alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
\ 

Norman Abbott, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Heather Trant, 

Defendant. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

fILED 

DEC· 9 2009 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

09 2337 

Before the Court is the plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed because it fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Plaintiff has filed a Bivens action, alleging that a clerk in the office of the Clerk of Court 

of the Supreme Court of the United States violated his civil rights by denying him access to the 

Supreme Court when she returned his submission with instructions and forms for filing a writ of 

certiorari. He further complains that the defendant interfered with his Seventh Amendment right 

to have his suit tried to a jury. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages from the clerk. 

A clerk is generally immune from a suit for damages. See Sind ram v. Sud a, 986 F.2d 339 

(D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (holding that "clerks, like judges, are immune from damage suits 

for performance of tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process"). Furthermore, the 

plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted, as he does not have a right to 

have his case heard in the Supreme Court of the United States. 
- 30S: 

A separate appropriate order accompanies th·
Guarantor Supplement, dated as of May 15, 2008



 Exhibit 10.4 
 GUARANTOR SUPPLEMENT 
 May 15, 2008 
  

			
	 Bank of Montreal, as Administrative Agent for the Banks party to the Credit Agreement dated as of September 29, 2006 among Alliance
Data Systems Corporation, the Guarantors from time to time party thereto, the Banks from time to time party thereto, Bank of Montreal, as Letter of Credit Issuer, and Bank of Montreal, as Administrative Agent (as the same may be amended, restated or
supplemented from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”)
	  	

 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Reference is made to the Credit Agreement described above. Terms not defined herein which are defined in the Credit Agreement shall have for the purposes hereof the meaning provided therein. 
 The undersigned, ADS Foreign Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby acknowledges that it is a “Guarantor” for all purposes of
the Credit Agreement, effective from the date hereof. The undersigned confirms that the representations and warranties set forth in Article 4 of the Credit Agreement are true and correct in all material respects as to the undersigned as of the
date hereof (other than any representation or warranty that relates to a specified date, which shall be true and correct in all material respects as of such date). 
 Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the undersigned hereby agrees to perform all the obligations of a Guarantor under, and to be bound in all respects by the terms of, the Credit Agreement, including
without limitation Article 9 thereof, to the same extent and with the same force and effect as if the undersigned were a direct signatory thereto. 
 This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the internal laws of the State of New York. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	ADS FOREIGN HOLDINGS, INC.
		
	By	 	 /s/ Alan M. Utay

	Name	 	Alan M. Utay
	Title	 	Vice President
# C_2008252EN.01S00301.xml

| 3.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided to no longer quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
<CIK>            0000096412
<NAME>           TASTY BAKING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                   DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                    221
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          22,882
<ALLOWANCES>                           (2,489)
<INVENTORY>                             3,340
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       27,243
<PP&E>                                146,976
<DEPRECIATION>                       (103,689)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         95,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  15,612
<BONDS>                                 6,868
<COMMON>                                4,558
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                             36,799
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           93,513
<SALES>                               112,474
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      113,699
<CGS>                                  69,262
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          69,262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        5,403
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        417
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         7,980
<INCOME-TAX>                            3,063
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     4,917
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            4,917
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.63
        

</TABLE>
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

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

# Protectors of independence since 1789

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Protectors of independence since 1789 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  U.S. Customs Service 
                    -           Subjects        
                    -  U.S. Customs Service 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1980-1990 
                    -           Series Title        
                    -  Customs poster series ; 97 (1/88)Customs poster series97. 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  164 × 51 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus 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        
                    -  018260575.jpg 
                    -           OCLC Collection Number        
                    -  429489521 

                - 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
                -
A90A1071.

#### DUNLAP v. THE STATE.

(394 SE2d 626)

Deen, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Jack Dunlap, was convicted of aggravated child molestation. On appeal, his sole contention is that the trial court erred in refusing to admit into evidence the results of two polygraph examinations he submitted to during the investigation of the case.

