alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PEBBLE HILLS PLA ZA, LTD/ASLM

LT D

,

Appellant

,

v.

ASLM LTD/ PEBBLE HILLS PLAZA

LTD

,

State

. **§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§** No. 08

- 22

- 00 128

- C V

Appeal from the

41 st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2022DCV1639 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Ap pelle e /Cross Appellant ’ s third motion for extension of time

within which to file the brief until October 1 3 , 2022

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE A PPELLEE /CROSS APPELLANT ’ S BRIEF WILL BE

CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Casey S. Stevenson

, the App elle e/Cross App ellant ’ s

attorney, prepare the App elle e/Cross App ellant ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or

before Oc t o ber 1 3

, 2022

.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 26 th day of September , 2022.

PER CURIAM

B efore Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DANJUMA LEE MARSHALL, 

 CASE NO. 2:11-CV-249 

 Petitioner, JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL R. MERZ 

 v. 

WARDEN, LEBANON 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

 Respondent. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 On January 22, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

be dismissed. Although the parties were advised of the right to object to the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation, and of the consequences of failing to do so, no objections have 

been filed. 

 The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby 

DISMISSED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 United States District Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-00249-ALM-MRM Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/25/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:11-cr-128-5

Gregory A. Forbey 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 220) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: August 15, 2011 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cr-00128-JLG-TPK Doc #: 249 Filed: 08/15/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
EXHIBIT 31.2

I, Jamie L. Buskill, certify that:

1)

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boardwalk Pipelines, LLC;

2)

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3)

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

4)

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5)

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on its most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





Dated:  July 29, 2005

/s/ Jamie L. Buskill



Jamie L. Buskill

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9054 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9054

 To prevent the use of unconstitutional gun confiscation laws against 
                               veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 2024

  Mr. Crane (for himself and Mr. Rosendale) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prevent the use of unconstitutional gun confiscation laws against 
                               veterans.

    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 ``Safeguarding Veterans 2nd Amendment 
Rights Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF USE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN CONFISCATION LAWS 
              AGAINST VETERANS.

    (a) Prohibition.--No officer or employee of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs shall, in the course of their duties as an officer or 
employee of such Department, initiate, participate in, or advocate for 
the removal of a firearm in any proceedings relating to a State gun 
confiscation law.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``gun confiscation law'' means a State law 
        that provides the authority for the removal of a firearm 
        through a risk-based, temporary, and preemptive protective 
        order.
            (2) The term ``State'' has the meaning given such term in 
        section 101 of title 38, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
Before the Third Division,

March 31, 1944

No. 49306.

#### Protests 994359-G, etc., of Arnold Baker Co. et al. (Duluth).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It is claimed in the pleadings that the liquidations were illegal and void in that the collector did not designate for examination nor did the appraiser examine the number of packages required by the statute, section 2901 of the Revised Statutes then in effect, carried into the tariff acts of 1922 and 1930 as section 499. The testimony in the case at bar fully supported the allegations in the pleadings, and the record in *Davis*v. *United States*(T. D. 49012) was incorporated. On the record thus made it was held that the appraisements were null and void and the liquidations based thereon were invalid. Duty should have been assessed upon the entered values. The plaintiffs’ claim was therefore sustained. *United States*v. *Tower*(24 C. C. P. A. 456, T. D. 48912) cited.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130394 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130394 

 COA: 266059 

Muskegon CC: 04-050612-FH

GERALD DWAYNE CLARK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 8, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0522 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2006 

Clerk
Case No. 8,535.

#### The LOUISETTA.

[2 Gall. 307.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

Oct. Term, 1814.

Practice in Admiralty — Costs — Claim Under Attachment — Caution.

1. Practice as to costs and charges, where several parties. intervene for separate interests.

[Cited in The Mary. Anne, Case No. 9,195.]

2. Where a party claims under an attachment, he must file a caution in court, to hold-the proceeds remaining after satisfying prior claims.

[Cited in The Mary Anne, Case No. 9,195.]

This vessel was seized and libelled on behalf of the United States, afterwards libelled for seamen’s wages, sold on interlocutory order, and finally decreed to be restored.

Mr. Hubbard, of counsel for owners and claimants, now moved the court for a direction to the clerk to pay over the proceeds, or at least so much thereof, as would compensate him as counsel, the clerk having doubts as to his authority to pay them over, because he had understood there were attachments upon the same property, returnable to the state court. There was no evidence of any attachment made; and it appeared, upon inquiry, that the party, claiming under the attachment, had done nothing more than to file a copy of his writ with the marshal.

THE COURT said, they could not take notice of any attachment, unless a caution was filed in court; and Welsh, of counsel for the claimants under the attachment, was directed to file such a caution.

The Louisetta was taken into custody under the seizure by the United States in June. The libel on behalf of the seamen was served in August. The marshal had charged these li-bellants with the custody fees from the time the warrant on their libel was served.

Mr. Hubbard, for the owners and claimants, and Mr. Welsh, for the seamen, contended that the vessel, being already in the custody of the United States under their seizure, and there having been an appeal from the decree of the district court, so that it was necessary for the United States to retain tiie property in custody, this was properly a charge to the United States, and ought .not to be borne, either by the owners, to whom restitution was decreed, or by the seamen.

