alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN A. DAVIS, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

20 USCMA 353, 43 CMR 193

No. 23,672

February 12, 1971

*Colonel George J. McCartin, Jr., Captain Bernard J. Casey,*and *Captain Robert B. Harrison, III,*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway,*and *Captain Merle F. Wilberding*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

*354Opinion of the Court

FERGUSON, Judge:

The issue in this case is the same as in United States v Bowman, 20 USCMA 119, 42 CMR 311 (1970), where we reversed for failure of the law officer to comply with the requirements laid down by this Court in United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149 (1969). In lieu of conducting a personal inquiry of the accused concerning his knowledge of his entitlement to counsel (Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838), the law officer utilized a printed form, initialed and signed by the accused and his counsel, certifying that the latter had advised the accused with regard to his right to counsel. The Government concedes error and agrees that a rehearing is necessary. We accept the concession of error as properly made. United States v Goodin, 20 USCMA 160, 42 CMR 352 (1970), and cases cited at page 161. Cf. United States v Johnson, 20 USCMA 290, 43 CMR 130 (1971). In view of the action we take, we need not consider the other errors alleged by appellate defense counsel. They can be raised at the rehearing if trial defense counsel believes they have merit.

The decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing may be ordered.

Judge Darden concurs.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs in the result.
#### H. M. Snelwar (Victory Shipping Co., Inc.) et al *v.*United States

No. 6314.

Entry No. 712890, etc.

Invoices dated Manchester, England, October 9, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 25, 1942, etc.

(Decided July 29, 1946)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

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

Keefe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for *278decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein. .

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted 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 earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1 

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 JowayHealth Industries Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q (Amendment No. 1) for the quarter ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JingheZhang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 Company. 

Date: February 23, 2012 

/s/ JingheZhang 

Jinghe Zhang, Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2012 (the Report) of Full Circle Capital Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, William E. Vastardis, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)  The 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ William E. Vastardis Name:  William E. Vastardis Date:   September 13, 2012
No. 61962.

#### Glotex Importers Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 995931-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *E. C. Carter & Son, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 368, G. D. 1889), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8258 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8258

 To redesignate the Cottonwood Visitor Center at Joshua Tree National 
        Park as the ``Senator Dianne Feinstein Visitor Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 2024

   Mr. Ruiz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To redesignate the Cottonwood Visitor Center at Joshua Tree National 
        Park as the ``Senator Dianne Feinstein Visitor Center''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF THE COTTONWOOD VISITOR CENTER AT JOSHUA 
              TREE NATIONAL PARK AS THE ``SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN 
              VISITOR CENTER''.

    (a) Redesignation.--The Cottonwood Visitor Center at Joshua Tree 
National Park shall be known and designated as the ``Senator Dianne 
Feinstein Visitor Center''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the visitor center 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Senator Dianne Feinstein Visitor Center''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21.1

Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc.

Subsidiaries

(State of incorporation)



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|Beasley Mezzanine Holdings, LLC (DE)                
|Beasley FM Acquisition Corp. (DE)                   
|KDWN License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WAEC License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WAZZ License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WCHZ License, LLC (DE)                              
|WDAS License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WFLB License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WGOR License, LLC (DE)                              
|WIKS License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WJBX License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WKIS License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WKML License Limited Partnership (NC)               
|WMGV License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WNCT License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WPOW License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WRXK License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WSFL License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WWDB License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WWNN License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WXNR License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|WXTU License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|Beasley AP Holdings, LLC (DE)                       
|Beasley Reed Acquisition Partnership (DE)           
|WQAM License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|Beasley BA Holdings, LLC (DE)                       
|Beasley Broadcasting of Nevada, LLC (NC)            
|KJUL License, LLC (NC)                              
|Beasley Broadcasting of New Jersey, Inc. (DE)       
|WTMR License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|Beasley Broadcasting of Southwest Florida, Inc. (DE)
|WXKB License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|Beasley Radio, Inc. (DE)                            
|WJPT License Limited Partnership (DE)               
|Beasley Internet Ventures, LLC (DE)                 
|Beasley Internet Ventures II, LLC (DE)
**Exhibit        32.1**

**SECTION        1350 CERTIFICATION**

| 1.   | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended                June                30, 2006 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of                section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15                U.S.C.                §§78m or 78o(d)); and |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.   | The                information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                      |                                                                                                                              |                                      |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
| Date: August                21, 2006 |                                                                                                     | /S/ Pierre                Cote  |
|                                      | Pierre                Cote                                                                                                        |
|                                      | Chairman                  of the                  Board, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial                  Officer |

----
Exhibit 31.2

         Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Donald Evans, and CEO of Silver Screen Studios, Inc., a Georgia
corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section
906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of this
quarterly report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934:

Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006.

The undersigned certifies that the above periodic report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in all
respects, the financial condition of Silver Screen Studios, Inc. and results of
its operations.

By:/s/ Donald Evans
   ----------------
Donald Evans  acting CEO and  acting Director

May 10, 2006
D

|  | **BOOKS** |
|--|-----------|
|  |
|  |

----

| **Links to other titles**
**Other Books**              - author index- title index

**CADRE Papers**              - author index- title index

**Fairchild Papers**              - author index- title index

**SAASS Theses**              - author index              - title index

**Maxwell Papers** *              - index

**Wright Flyer Papers** *              - index

* Available as downloads in PDF format only.