On June 29, 1988, and on July 5, 1988, Dunlap submitted to polygraph examinations administered by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the first of which was inconclusive and the second of which indicated that Dunlap was not being deceptive. It is undisputed that Dunlap was advised of his right to have counsel present, that Dunlap declined that right, and that there was no stipulation of admissibility by the parties. It has been stated and reiterated that “[u]nder the law as it now exists in this State, results of polygraph tests are admissible only upon the express stipulation of the parties.” *Sustakovitch v. State,*249 Ga. 273, 275 (290 SE2d 77) (1982); *State v. Chambers,*240 Ga. 76 (239 SE2d 324) (1977). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in excluding the polygraph results in this case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope and Beasley, JJ., concur specially.*

Beasley, Judge,

concurring specially.

I concur but wish to point out that the issue is whether there is an exception to the Supreme Court-fashioned rule that “upon an express stipulation of the parties that they shall be admissible, the results of a lie detector test shall be admissible as evidence for the jury to attach to them whatever probative value they may find them to have.” *State v. Chambers,*240 Ga. 76 (239 SE2d 324) (1977).

Defendant urges that he should be allowed to offer the polygraph *701test results, even absent a stipulation; when he consented to undergo such a test at the State’s request without being advised in advance that the results could not be used at trial unless the State agreed to their admissibility. His theory is that such would enhance the search for the truth, especially in his circumstances where a child’s testimony is contradicted by his own and that of the child’s mother, his girl friend. It is argued that inadmissibility of results favorable to him, which would serve the corroborative purpose recognized in *Chambers,*contravenes fundamental fairness in allowing him a fair opportunity to present his defense. See in this regard *Sisson v. State,*181 Ga. App. 784 (353 SE2d 836) (1987), another child molestation case.

Decided May 18, 1990.

*Tyron C. Elliott,*for appellant.

*William G. Hamrick, Jr., District Attorney, Monique F. Kirby, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Neither the Supreme Court nor the legislature has established the exception sought. The Supreme Court reiterated its *Chambers*position in such cases as *Sustakovitch v. State,*249 Ga. 273, 275 (2) (290 SE2d 77) (1982), and *Miller v. State,*259 Ga. 296, 297 (2) (380 SE2d 690) (1989).

I am authorized to state that Judge Pope joins in this special concurrence.
RE:JulytestsatErametandFelmanAmyM.Lincolnto:ConradChin,JohnRego08/09/201205:26PMChuckFrench,DarcieSmith,“BethFriedman”,Jeff.McKinney,Cc:JonathanAverback,jskonrady,“LauraK.McAfee”,nelson.brad,“RichardLunn”,thillier,“Robertson,James”,“ChristinaWieg”,History:Thismessagehasbeenrepliedto.TestingisstillunderwayatFelman,buttheteamexpectstowrapupnextweek.That’saweeklaterthanplanned—thedelayresultedfromserioussafetyconcernsthatbecameapparentjustoneweekintothetests.Withambienttemperaturesinthe90s,temperaturesinsidethebaghousevestibuleswerereachingunsafelevels(120degreesormore).Someofthetestpersonnelalsoexperienceddifficultybreathingintheconfinedspace.Felmanimmediatelyresponded,andpostponedthetestingtosecurerespirationkitsfortheteamandtorescheduletestingfornighthours,whentemperaturesaremoretolerable.Test,Inc.,thecontractorperformingthetest,hasinformedusthatthetypicalturnaroundtimeforthedataanalyseswehaverequestedis21days.Thatmeansthatifthetestingiscompletenextweek,asexpected,thenTest,Inc.shouldhavecompletedatabySeptember7,2012andbeabletoissuetheirreportshortlythereafter.We’llletyouknowifthereareanyfurtherdelays,but,atthispoint,Ithinkyoucanexpecttoseethefulltestreportinmid-September.From:ConradChin[mailto:Chin.Conrad©epamail.epa.gov]Sent:Wednesday,August08,20127:29AMTo:AmyM.Lincoln;JohnRegoCc:ChuckFrench;DarcieSmith;BethFriedman;Jeff.McKinney@erametgroup.com;JonathanAverback;jskonrady@fpiwv.com;LauraK.McAfee;nelson.brad@ecrweb.com;RichardLunn;thillier@policynavigation.com;Robertson,James;ChristinaWieg;Deshaies,MarcoSubject:JulytestsatErametandFelmanGoodmorningWewouldliketohavesomeideawhenthetestresultswillbeavailabletoEPA?Obviouslyfromourpointofview,theearlierthebetter.Thanks.ConradK.ChinMailCodeD243-02MetalsandMineralsGroupSectorPoliciesandProgramsDivisionOfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandardsU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency919-541-1512(voice)919-541-3207(fax)
Before the Second Division,

May 23, 1946

No. 51152.

