alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Charles R. Jones v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 01079

- CR

Trial court case number: 1510058

Trial court: 179th District Court of Harris County

Appellant has filed motions requesting that this Court (1) send appellant a copy of his pro

se response to counsel’s Anders brief, (2) allow appellant to amend his pro se response, (3) extend

the time for appellant to file his pro se response to 14 days from the granting of his motion , and

(4) waive any requirement that appellant file additional copies of his pro se response. The motion s

are granted . The Clerk of this Court is directed to send appellant a copy of his pro se response.

Appellant’s amended p ro se response is due within 14 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Sarah B. Landau

_____ Acting individually

Date: ____ June 18, 2019

__
#### Dean & Kite Co. *v.*United States

No. 6329.

Entry No. 13, etc.

Invoices dated Stoke on Trent, England, May 1943, etc.

Certified June 1943, etc.

Entered at Cincinnati, Ohio, July 14, 1943, etc.

*291(Decided August 23, 1946)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard F. Weeks,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision 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/or 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/or 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 tbe agreed facts I find-tbe export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are tbe appraised values, less tbe additions made by tbe importer on entry because of advances by tbe appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as tbe appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 of Heritage Financial Group, Inc. (SEC File Numbers 333-171391 and 333-171894) of our report dated March 31, 2011, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements of Heritage Financial Group, Inc. as of December31, 2010 and 2009 and for the years ended December31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 and which report is included in Heritage Financial Group, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.






/s/Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC




Albany, Georgia


March 31, 2011
# rj ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23-0021 GREGG ALLEN ZINDELL,

Petitioner and Appellant,
v. STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. 

# FILLD FEB 0 7 

# rn Bowen Gt
_ C, ,x of Supreme Court State of tVlontana ORDER

Earlier this year, self-represented Appellant Gregg Allen Zindell filed a Notice of Appeal and Motion for Appointment of Counsel with this Court. On January 12, 2023, this Court denied his rnotion for appointrnent ofcounsel because Zindell is not entitled to appointed representation forpostconviction relief. Zindell nowmoves this Court again for appointment ofcounsel, and he moves for a sixty-day extension oftime. Zindell's motion for an extension oftime is premature. Upon review ofthis Court's docket, this Court has not received the record from the District Court. Zindell will receive written notice ofwhen the Court receives the record from the Clerk ofthe Supreme Court. M. R. App. P. 9(6). After that, Zindell may move this Court for an extension oftime to file his opening brief Turningto his rnotion for legal representation, it appearsthatZindell did not receive this Court's first Order before he filed a second motion. As stated previously, Zindell is not entitled to counsel in this appeal. Section 46-8-104, MCA. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Zindell's Motion for Appointment ofCounsel is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Zindell's Motion for a Sixty-Day Extension of Time is DIS1VIISSED without prejudice. Zindell may make his request again. 02/07/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0021TheClerk oldie SupremeCourt is directed to provide a copy ofthisOrdertocounsel

ofrecord and to Gregg Allen Zindell personally. DATED this V A-

day ofFebruary, 2023.

For the Court,

ChiefJustice
Before the Third Division,

December 1, 1948

No. 52708.

protest 52605-K (San Francisco).

#### Raphael Weill & 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 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.) 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 involved. The protest was sustained to this extent.
#### Caroline A. Hanson, App’lt, *v.*Hugh J. Grant, late Sheriff, Resp’t.

Appeal from order of this court, Hon. H. W. Bookstaver, J.

