alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED BY TRANSFER AGENT.


INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA.



CUSIP NO. 749781 10 0



AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK: 20,000,000 SHARES.


PAR VALUE: $.01



RxBIDS ®



Countersigned & Registered


PACIFIC STOCK TRANSFER COMPANY


Las Vegas, Nevada


TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR


By: _______________________________



Fully paid and non-assessable shares of RxBIDS Common Stock 



PRESIDENT



SECRETARY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HOWARD COCHRAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

ROBERT RAMSEY, Police Officer at

Phoenix Police Department; MICHAEL FEIST, Officer,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 16217

D.C. No. 2:11

- cv

- 02538

- GMS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017 **

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Howard Cochran appeals pro se the district court’s judgment following

bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 15 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 16217

findings of fac t and accord special deference to the district court’s credibility

determinations. Allen v. Iranon , 283 F.3d 1070, 1076 , 1078 n.8 (9th Cir. 2002)

.

We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err in its factual findings or credibility

determinations bec ause both were “plausible in light of the record view ed in its

entirety.” Husain v. Olympic Airways , 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[I]f the

district court’ s findings are plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety,

the appellate court ca nnot reverse even if it is convinced it would have found

differently

. ”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Cochran’s contentions that the

district court was biased against him.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argu ed

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

.

AFFIRMED.
#### Stanley & Stanley, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6366.

Entry No. 705948, etc.

Invoices dated Walsall, England, August 1942, etc.

Certified August 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 10, 1942, etc.

(Decided September 19, 1946)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

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

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 45087.

#### Protest 812944-G of Carlos Ruggles Lumber Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber consists of planed, tongued, or grooved lumber the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Myers*v. *United States*(T. D. 49530). It was therefore held that allowance should be made for tonguing, grooving, and planing. The protest was accordingly sustained.
No. 45113.

#### Protests 542008-G, etc., of Bank of Amer. National Ass’n et al. (New York).

*492Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar to that the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
August 31, 1942

No. 47523.

#### Protests 80927-K, etc., of American Merchandise Co., Inc.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
EXHIBIT 15.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors

SodaStream International Ltd.:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in
the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-170299) of SodaStream International Ltd. of our report dated April 30, 2012,
with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of SodaStream International Ltd. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2011
and 2010, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders’ equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2011, and the effectiveness of internal
controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, which report appears in the December 31, 2011 annual report on
Form 20-F of SodaStream International Ltd.



/s/ Somekh Chaikin

Somekh Chaikin

Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)

A Member Firm of KPMG International



Tel Aviv, Israel

April 30, 2012
(Reap. Dec. 9322)

#### Plywood *&*Door Southern Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. B-32.

(Decided February 24, 1959)

*James Wilson Young*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have stipulated and agreed as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto that the merchandise involved in this appeal for reappraisement, consists of birch plywood exported from Finland on October 27, 1956 and that the merchandise is properly valued on the basis of foreign value as defined in Section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the value or 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 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 for home consumption including cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was, the appraised value, less 4% packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal for re-appraisement may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that foreign value, as defined in section 402(c), as amended, of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for *502the determination of the value of the merchandise involved in the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement, and that such value is the appraised value, less 4 per centum, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6812** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. KEOKI KENTA HARRIS, a/k/a Kenta Harris , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 6:08

- cr - 01221

- GRA

- 1 )

Submitted : September 19, 2013 Decided: October 17, 2013

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Keoki Kenta Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Keoki Kenta Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating h is Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013 ) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253( c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. Mc Daniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the mot ion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Harris ’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or3 successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that
. . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court , that was previously unavailable
. 28 U.S.C. A. § 22 55(h ) (West Supp. 2013)
. Harris ’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to fi le a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
pro cess. DISMISSED
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 20 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]







                                                       Calendar No. 167
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 20

      Disapproving a rule promulgated by the Administrator of the 
 Environmental Protection Agency to delist coal and oil-direct utility 
      units from the source category list under the Clean Air Act.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2005

  Mr. Leahy (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
   Kerry, Mr. Biden, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Carper, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
Corzine, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Obama, 
 Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, 
  Mr. Reed, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Akaka, and Ms. 
Snowe) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 
     and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                             July 18, 2005

  Committee discharged pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c) and placed on the 
                                calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION


 
      Disapproving a rule promulgated by the Administrator of the 
 Environmental Protection Agency to delist coal and oil-direct utility 
      units from the source category list under the Clean Air Act.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency on March 15, 2005, relating to the removal of coal- and oil-
fired electric generating units as a category from the list of major 
sources of hazardous air pollutants to be controlled under section 112 
of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) (70 Fed. Reg. 15994 
(March 29, 2005)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                                       Calendar No. 167

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 20

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

      Disapproving a rule promulgated by the Administrator of the 
 Environmental Protection Agency to delist coal and oil-direct utility 
      units from the source category list under the Clean Air Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 18, 2005

  Committee discharged pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c) and placed on the 
                                calendar`
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00277

- CR

Robert Eugene Barganski v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. A

- 06

- 5019

- CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consid ered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. September 23 , 2021
No. 65609.