THE COURT

confirmed this reasoning, and said, the expenses must be borne by the United States, there having been probable cause, which excused the collector.
Case: 2:11-cv-00273-EAS-TPK Doc #: 77 Filed: 10/17/12 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T10:17:53-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Wm. O. Callender *et al.,*App’lts, and Henry C. Parsons, Resp’t.

Motion denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:11-CR-034

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

JOHN E. SHINN, 

Defendant.

ORDER

On March 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant Shinn’s guilty plea to Count

One of the Information charging him with possession of child pornography in interstate commerce

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(4)(B). Defendant, represented by counsel, waived his right to

appear on the matter before a District Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted the colloquy required

by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary,

free from coercion, and had a basis in fact. Further, the Magistrate Judge observed that at the time

Defendant entered his guilty plea, he was in full possession of his faculties, was not suffering from

any apparent physical or mental illness, and was not under the influence of narcotics or alcohol. 

Defendant was specifically informed of his right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 14 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

not file any objections. 

Case: 2:11-cr-00034-GCS-NMK Doc #: 18 Filed: 04/25/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-2-

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Information. Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty of

possession of child pornography in interstate commerce. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:11-cr-00034-GCS-NMK Doc #: 18 Filed: 04/25/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

PIERO BUGONI,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

CHARLES (Last Name Unknown), CASE NO. C2-10-1173

Owner of C&M Towing, Inc., et al., JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK R. ABEL

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or trial.

Pursuant to the Opinion and Order filed December 13, 2012, JUDGMENT is hereby

entered DISMISSING this case.

Date: December 13, 2012 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:10-cv-01173-EAS-MRA Doc #: 51 Filed: 12/13/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 40284.

#### Protests 942660-G, etc., of F. W. Woolworth Co. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 37636 the cabinets in question were held dutiable at 33)4 percent under paragraph 412 as claimed.
---

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 

I, Harold C. F. Dickout, 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 of Americas Wind Energy
      Corporation for the period ended October 31, 2010 (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 Americas Wind Energy Corporation.                                                                  

Dated: December 20, 2010

| | /s/
      Harold C. F. Dickout                                   
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Harold C. F. Dickout                                               
| | President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman
      and Director    
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial Officer and
| | Principal Accounting Officer)                                      
| | Americas Wind Energy Corporation                                   

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 Americas Wind
Energy Corporation and will be retained by Americas Wind Energy Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 24

- 00029

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023

- 007664

- 1

Before Womack, Wallach
, and Walker, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### Y VONNE 

### C OL LINS 

### , Appellant

V



### .
P ATRICIA 

### W

ARD 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant’ s brief was filed on May 2 , 2024. On May 6, 2024, we notified
appellant that her brief did not comply with T exas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)

and 38. 1 ( b )
, ( c ), (d), (f), (

g), (h), (i), and (j)

. We asked that appell ant f ile an amended

brief that complie d with the above rules by May 16, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 9, 38,
and 2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1. We indicated that the f ailure to do so may

res ult in striking the brief and di smissal of the appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a),
38.9(a), 42.3. We have received no response. Because appellant has failed to file a n amended brief even after we afforded an
opportunity to do so , we dismiss the appeal f or want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App.
P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered : June 20, 2024
(Reap. Dec. 9226)

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 7076.

(Decided October 7, 1958)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

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

Olivee, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain seamless steel pipe exported from Germany and entered at the port of Baltimore.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of this seamless steel pipe is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for the merchandise is “$39.56 per foot C *&*F Baltimore,” and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 58155.

petitions 6942-R, etc. (Detroit, St. Albans, Ogdensburg, and Buffalo).

#### F. S. Whelan & Sons et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

From the record, it was apparent that the question of the dutiable value of the merchandise depended upon what was determined to be the “usual wholesale quantity” under the circumstances existing in the case of sales of birchwood plywood from Canada at the dates of exportation of the merchandise here involved. In order to arrive at a determination of the issue, a test case was made. From the testimony produced, it appeared that the broker gave the appraiser all the information he had prior to the time of entry and that there was no intent to defraud the revenue or to deceive the Government officials or to withhold any facts from the appraiser. Government counsel stated that all of the correspondence or reports presented to the Assistant Attorney General’s office through customs sources was highly favorable to the importers in all instances. On the record presented, the petitions were granted, following *Crown Publishers*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 159, C. D. 1278), Abstracts 46513 and 55614, and P. *Pastene & Co. (Inc.)*v. *United States*(21 C. C. P. A. 69, T. D. 46392).
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Department of Defense

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Department of Defense 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Department of Defense 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Aerial photo of the Pentagon, headquarters of the Department of Defense. 
                    -           Subjects        
                    -  United States. Department of Defense 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Country        
                    -  United States 
                    -           State        
                    -  District of Columbia 
                    -           Town        
                    -  Washington 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  121 × 26 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ricoh Aficio 3228 Scanner at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu. 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  026147785.jpg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -