alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8818)

#### N. M. Albert Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 678, etc.

(Decided June 5, 1967)

*Joseph Winston*for the plaintiff.

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

LawreNce, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule of appeals, attached to and made part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain flashlights.

The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed that, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the prices 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 exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, are the prices as shown in schedule *“A,”*attached to and. made part of this decision, for the respective models of flashlights. It was further stipulated and agreed that there was no foreign value for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation thereof.

Upon the agreed statement oi facts, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act o 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value is as shown in schedule *“A,”*attached to and made part of this decision.

As to all other items of merchandise covered by the appeals for a reappraisement herein, there is no evidence to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to ths appraiser’s action. Therefore, the proper value of items of merchandise other than those enumerated in schedule *“A,” supra,*is the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD A. TANGWALL, Individually

and in his capacity as Trustee of the Toni 1

Trust,

Appellant,

v.

LARRY D. COMPTON,

Appellee. No. 19

- 35370

D.C. No. 4:18

- cv

- 00031

- SLG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 1 1 , 2019 **

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA , Circuit Judges.

Donald A. Tangwall appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

affirming the bankruptcy court’s order rejecting his proposed filing pursuant to a

vexatious litigant order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) (1)

. We

* 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

DEC 16 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

review de novo a distri ct court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court and

apply the same standards of review applied by the district court

. Motor Vehicle

Cas. 5 Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.) , 677 F.3d 869,

879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

Th e bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Tangwall’s

proposed filing because the filing was within the scope of the vexatious litigant

order and Tangwall failed to comply with the requirements set forth in the

vexatious litigant order. See In re Fillbach , 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000) (a

district court has discretion to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a

vexatious litigant pre

- filing order).

To the extent that Tangwall seeks to challenge the underlying vexatious

litigant order or the merits of the underlying bankruptcy proceedings , we do not

consider his contentions because they are outside the scope of this appeal.

Tangwall’s request to combine cases and his motion to co nsolidate appeals

are denied.

A FFIRMED.
Exhibit 4.1



THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


240 Greenwich
Street, 22W Floor, New York, NY 10286


 


 


 


April 13, 2022


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


SmartTrust 562 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York Mellon
is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trust (the “Trust”) included in the Registration
Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated
therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on April 12, 2022, in accordance with the valuation method set
forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York
Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-262210) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the Units of the Trust and to the filing of this consent as an
exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/  Margarita
Kalantarova             


Margarita Kalantarova


Vice President
Order entered January 7, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01342-CV

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Appellant

V.

MARY GREESON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-07506

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s January 5, 2015 unopposed motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief. Appellant shall file a brief by FEBRUARY 11, 2015. We caution appellant that no 

further extension of time will be granted in this accelerated appeal absent extraordinary 

circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### H. W. Robinson & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6701.

Entry No. 701655.

Invoice dated London, England, June 3, 1948.

Certified June 4, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 8, 1946.

(Decided January 6, 1947)

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

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

Cline, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50171

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN ENRIQUE MORENO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:08-CR-1213-2

Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Juan Enrique Moreno appeals from his jury verdict conviction for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of

marijuana. His sole argument on appeal is that his trial counsel rendered

ineffective assistance by failing to advise him to plead guilty and by failing to

secure a plea bargain agreement with the Government. He seeks vacatur of his

conviction and a new trial. Alternatively, he requests a remand so that an

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 11, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-50171 Document: 00511346837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2011
No. 10-50171

evidentiary hearing can be conducted as to his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel

claim.

As a general rule, this court will not consider an ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claim that was not raised in district court. United States v. Higdon, 832

F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). Moreover, the Supreme Court has emphasized

that a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the preferred method for raising a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel. Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 503-04

(2003). As the record for this case is not sufficiently developed to qualify for an

exception to that general rule, we decline to consider Moreno’s ineffectiveassistance-of-counsel claim in this appeal without prejudice to his ability to raise

this claim in a § 2255 motion. Also, in light of the Supreme Court’s stated

preference for resolution of such claims via a § 2255 motion, we deny Moreno’s

alternative request for a remand.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-50171 Document: 00511346837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2011
# C_2010083EN.01S00201.xml

| 30.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/s2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/s2

---

NOTE TO THE READER

This publication contains the consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, together with the annexes and protocols thereto, as they result from the amendments introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, which was signed on 13 December 2007 in Lisbon and which entered into force on 1 December 2009. It also contains the declarations annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon.