#### UHU Products Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 60/26537 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Before the Second Division,

June 17, 1954

No. 58192.

protest 206540-K (New York).

#### Penson & Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From the record, it appeared that, when the importation was originally before the collector of customs, duty was assessed on the basis that the merchandise contained 44.5 percent of titanium, predicated upon the analysis of a “grab” sample. When the protest herein was filed, the collector of customs reviewed his original decision and had an analysis made of a “commercial” sample, which disclosed the proper titanium content to be 41.3 percent. Inasmuch as the period within which his office might have reviewed the liquidation, pursuant to section 515 (19 U. S. G. § 1515), had expired, the collector was unable to correct his decision to the basis of the new analysis. Upon the uncontroverted facts, it was held that duty should have been assessed on the basis of 41.3 percent titanium content rather than 44.5 percent.
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

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

# The Nauset and the Wampanoog on the Cape Cod Canal

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  The Nauset and the Wampanoog on the Cape Cod Canal 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Army. Corps of EngineersFitzgerald, Janet 
                    -           Description        
                    -  The Nauset and the Wampanoog on the Cape Cod Canal by Janet Fitzgerald 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1970-1980 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  Cape Cod Canal (Mass.) 
                    -           Country        
                    -  United States 
                    -           State        
                    -  Massachusetts 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  152 × 41 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 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  D103.49-3.R52-04.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
                -
Q

REGION X 915 Second Avenue

US. Department Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Federal Bldg. Suite 3142

of Transportation Washington Seattle, WA 98174-1002
‘i 206-220-7954

Federal Transit 206-220-7989 (fax)

Administration

March 14, 2011

Joni Earl
Executive Director
Sound Transit

401 S. Jackson St.
Seattle, WA 98104

Re: NEPA Re-evaluation of Tukwila Station Design Modifications
Dear Ms. Eatt:

In March 2009, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a Finding of No Significant
Impacts (FONSI) with respect to a proposed Sound Transit station at Tukwila, Washington, on
Sound Transit’s Seattle-to-Tacoma Sounder line. Since that time, changes in circumstances
have prompted Sound Transit to modify the station design to create what it calls the “North
Option.”

FTA’s regulations at 23 CFR section 771.129(c) state:

After approval of the EIS, FONSI, or CE designation, the applicant shall
consult with the Administration prior to requesting any major approvals or
grants to establish whether or not the approved environmental document or CE
designation remains valid for the requested Administration action. These
consultations will be documented when determined necessary by the
Administration.

FTA has reviewed information that Sound Transit submitted to us dated February 16, 2011
describing the North Option and describing the potential environmental effects of the
modifications.

Based on our review of that information, FTA finds that the changes to the station design will
not result in significant environmental impacts that were not considered in reaching our
previous finding of no significant impacts. No additional environmental review is required at
this time. Sound Transit remains obliged to implement the mitigation commitments contained
in the FONSI except where they have been modified by the North Option design.



Ms. Joni Earl
March 15, 2011
Page 2

This letter confirms that Sound Transit has complied with the National Environmental
Policy Act with respect to the modified Tukwila Station design. Please contact Dan Drais of
this office (206-220-4465) if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

nd )
V9. wcll,
R.F. Krochalis

Regional Administrator

ce (by email): Steve Kennedy
---

Exhibit 99.10

CONSENT OF EXPERT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the Form
40-F) of Timmins Gold Corp., I, Mani M. Verma, Associate Engineer of Micon
International Limited (Micon), 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 Project (the Estimates) and to the
incorporation by reference of references to, and summaries of, the Estimates in
the Form 40-F.

MICON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

/s/ Mani M.
VermaName: Mani M. Verma Title: Associate Mining Engineer

April 2, 2013

---
# Official Journal L 8I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 008I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6314 January 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 008I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6314 January 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/19 of 13 January 2020 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1337 | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/20 of 13 January 2020 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2019/1341 | 5 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/19 of 13 January 2020 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1337

1

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/20 of 13 January 2020 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2019/1341

5

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 43023.

#### Protests 948868-G, etc., of Frazar & Co. et al. (Portland, Maine, etc.).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 59148.

protest 236348-K (New York).

#### A. Judson Murray & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of papain which has not been crushed, ground, shredded, or subjected to any other process or treatment beyond that essential to its proper packing and the prevention of decay or deterioration pending manufacture, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 15-0477

ERIC DRAKE

v.

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY

COMPANY, CONSUMERS

COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE,

QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS,

WINSLETT & MOSER, P.C.,

MARCIE SCHOUT, MATTHEW

KITA, WILLIAM LANCE LEWIS

AND TERESA GRAY §

§

§

§

§

§ Dallas County,

5th District.

November 13, 2015

Petitioner 's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

         

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 29th day of December, 2015

.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk