alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

September 28, 2011

Memorandum

Subject: SIP Credit for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Low-NOx Software ("Chip Reflash")

From: Doris Lo, EPA Region 9, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR-2)

To: San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516

The 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, Emission Inventory Output Tables (p. 3) includes the following 

description of “Reflash” SIP credit:

"Reflash. Heavy-Duty Diesel engine Software Upgrade

ARB staff estimates that overall benefits of the software upgrade regulation plus related

actions provided approximately 38 tons per day of NOx emission reductions statewide

in 2007. This is within the range of the original staff estimate of 30 to 40 tons per day.

Reductions included in the adjustment beyond those required by the now invalidated

regulation come from voluntary upgrade programs, ongoing engine rebuilds, engines

upgrades by manufacturers exempt from the regulation, and interstate trucks."

Today, I called Ravi Ramalingam, ARB, to confirm that the SIP credit taken for “Reflash” only includes 

reductions from already reflashed engines. Mr. Ramalingam said that prior to the invalidation of the 

software upgrade regulation, many of the engines had already been “reflashed” to meet the regulation. 

ARB only took credit for the reductions from already reflashed engines, some of which were reflashed to 

meet the regulation (before it was invalidated) and others that were reflashed for other reasons (e.g., 

voluntarily, during engine rebuilds, etc.).
#### New Victoria Importing Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6629.

Entry No. 7541, etc.

Invoices dated Deerlijk, Belgium, January 20, 1939, etc.

Certified January 24, 1939, etc.

Entered at Los Angeles, Calif., March 7, 1939, etc.

(Decided December 17, 1946)

*Philip Stein*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

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

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the respective parties, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> (1) That the merchandise, cotton rugs from Belgium, and the issues involved in the Reappraisement Appeals 130387-A-5044, etc., listed in annexed schedule A, which is referred to and made a part of this stipulation, are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues which were passed upon in the case.of *United Stales*v. *Stephen Rug Mills, Inc.,*Reappraisements 131005-A, etc., Reap. Dec. 6283, wherein it was held that there was no foreign value for the merchandise; that export value was the proper basis for determining dutiable value, and that the export values for the merchandise were the entered values.

> (2) That the record in said case, Reappraisements 131005-A, etc., Reap. Dec. 6283, may be and hereby is received in evidence as a part of the record in this case.

> (3) That the prices at the time of exportation of the merchandise in suit to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, are the appraised values less the amounts added on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in other cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement.

> (4) The appeals listed in the annexed schedule A are hereby submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of tlie Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for *223the determination of the value of the cotton rugs here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the amounts added on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in other cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 50149.

#### Protest 983223-G of Kwong Kee Jan & Co. (San Francisco).

*243Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the commodity passed upon in *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the merchandise, which includes salt as a substantial component part thereof, was excluded from paragraph 5 and held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 as claimed.
Exhibit 32.3

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 Campbell/Graham/Tiverton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 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 Campbell/Graham/Tiverton
Series.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: November 12, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                           <C>                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 Year               Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998        JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1998        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                        665,000            1,168,000
<SECURITIES>                  0                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 260,000            325,000
<ALLOWANCES>                  0                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              930,000            1,503,000
<PP&E>                        153,000            208,000
<DEPRECIATION>                (131,000)          (143,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                2,291,000          3,730,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         99,000             508,000
<BONDS>                       0                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0                  0
<PREFERRED>                   0                  0
<COMMON>                      14,468,000         26,769,000
<OTHER-SE>                    0                  0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  2,291,000          3,730,000
<SALES>                       0                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              0                  0
<CGS>                         0                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 4,580,000          9,537,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0                  204,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>               0                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                  0                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (4,580,000)        (9,800,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                0                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0                  0
<CHANGES>                     0                  0
<NET-INCOME>                  (4,580,000)        (9,800,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (0.08)             (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.08)             (0.11)



</TABLE>
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Form 10-QSB of UpSnap, Inc.  (the "Company") for
the quarter ended October 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Peter Van
Hierden, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Richard A. von Gnechten,
the Chief 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
      on the dates and for the periods
presented.











/s/ Peter Van Hierden
                  Peter
      Van Hierden
                  Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer
                  (Principal
      Executive Officer)
                  
                  Dated: December
      23, 2008/s/ Richard A. von
      Gnechten
                  Richard
      A. von Gnechten
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
                  (Principal
      Financial Officer)
                  
                  Dated: December
      23, 2008
(Reap. Dec. 8720)

#### The Danwill Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 851137, etc.

(Decided January 4, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

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

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the Para Beige or Para Amber rubber sheeting covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement and entries set forth in the schedule annexed hereto and made a part hereof at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States including cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States is for sizes *%"*and up 900 per pound less 15 per cent discount less 3 per cent cash discount less proportionate share of non-dutiable charges net packed and for sizes under 990 per pound less 15 per cent discount less 3 per cent cash discount less proportionate share of non-dutiable charges net packed. There was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Reap-praisement enumerated on the schedule annexed hereto and made a part hereof may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

*562On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows:

> For sizes J4" and up 90 cents per pound, less 15 per centum discount, less 3 per centum cash discount, less proportionate share of nondutiable charges, net, packed.