#### Protests 568-K, etc., of George E. Mallinson Importing Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects- as that passed upon in *Stephen Rug Mills*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 110, C. A. D. 293), and by the court’s decision on remand in Abstract 50056. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as claimed.
Exhibit 15.1 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

To: the Board of Directors and Shareholders of InterXion Holding N.V.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-196447 and No. 333-175099) on Form S-8 of InterXionHolding N.V. of our report dated April 28, 2015, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of InterXion Holding N.V. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, and the related consolidated income statementsand, consolidated statements of comprehensive income, changes in shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years then ended, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014, whichreport appears in the December 31, 2014 Financial Statements on Form 20-F of InterXion Holding N.V. 

/s/ KPMG ACCOUNTANTS N.V. 

Rotterdam, The Netherlands 

April 28, 2015
(Reap. Dec. 8932)

Entry No. 837973.

#### Bernhard Ulmann Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided July 23, 1957)

*John R.*Rafter; *Jordan & Klingaman,*associate counsel; for the plaintiff.

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

Kao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto :

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court,

> 1- That the merchandise the subject of the above-entitled reappraisement appeal consists of cotton thread imported from France, and is designated in the invoice as manufacturer’s Nos. 19, 101, 125, 151.

> 2- That the issues in the aforesaid appeal are the same in all material respects as those decided in *Bert Friedberg & Company*v. *United States,*R. D. 8590, and that the record in the said R. D. 8590, may be incorporated in the record in the aforesaid appeal.

> 3- That the appraised unit values of the merchandise in the aforesaid appeal, less *20}í*per cent, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incidnt to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that, on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise herein nvolved, *596merchandise such as or similar thereto was not sold or offered for sale in the country of exportation for export to the United States at higher prices.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the reappraisement appeal herein may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the cotton thread designated in the invoice as manufacturer’s Nos. 19, 101, 125, 151, and that such values were the appraised unit values, less 20% per centum.

Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise, it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 9739)

#### Leyden Customs Expediters *v.*United States

Entry No. 1023095.

(Decided July 12, 1960)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

LawRence, Judge:

When this appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

*424I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by this appeal to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41241 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLOS JESUS BARRIENTOS-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-01-CR-195-1

-------------------- August 21, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Carlos Jesus Barrientos-Vasquez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possessing with the intent to distribute approximately 49 kilograms of marijuana. Barrientos contends that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As Barrientos concedes, his argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582No. 01-41241 -2- (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied. , 532 U.S. 1045 (2001). He raises the issue only to preserve it for Supreme Court review. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 52758.

protest 987780-G (New York).

#### Mattia Locatelli, N. Y. Branch, Inc. *v.*United States,

*263Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Upon rehearing it was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Provolone cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstract 42146. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance of *2)4*percent should have been made from 34,720 pounds, the net weight of the cheese, in computing the duty thereon, in order to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings on the outside of the cheese. The protest was sustained to this extent.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>


EXHIBIT 27        Financial Data Schedule Form 10-Q

This schedule  contains  summary  information  extracted  from Form 10-Q for the
quarterly  period  ended  June 30,  2000 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                      0000097196
<NAME>                           SOFTNET SYSTEMS INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
<CURRENCY>                                 US Dollars

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.000
<CASH>                                         41,966
<SECURITIES>                                  154,841
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,491
<ALLOWANCES>                                      594
<INVENTORY>                                     5,735
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              210,584
<PP&E>                                         57,731
<DEPRECIATION>                                 12,845
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                336,936
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          28,791
<BONDS>                                         4,249
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                      499,112
<OTHER-SE>                                   (33,201)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  336,936
<SALES>                                        11,541
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               11,541
<CGS>                                          10,474
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  77,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  162
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (7,735)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (68,726)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (68,726)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                       ()
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (3.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (3.02)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 January 31, 2014

d0127

Order 

Clerk

January 31, 2014

147194(20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147194

COA: 311669

Wayne CC: 93-004064-FC

DARRYL BELL, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 

30, 2013 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.