alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 64296.

protest 59/28490 (New York).

#### W. C. Sullivan & Company *v.*United States,

*506Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

Since tbe protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
---

Exhibit 99.12

CONSENT OF EXPERT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the Form
40-F) of Timmins Gold Corp., I, William James Lewis, B.Sc., P.Geo., a Senior
Geologist with Micon International Limited in Toronto, Canada, hereby consent to
the use of my name and Micons name in connection with the references to the
mineral reserve and resource estimates for the San Francisco Mine in Sonora,
Mexico (the Estimates) and to the incorporation by reference of references to,
and summaries of, the Estimates in the Form 40-F.

MICON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED.

By:        /s/ William James Lewis Name:   William James Lewis,
B.Sc., P.Geo. Title:      Senior Geologist

March 29, 2012

---
No. 53142.

#### Old Gold Distributors et al. *v.*United States,

protests 120203-K/509, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
October 2, 2015

Mr. Ken Powaski

2341 Gary Drive

Twinsburg, OH 44087

Dear Mr. Powaski:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your exemption request, posted to the public docket on July 16, 2015, filed in 

Docket No. FAA−2015−2978, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your 

petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider 

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GAYLORD N. BRAXTON, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

16 USCMA 504, 37 CMR 124

No. 19,877

February 3, 1967

*505
      *Lieutenant Commander George E. Goodwin,*USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Ernest B. Wright,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Among other offenses, the accused was convicted by a special court-martial of willful disobedience of a lawful order (specification of Charge II), in violation of Article 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 891. In the post-trial advice, the staff legal officer recommended to the general court-martial authority that Charge II and its specification be dismissed and the sentence reassessed, with provision for suspension and automatic remission of the punitive discharge. Without separate indication of his reasons, the convening authority reassessed the sentence, exactly as recommended by the staff legal officer, but made no changes in the findings of guilty.

When the action of the reviewing authority is consistent with the recommendations of the staff legal officer, the reasons for his action are presumed to be the same as those set out in the post-trial advice. United States v Johnson, 12 USCMA 640, 31 CMR 226; United States v Alaniz, 9 USCMA 533, 26 CMR 313. Since the convening authority modified the sentence in precise accord with the recommendations of the staff legal officer, it may fairly be inferred that he also agreed with the latter’s recommendation to dismiss Charge II and its specification. United States v Kindler, 14 USCMA 394, 34 CMR 174; cf. United States v Yaeger, 15 USCMA 226, 35 CMR 198. The inference is strengthened by the failure of the general court-martial authority to state any reason for taking action different from that recommended by his staff legal officer. See Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, paragraph *85c.*We are, therefore, left with an abiding conviction that the general court-martial authority’s failure to dismiss Charge II and its specification was entirely inadvertent. In view of the sentence, and in the interest of conserving judicial time and effort, we can appropriately correct the defect.

The accused’s petition for grant of review is granted. The findings of guilty of Charge II and its specification are set aside and the charge is ordered dismissed. The record of trial is returned to the board of review for reassessment of the sentence on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION OF 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Texas Industries, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Melvin G. Brekhus, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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, 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 Company.



|                       |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: October 8, 2004 |  | /s/ M.G. Brekhus                     
|                       |  | Melvin G. Brekhus                    
|                       |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



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



- 33 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-CR-55(3)

v. Judge Gregory L. Frost

SONTAY T. SMOTHERMAN,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter came on for consideration upon Defendants Motion to Reconstruct the

Record (ECF No. 367) filed on December 10, 2015 and the Government’s Opposition (ECF No.

370) filed on December 14, 2015.

The Court finds Defendant’s Motion to be not well taken and the Court DENIES the

same.

Rule 10 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure makes it clear that it is appellants duty to

order the transcript of the trial proceedings. Defendant has failed to request a transcript of those

portions of the trial that he now wishes to reconstruct. The entire trial including the voir dire

examination, the opening statements, the closing arguments, and the jury charge were all taken

down by the court reporter but Defendant has not requested a transcript of those portions of trial. 

There is no need to reconstruct the record because the record remains available to Defendant at

his request and upon payment of the transcription fee.

1

Case: 2:12-cr-00055-GLF-TPK Doc #: 371 Filed: 12/15/15 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case: 2:12-cr-00055-GLF-TPK Doc #: 371 Filed: 12/15/15 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Before the Third Division,

August 11, 1943

No. 48656.

