “waste” is limited in scope and confined to a particular kind or class of cellulose acetate waste. The language of said paragraph, as amended by the trade agreement (T. D. 49753), is identical with that which originally appeared in the Tariff Act of 1930.

After' reviewing the phraseology and the legislative history, the court was of the opinion that Congress intended to limit the cellulose acetate waste contemplated by paragraph 31 (a) (1), as amended, *supra,*to the class that was described by the court in the *Harley*case, *supra,*as “new waste.” The paragraph has thus been limited as set forth in the Senate Finance Committee report to cellulose waste “resulting from the manufacture of blocks, sheets, rods, and other forms as well as from the manufacture of the above forms into finished articles.” It also includes the waste filaments, fibers, and yarns from cellulose acetate artificial silk. The court therefore found that the discarded X-ray films in question are not included in the kind of cellulose acetate waste provided for therein.

The discarded X-ray films in question were held properly classifiable under the provision for “waste, not specially provided for.” The claim at 7)4 percent under said paragraph 1555, as amended, was therefore sustained.
No. 46778.

#### Protests 984372-G, etc., of Simon, Healey & Goldstein, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that the items involved consist of woven silk mufflers, hemmed, some of which were imported prior to the British Trade Agreement (T. D. 49753). As to these the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 1209 as woven silk mufflers, hemmed, was sustained.. Those imported after the British Trade Agreement (T. D. 49753) were accordingly held dutiable as woven silk mufflers, hemmed, and hand block-printed, at 35 percent as claimed.