> For sizes under *%>"*99 cents per pound, less 15 per centum discount, less 3 per centum cash discount, less proportionate share of nondutiable charges, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Edward Hincken, *Executor, etc., Respondent, v.*Edward D. James, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc.*

Judgment reversed, so far as it directs judgment for deficiency, with costs to the appellant. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
All data has been removed from this file as a result of CBI sanitization. All data provided as a part of the 

sump pump proposal is considered CBI or CBI deducible.
---

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



I, George Polyhronopolous, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Sunergy, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2009 (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 Sunergy, Inc.



|                    |  |                                                                |  | 
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: May 26, 2009 |  |                                                               
|                    |  |                                                               
|                    |  |                                                               
|                    |  | /s/ George Polyhronopolous                                     | 
|                    |  | George Polyhronopolous                                        
|                    |  | Treasurer, Secretary and Director                             
|                    |  | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
|                    |  | Sunergy, Inc.                                                 





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or 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 Sunergy, Inc. and will be retained by Sunergy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





---
#### UNITED STATES, Appellant v HAROLD R. COURTWRIGHT, Sentenced Prisoner (formerly U. S. Air Force), and WILLIE PORTER, Sentenced Prisoner (formerly U. S. Army), Appellees

13 USCMA 322, 32 CMR 322

No. 15,999

September 14, 1962

*First Lieutenant Jerome Nelson*argued the cause for Appellant, United States. With him on the brief were *Major Francis M. Cooper*and *First Lieutenant Charles D. Reaves.*

*First Lieutenant Gary G. Keltner*argued the cause for Appellees, Accused. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Herrod*and *Captain Richard A. Baenen.*

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

For the reasons set out in United States v Franchia, 13 USCMA 315, 32 CMR 315, we answer the certified question in the affirmative, and affirm the decision of the board of review.

Judge Kilday concurs.

FERGUSON, Judge

(concurring in the result):

I concur in the result for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Franchia, this day decided.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 On December 21, 2004, plaintiff paid the filing fee in connection with the filing of this

1

action. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis which plaintiff filed on

December 13, 2004, was disregarded.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL ANTHONY RUPE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2630 LKK DAD P

vs.

J.S. WOODWARD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On April 24, 2006, this action was dismissed for failure to state a cognizable

claim and judgment was entered that same day. On May 5, 2006, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal

from the judgment. On May 10, 2006, the Clerk of the Court notified plaintiff that he was

required to pay the filing fee of $455.00 associated with the appeal since this court had not

granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On May 16, 2006, plaintiff filed a letter 1

with this court requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The court will direct the

Clerk of the Court to send plaintiff the appropriate application form.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02630-LKK -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/18/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff an application for requesting

leave to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner; and

2. Within twenty-one days from the service of this order, plaintiff shall complete

and return his application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DATED: May 18, 2006.

DAD:4

rupe2630.ifp

Case 2:04-cv-02630-LKK -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 51059.

#### Protests 68086-K, etc., of Myott Tharaud Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of oat-meals or oatmeal saucers and puree cups or chowder 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.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 30230 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DEANDRE LAMONT ROGER S, also known as Deandre Rogers , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:15

- CR

- 3

- 1

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Deandre Lamont Rogers pleaded guilty to two violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111 and 1114 based on two separate incidents in which he groped or attempted to grope a female U.S. Postal Worker

. His Presentence Investigation Report calculated a guidelines sentencing range of 18 to 24
months and noted (1) several prior convictions based on similar incidents in
which Rogers groped or sexually touched women in public , as w ell as (2) h is

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 1, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-30230 Document: 00513742920 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2016No. 16

- 30230

2 history of mental illness and suicide attempts. The district court denied Rogers’s motion for a downward variance to time served , granted the Government’s motion for an upward variance , and sentenced Rogers to 48 months of imprisonment base d on his history and characteristics, the need for deterrence of criminal conduct, and to protect the public

. Rogers now challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence , which we review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Diehl , 775 F.3d 714, 724 (5th Cir. ), cert. denied , 136 S. Ct. 213 (2015). The upward variance imposed in this case is “commensurate with the individualized, case

- specific reasons provided by the district court ” and within the range of upward variances we have affirmed in the past. See United States

v. McElwee , 646 F.3d 328, 338, 343

- 45 (5th Cir. 2011). Although Rogers argues that the district court made “a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors” by putting too little weight on his mental illness as a mitigating factor and too much weight on his purportedly exaggerated criminal history, he has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion

. See McElwee , 646 F.3d at 338 ; Diehl , 775 F.3d at 724. Rogers also has not shown an unwarranted sentencing disparity between himself and any defendants “with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The defendants he offers in comparison are not similarly situated. S ee United States v. Smith , 440 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006). The nationwide sentencing statistics on which he
relies do not establish an unwarranted sentencing disparity. See United States v. Willingham , 497 F.3d 541, 54 4

- 45 (5th Cir. 2007). AFFIRMED. Case: 16-30230 Document: 00513742920 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2016
(Reap. Dec. 8576)

#### Otto Kadmon *v.*United States

Entry No. 722844-1/2, etc.

(Decided April 27, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George S. Leonard,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

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

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated above consists of electric bulbs imported from Japan.

> *568IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including the costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised value less 5 *%*covering the item of buying commission. There was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less *5*per centum covering the item of buying commission.

.Tudement will be entered accordingly.
#### James W. Phelps, *Respondent, v.*William Beardsley, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Hardin, J.; Haight, J., not sitting.