#### Protests 595594-G, etc., of G. B. Mannino (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstract 42146. The protests were therefore sustained.
Case No. 15,180.

#### UNITED STATES v. GADSBY.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 55.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Jan. Term, 1802.

Indictment—Gaming.

An indictment will not lie under the Virginia act, for suffering gaming in the defendant’s house; because the act has given an action of debt to the informer.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

Indictment for suffering gaming in his public inn, contrary to Act Va., Jan. 19, 1798, c. 2, § 3. This indictment was quashed, upon the same ground upon which the court instructed the jury in the case of U. S. v. Simms [Case No. 16,290]. See that case in the supreme court of the United States, in 1 Cranch [5 U. S.] 252
# C_2007315EN.01004404.xml

| 22.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/44

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 October 2007 — France v Council

(Case T-382/07 R)

(2007/C 315/86)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court of First Instance has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---
Exhibit 13.2

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 on Form 20-F of InterXion Holding N.V. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies to the undersigneds knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Josh Joshi

M.V. Josh Joshi

Chief Financial Officer

Date: April 28, 2015
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Freedom Banc Mortgage Services,

Plaintiff

 v.

Norma Lynn O'Harra, et al.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:11-cv-1073

Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER

Defendant Normal Lynn O’Harra’s February 6, 2013 motion for an extension of

time in which to serve her responses to plaintiff’s pending discovery requests (doc. 55)

is GRANTED. The discovery response deadline is extended until seven (7) days

following the appearance of plaintiff’s new counsel.

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:11-cv-01073-GLF-EPD Doc #: 57 Filed: 02/11/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
- FPL_1553ocr-1
- FPL_1553ocr-2
- FPL_1553ocr-3
- FPL_1553ocr-4
- FPL_1553ocr-5
- FPL_1553ocr-6
- FPL_1553ocr-7
- FPL_1553ocr-8
- FPL_1553ocr-9
- FPL_1553ocr-10
- FPL_1553ocr-11
- FPL_1553ocr-12
- FPL_1553ocr-13
- FPL_1553ocr-14
- FPL_1553ocr-15
- FPL_1553ocr-16
- FPL_1553ocr-17
- FPL_1553ocr-18
- FPL_1553ocr-19
- FPL_1553ocr-20
- FPL_1553ocr-21
- FPL_1553ocr-22
- FPL_1553ocr-23
- FPL_1553ocr-24
- FPL_1553ocr-25
- FPL_1553ocr-26
- FPL_1553ocr-27
- FPL_1553ocr-28
- FPL_1553ocr-29
- FPL_1553ocr-30
- FPL_1553ocr-31
- FPL_1553ocr-32
- FPL_1553ocr-33
- FPL_1553ocr-34
- FPL_1553ocr-35
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-177937) of Zuoan Fashion Limited of our report dated April 30, 2012, on the consolidated financial statements of Zuoan Fashion Limited, which appears on page F-2 of this annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011.

 

 
|   | /s/   GHP HORWATH, P.C. |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Denver,   Colorado      |
|   | April 30,   2012   |

 

----
|     |                                                                                                                                        |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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/ ROBERT A. HAMWEE |
| Name:                     | Robert A. Hamwee |
| Date:                     | February 26, 2020 |
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

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

# Preparing for the future: Forest Service Research natural areas.

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Preparing for the future: Forest Service Research natural areas. 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Forest Service 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  USDA, Forest Service 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Shipping list no.: 92-0341-P. "FS-504." 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  156 × 44 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Zeutschel OS 12000 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 

                - 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
                -
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v THOMAS FLOYD FJERMESTAD, Seaman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

17 USCMA 480, 38 CMR 278

No. 20,393

April 12, 1968

*Major L. G. Bohlen,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Charles Freeland,*USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellee, .United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam :

This case was before us previously, and we reversed, returning the record to the board of review for reassessment of the sentence in light of the instructional ei;ror pertaining to the punishment. See United States v Fjermestad, 17 USCMA 287, 38 CMR 85. On reconsideration, thé board which reheard the case included a *481member who had acted as counsel for the United States in the previous proceedings. The Government concedes error as to this matter and asks that the case be remanded for consideration by a properly constituted board.

While we accept the Government’s concession of error, we believe further appellate consideration of these proceedings to be unwarranted. Accused was tried over a year ago by special court-martial and has long since served his sentence. His case has been twice before the board of review and now twice before this Court. His offenses are minor in nature and, in the exercise of our discretion, we deem it unnecessary to subject Fjermestad to the harassment of additional proceedings. See United States v Sheeks, 16 USCMA 430, 37 CMR 50; United States v Dixon, 17 USCMA 423, 38 CMR 221.

Accordingly, the petition for review is granted. The findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside. The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The Charge and its specifications are ordered dismissed.
August 18 1941

No. 46280.

#### *United States*v. *Klytia Corp.*

Reap. Dec. 4632 modified. C. A. D. 178.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 


EASTERN DIVISION 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


Plaintiff, Case No. 2:11-CR-131 

v. JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

DAVID P. CRAIL, 

Defendant. 

REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER 

SETTING DATE FOR SUPPRESSION HEARING 

This matter is before the Court on the Government's Motion to Continue Trial Date. 

(Doc. 13.) The Government asks that the trial date in this case be continued in light ofthe 

pending Motion to Suppress, (Doc. 9), filed by Defendant David P. Crail. Both parties agree that 

the Motion to Suppress will resolve the case short oftrial. 

Under the Supreme Court's precedent in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972), this 

Court must consider a four-part balancing test which assesses the "length ofthe delay, the 

reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant" to 

determine whether a post-indictment delay violates the Speedy Trial Clause. The length ofthe 

delay here is justified in light ofthe reason for the delay, which is to allow the parties to have a 

hearing on the pending Motion to Suppress. Moreover, the Defendant's rights under the Speedy 

Trial Act were tolled upon filing ofthe Motion to Suppress. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1 )(D). The 

Defendant asserts his Fourth Amendment rights in the Motion to Suppress, and, therefore, 

providing the parties with the opportunity to have a hearing on that motion, results in little to no 

prejudice to the Defendant. The Barker balancing test weighs in favor of continuing the trial. 

Case: 2:11-cr-00131-ALM Doc #: 14 Filed: 06/13/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
The Government's Motion to Continue is GRANTED in light ofthe pending Motion to 

Suppress. The suppression hearing is set for Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. The dates in 

this Court's Revised Scheduling Order, (Doc. 11), are no longer applicable. This Court will set a 

new trial date after the hearing on the Motion to Suppress if necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

slA1genon L. Marbley 

ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

United States District Court Judge 

DATED: June, 13, 2012 

2 


Case: 2:11-cr-00131-ALM Doc #: 14 Filed: 06/13/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 11348 Summary Calendar

DANIEL ACOSTA ,
P et itioner

- Appellant

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:13

- CV

- 204

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Daniel Acosta, federal prisoner #44323

- 048, appeals from an order of the
district court dismissing his petition for a writ of coram nobis. He seeks to challenge his conviction and sentence for possession wi th intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. The district court dismissed Acosta’s coram nobis petition based on a finding that the writ is not available if the petitioner is in custody and because

* 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 se t forth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED September 30, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-11348 Document: 00512787645 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2014No. 13

- 11348

the relief Acosta seeks is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, in his appellate brief, Acosta does not mention, much less provide any relevant argument regarding , writs of coram nobis. Because even pro se litigants must brief issues for appeal, Ac osta has waived this issue

. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993). In his objections to the magistrate judge’ s report, Acosta also argued that he is entitled to relief by way of a writ of audita querela. He makes a similar argument on appeal. We will assume that Acosta’ s objections should have been construed as a motion to amend and, therefore, that this issue was proper ly
raised in the district court. See Barksdale v. King, 699 F.2d 744, 747 (5th Cir. 1983)

. However, Acosta is no t eligibl e for such relief. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly abolished the application of the writ of audita querela to civil judgments, but this court
has held that the writ “might also survive in criminal adjudications, if t here is a gap for it to fill.” United States v. Miller, 599 F.3d 484, 487

- 88 (5th Cir. 2010)

. To the extent the writ of audita querela survives, it is available only when the legal objection raised cannot be brought under any other postconviction remedy. Id. Because Acosta ’s claims would be cognizable in a § 2255 motion , audita querela relief is not available

. See United States v. Banda, 1 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir. 1993); § 2255(f)(3). Because the appeal is without arguable merit, we dismiss it as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED.

2 Case: 13-11348 Document: 00512787645 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2014