*Ordered,*that the order be affirmed, with costs.
UNITE D STATE S O F AMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D C 

### DFPTOFTRANSPORITID N

. DOCKET S :C3 0 

### o 3 - U O

TRAVE L GROUP , INC. , D/B/ A REPUBLI C AI RTRAVE L AN D SCO T SPENCE R AIRLIF r GROUP , INC . AN D RICHAR D BERNAR D Unauthorize dAi r

Transportation , Unfai r

an d Deceptiv e PtBctice s an dUnfai r

Metliod s o f

Competition , an d Violation s o f

Publi c Charte r

Rule s EXPRES S ON E INTERNATIONAL , INC . Unfai r an dDeceptiv e lYactice s an d Unfai r Method s o f Competition , an dViolation s o f Publi c Charte r

Rule s Enforcemen t

Pk'oceedin g DOT-OST-1995-27 2 formerl y Docke t 4923 3

STATU S REPOR T Th e Offic e o f

th e Assistan t

Genera l Counse l for

Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an d Proceeding s ("Enforcemen t Office") , pursuan t

t o You r Honor' s Marc h 22 , 2006 , Orde r stayin g thi s proceeding , file s thi s repor t detailin g th e curren t

statu s o f thi s proceedin g an d settlemen t negotiations . Th e Departmen t

ha s no t rule d o n th e outstandin g motion s file d b y Respondent s an doppose db y th e Enforcemen t Offic e i n Ascen d Aviatio n Group , Docke t OST-2004 - 17486 .Ther e hav e bee n n o furthe r settJemen t discussions . Date ; Decembe

r 31 , 2009 . Respectfull y submitted , Samue l Podberesk

y Assistan t Genera l Counsel fo

r Aviatio n Enforcemen

t andProceeding s Dayton Lehman , Jr . Deput y Assistan t Genera l Counsel fo

r Aviation Enforcemen

t an dProceeding s Willia mJ . Wa^^r

j Senior Tria l Attorney Cf-O'^uy^ ^ Unite d State s Departmen

t of Transportation Office of Aviatio n Enforcemen

t an dProceeding s 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Room96-42 9 Washington , D. C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-934 2 FAX : 202-366-715 2DocWNo.DOT-OST.1995-21 2 K r 200 9 atru e an

dcorrect cop y o f th e

U.s.DepartmentofTransportatio n Docke t Operations„M-3 0 Wes t Building Groun

dFloo r RoomW12-14 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Th e Honorable Ronni e A Yode r ?,ie?Administrativ e La

w Judg e 

# STD^rsS^^^^^ ^ EastBuUdingGroun dFloor RoomE12-32 0 Washington , D.C . 203y

u TEL : (202 ) 366-214 2 FAX : (202 ) 366-753 6 Ascen dAviation GrW^^^^^^ ^ 3^^,, , LL C Ascen dAviation Marketing ^ KC P Leasing an

dservices , LL

C Sco t Spence r C/ O Georg e Spence

r 24 Eton Cour

t Bedminster,NJ 0792 1
(491lH

• • • • • •

COnditiO~ a,s: I

A recent Wide spread Fatigue Damage I ) calcuJation on A300-600

aC(oplanes has shO\vn that a reiiUorc I t of the upper fuselage

circumfetel;1tial joint at FR (frame) 58' necessary to enable the aeroplane

. ,

to rea4t the Extended Servtce Goal ~G).

i

,

The failwe of the circumferential joint pfthe upper fuselage could affect

the structural integrity of the aeroplane~

• I

,

listed above. This pro?Jsed AD results from rrJaooarory continuing ainvorthiness

information (MCAl) originated by an aviation ~OrilY of another COWltry to identify rJ/if (l?

and cotrect an unsafe condition on an aviation ~rodUCt. The MCAl describes the unsafi "'::"" D'

~JlJ

~''6~{D

AiJplaries

I

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration I'"' DOT.

ACfION: Notice of proposed rulemaking lRM).

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt anew ~orthiness directive (AD) for the prod

Federal Aviation Administration

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONl

oq,{) \

{Daeket No. FAA-2010- •••• ·; Directorate Ikientifier 20lQ-NM-054-ADI

!

RiN 212D-AA64 !I

Ainvortbio.ess Directives; Airlms Model A3~ B4-600 and AJOOB4-600R Series

I

Airplan"" Model A300 F4-;605R Airplanes, mid Model A300 C4-60SR Vari"", F

!