Distribution Policy**About this                title**Responsibility of Command: How UN and NATO Commanders                Influenced Airpower over BosniaMark A. Bucknam
2003, 428 pages                ISBN 1-58566-115-5****$40.00

 order no. B-88 | download

In this study Col Mark A. Bucknam examines the role that                theater-level commanders in the UN and NATO played in influencing airpower over                Bosnia between April 1993 and December 1995. He presents it in a chronological                order that offers a coherent account of Operation Deny Flight. This study                challenges assumptions about military leaders, their motivations, and the state                of civil-military relations during the Bosnia conflict.

Next Title | Previous Title | AU Press Home

**What do you think**? E-mail your comments about this title to Air                University Press   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
(Reap. Dec. 8602)

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 6752.

(Decided June 22, 1956)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiffs.

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

JOHNSON, Judge:

Tbis appeal for reappraisement bas been submitted for decision upon tbe following stipulation of counsel for tbe parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the issues of law and fact with respect to the earthenware articles covered by the *620above named appeal for reappraisement are the same in all material respects as the issues of law and fact in *F. W. WOOLWORTH CO.*v. *UNITED STATES,*27 Cust. Ct. 424, R. D. 8039 and that the record in R. D. 8039 be received in evidence herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above, 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 quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus 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, was in each instance the appraised value less the amount added under duress to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases and that there is no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that this appeal to re-appraisement be submitted on this 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 earthenware articles here involved, and that such value in each instance is the appraised value, less the amount added under duress to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 58131.

protest 154360-K (Minneapolis).

#### May Bros. Co. and Norman G. Jensen, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the toilet paper in rolls the subject of *Douglas Paper Co.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 87, C. D. 1501), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed September 10, 2018.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-00931-CR

BROOKE MCCANN JORDAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-54880-U

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

Brooke McCann Jordan filed her notice of appeal on August 10, 2018. The clerk’s record, 

filed August 20, shows Jordan pleaded guilty to the offense of driving while intoxicated with two 

prior convictions for driving while intoxicated. On June 3, 2016, following Jordan’s plea 

agreement with the State, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years in prison, probated for 

six years, and a $2,000 fine. The trial court prepared and signed a certification of the right to 

appeal, stating the case was a plea bargain case and Jordan had no right to appeal. Since that time, 

the State has filed several motions to revoke probation, the most recent of which was filed on 

March 12, 2018. To date, the trial court has not ruled on the State’s March 12th motion.

As a general rule, an appellate court may consider appeals by criminal defendants only 

after conviction. Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1998, no pet.). With 
–2–

regard to cases involving “regular” probation, the Texas Legislature has authorized appeal of only 

two types of orders: (1) an order granting probation, and (2) an order revoking probation. See 

Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discussing Basaldua v. State, 558 

S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)). 

Here, the State’s motion to revoke Jordan’s probation is still pending in the trial court. 

Because there is no order granting the State’s motion, we lack jurisdiction over this case.

We dismiss this appeal.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

180931F.U05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BROOKE MCCANN JORDAN, Appellant

No. 05-18-00931-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. F15-54880-U.

Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, 

Justices Lang and Schenck participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered this 10th day of September, 2018.
No. 52709.

protest 56313-K (Philadelphia).

#### Thomas Textile Service Co. *v.*United States,

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 ease 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.) 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 entries 7152 and 30. The protest was sustained to this extent.
T h e 2 0 T a n ks a t R e d h ill fal l und e r D L A ’s C e n t rall y M a n a g e d P r o g r a m f o r t a n k s

, o r T a n k C MP

. D L A ’s g o al

w i t h t h e T a n k C M P i s t o c o ndu c t i n te r n al i n s p e c t i o n s o f all DL A ca p i t ali z e d f u e l s t o ra g e t a n ks o n a 1 0

ye ar c y c l e

. T h e r e a r e a pp r o x i m a te l y 6 5 0 bu lk f u e l s t o ra g e t a n k s a nd a n a dd i t i o n al 5 0 0 s m al l e r t a n k s i n

t h e N a v y i n v e n t o r y c o v e r e d b y t h e t a n k C M P

. T h e i n s p e c t i o n s ar e t o b e c o ndu c t e d i n ac c o r d a n c e w i t h

t h e p ri n ci p l e s o f A P I 6 5 3 t o t h e e x te n t t h a t i t i s a pp lic a b l e

. T h e fi r s t R e d H ill t a n ks i n s p e c te d a nd

r e p air e d und e r t h e C M P w e r e t a n ks 2 a nd 2 0

, w h ic h e n te r e d t h e r e p air p r o c e ss i n 2 0 0 8 a nd we r e

r et u r n e d t o s e r v i c e i n 2 0 1 1

.

Gi v e n t h e a v aila b ili t y o f s p ac e

, t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f a c c e ss a nd e l e c t rical p o w e r a n d o t h e r u t ili t i e s i t i s n o t

c u rr e n t l y f e asi b l e t o k e e p a ll 2 0 R e d H ill t a n ks o n a 1 0 ye ar c y c l e as d e sir e d b y DL A. A P I s t i pu la te s t h a t

t h e i n s p e c t o r o f r e c o r d s et s t h e i n s p e c t i o n i n te r v al w i t h a m ax i m u m o f 2 0 y e ars

. Bas e d o n c u rr e n t

t i m e li n e s, E X W C c u rr e n t l y h as t a n ks 5 a nd 17 und e r a t ask o r d e r c o n t r ac t a nd T a n ks 4 a nd 1 4 und e r a

s e p ara t e t as k o r d e r c o n t r a c t

. E X WC i s i n t h e e ar l y s t a g e s o f ac qu isi t i o n a nd p r o j e c t d e v e l o p m e n t f o r

cl e a n i ng

, i n s p e c t i ng

, a nd r e p airi ng t a n k 1 8

.