14 CFR Part 39

l ~'(

The proposed AD wo~ld require actiOnsthat l~intended to address the unsafe eonditi

described in the MeAl.

i

FAA Form 1360-14.1 (6-1§)
### IN THE S UP REME COURT OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A pr il 5, 200 6 S es sio n STA TE OF TENNES SEE v . LEONARD J . YOUNG Aut om at ic App e al fr omth e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

Crim inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty Nos. 00-04017, 00-04018, 00- 04019 Joseph B. Dail ey, P residing Ju dge; Jon Ke rry Blackwood , Special Jud ge

No. W2002-03012-SC- DDT-DD - F iled on Ju ne 30, 2006

AD OLPHO A. B I RCH , JR., J., c on c ur ri ng in p art

a nddis se nti ng in p art
. I concur in the conclusion of the ma jority that Young ' s convictions should be aff irmed. As to the sentenc e of de ath, howeve r, I respe ctfully

dissent. I continue to adhe re to my view that the c omp arativ e pr op ortio na lit y re vie w p ro toc ol c ur

re ntl y e mbr a c e d b y

the ma jority is i na de qu a te to sh ie ld d e fe nd a nts fr om the arb itr ary a nddis pr op ortio na te imp os iti on of the de a th pe na lty . Se e Sta te v. Reid, 164 S.W .3d 2 8 6 , 3 2 3

- 3 25 (Tenn. 2005) (B irch, J., concurring and dissenting ), and c ases c ited there in. A ccor dingly , I

respe ctfully

dissent from that portion of the major ity opinion affirming the imposit ion of the death penalty in this case.

________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________ AD OLPHO A. B I RCH , JR.
No. 59069.

protest 98742-K (Portland, Oreg.).

#### J. T. Steeb & Co., Inc., a/c Sprouse-Reitz Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid reindeer similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 56902, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8559 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect small businesses 

from unemployment insurance premium increases by reason of unrepaid 

State advances. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2024 

Mrs. STEEL (for herself and Ms. TENNEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect 

small businesses from unemployment insurance premium 

increases by reason of unrepaid State advances. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF SMALL BUSINESS FROM UN4 EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PREMIUM IN5 CREASES BY REASON OF UNREPAID STATE 

6 ADVANCES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3302(c) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

9 the following new paragraph: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8559 IH

1 ‘‘(4) CREDITS OF SMALL BUSINESSES NOT RE2 DUCED BY REASON OF UNREPAID ADVANCES.— 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) shall not 

4 apply with respect to any specified small business. 

5 ‘‘(B) SPECIFIED SMALL BUSINESS.—For pur6 poses of this paragraph, the term ‘specified small 

7 business’ means any taxpayer if such taxpayer em8 ploys fewer than 500 employees as of the close of 

9 the third quarter of the calendar year immediately 

10 preceding the second consecutive January 1 referred 

11 to in paragraph (2)(A)(i).’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

14 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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 Annual Report of Plandel Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended  May 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,Mario Santos Gregorio, Principal Executive 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 to the best of 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.





/s/ Mario Santos GregorioMario Santos GregorioPrincipal Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

     I, Glenn I. MacInnes, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer hereby certify that NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc.

|   | /s/ Glenn I. MacInnes                                |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Glenn I. MacInnes                                    |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                                                 |

Date:       May 5, 2010

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: “Bob Goulish” <bob.goulish@epa.state.oh.us> 

To: Ketan Patel/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 01/24/2011 02:13 PM 

Subject: HMIWI 

Hi Mr. Patel, 

I'm working on an installation permit for a new large (1500 lbs/hr) HMIWI. I believe Table 1B 

contains the applicable regulation. In the table after Cd and Hg, in the second column under 

UNITS, it reads “Milligrams per dry....cubic feet) or percent reduction.” Is Table 1B applicable, 

should that percent reduction be there? Attached is Table 1B from 10/6/2009 and 5/14/2010. 

Thank you, 

Bob Goulish 

Ohio EPA 

330-963-1243 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

Unless otherwise provided by law, this communication and any response to it constitutes a public 

record. 

Ohio EPA Logo(See attached file: Scan Table 1B.PDF)
#### Commonwealth *v.*Stancell, Petitioner.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Boberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Mervyn R. Turk,*Assistant Public Defender, for petitioner.

*Ralph B. D’lorio*and *Anna Iwaehiw Vadino,*Assistant District Attorneys, and *Stephen J. MeEwen, Jr.,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

*302September 16, 1969:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts,

Petitioner’s PCHA petition was denied after hearing, and he appealed to the Superior Court which affirmed per curiam. A petition for allocatur followed.

The entire petition reads as follows: “1. On November 1, 1968, . . . the Superior Court of Pennsylvania filed a Per Curiam Order affirming the action of the Lower Court.

“2. The Superior Court failed to consider all the facts presented on behalf of the petitioner, in rendering its decision. The Superior Court failed to properly apply the law to the facts that were established.

“Notice of this petition has been served on the District Attorney of Delaware County.”

The petition is typed, and is signed by the prisoner. The only indication that appointed counsel existed is the fact that the backer has the Public Defender’s name on it. This Court requires counsel to prepare allocatur petitions, see *Commonwealth v. Hickox,*433 Pa. 144, 249 A. 2d 777 (1969). Merely attaching a backer to a petition prepared by the prisoner, and submitting it to this Court, cannot be considered “representation” by counsel, cf. *Commonwealth v. Villano,*435 Pa. 273, 256 A. 2d 468 (1969) (xeroxing prisoner’s petition is inadequate). The Supreme Court of the United States, in a case considering whether an indigent had adequate representation on appeal, set out the standard which must guide us: “[Representation in the role of an advocate is required.” *Ellis v. United States,*356 U.S. 674, 675, 78 S. Ct. 974, 975 (1958). By merely attaching a backer, the Public Defender does not fulfill this role.

The record is remanded to the hearing court so that counsel can file a proper petition for allocatur.
(Reap. Dec. 9220)

#### Henry A. Wess, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 51.

(Decided September 4, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Henry J. O’Neill,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

*538Lawebnce, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement pertains to an importation of chamois leather from England.

When this appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing, the parties hereto agreed to submit the case for determination upon a stipulation of fact, wherein it was agreed as follows:

1. The importation was appraised at the invoice unit values, net packed (English pounds).

2. The foreign and export value of said merchandise (section 402 (c) and (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c) and (d)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938), were the same at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States.

3. Subsequent to importation, the party in interest, upon inspection and examination of the merchandise, found that the last five items on the invoice were considerably below the quality as invoiced and as represented.

4. Upon complaint to the exporter of record, because of such deficiencies in quality and value, a settlement was made equivalent in dollars to 20 per centum of the total value of the last five items on the invoice.

5. Said last five items should, therefore, have been appraised at invoice unit values, less 20 per centum, packed (English pounds).

6. Plaintiff limits its instant appeal for a reappraisement to the last five items of merchandise appearing on the invoice herein.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, *supra,*is the proper basis for determining the value of the last five items of merchandise appearing on the invoice accompanying the entry covered by the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement and that said value is the invoice unit values, less 20 per centum packed (English pounds).

As to all other merchandise, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8932 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8932

  To establish an earlier application processing cycle for the FAFSA.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 5, 2024

 Mrs. Houchin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To establish an earlier application processing cycle for the FAFSA.

    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 ``FAFSA Deadline Act''.

SEC. 2. FAFSA SUBMISSION DATE.

    Section 483(d)(4) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1090(d)(4)) is amended by striking ``not later than January 1 of the 
applicant's planned year of enrollment, to the maximum extent 
practicable, on or around October 1 prior to the applicant's planned 
year of enrollment'' and inserting ``not later than October 1 prior to 
the applicant's planned year of enrollment''.
                                 <all>
```
Before the First Division,

May 9, 1961

No. 65599.

#### Columbia Motor Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 58/24638 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hydraulic brake fluid, which consists of a mixture in chief value of ethylene glycol; that said merchandise does not contain ethyl alcohol; and that the issues involved are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc.*(46 C.C.P.A. 115, C.A.D. 711), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.