As indicated in the Note to the Reader accompanying the previous issue of the consolidated Treaties (OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, p. 1), the current issue includes those rectifications which were adopted up to the time of publication.

This publication also contains the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which was proclaimed at Strasbourg on 12 December 2007 by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission (OJ C 303, 14.12.2007, p. 1). This text repeats and adapts the Charter proclaimed on 7 December 2000, and replaces it with effect from 1 December 2009, the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the Charter proclaimed in 2007 has the same legal value as the Treaties.

This text has been produced for documentary purposes and does not involve the responsibility of the institutions of the European Union.

---
121 STAT. 1838 PUBLIC LAW 110–159—DEC. 26, 2007 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2011: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110–209 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

June 25, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–159 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 100 

East 8th Avenue in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, as the ‘‘George Howard, Jr. Federal 

Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. GEORGE HOWARD, JR. FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED 

STATES COURTHOUSE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building and United States 

courthouse located at 100 East 8th Avenue in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘George Howard, Jr. Federal 

Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

building and United States courthouse referred to in subsection 

(a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘George Howard, 

Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

Approved December 26, 2007. 

Dec. 26, 2007 

[H.R. 2011] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
Order entered August 3, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00196-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

ROSENDO M. CASTILLO, Appellee

On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2-11-78

ORDER

The Court GRANTS appellee’s July 24, 2015 motion to substituted counsel. We 

DIRECT the Clerk to substitute April Smith as appellee’s retained attorney of record in place of 

John F. Gussio III.

We note that contemporaneously with the motion to substitute counsel, Ms. Smith filed a 

motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief. The motion was granted on July 27, 2015, 

granting an extension until August 25, 2015 to file appellee’s brief. It does not appear, however, 

that a copy of the order granting the extension request was sent to Ms. Smith. Accordingly, we 

DIRECT the Clerk to forward to Ms. Smith, with this order, a copy of the July 27, 2015 order 

granting the extension of time to file appellee’s brief.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
No. 56628.

protest 178142-K (New York).

#### Stalker Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of parts of saddles, which saddles are in part of pigskin and valued at more than $40 each, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 54419, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
September 18, 2015

Mr. John P. Cross

President and CEO

Elite Unmanned Aerial Systems, LLC

101 Lightwater Court

Aberdeen, NC 28315

Dear Mr. Cross:

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

§ § 61.113(a) and (b), 61.133(a), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b)(1), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151,

91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and part 21 of Title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should

do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your May 20, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Elite Unmanned Aerial

Systems, LLC filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2272 , but we are unable to process your

request any further. Your petition does no t 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 reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 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 A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps ans wer any

questions you may have.

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.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notif ying 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

Enclosure s34
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:13-cr-111

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAVERS

STEVE RODGERS,

Defendant.

ORDER

On May 22, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant to

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

Information charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over 50 kilograms of

marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1). 

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. 

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: 2:13-cr-00111-GCS-EPD Doc #: 14 Filed: 06/12/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS 

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

to possess with intent to distribute over 50 kilograms of marijuana. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

Case: 2:13-cr-00111-GCS-EPD Doc #: 14 Filed: 06/12/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7722

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLO GARRETTE MALONE, a/k/a Pokie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-97-117, CA-01-75-2) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 2, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlo Garrette Malone, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Carlo Garrette Malone seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Malone , Nos. CR-97-117; CA01-75-2 (E.D. Va. July 27, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Quarterly Report of Tower Properties Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stanley J. Weber, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (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/ Stanley J. Weber
--------------------
Stanley J. Weber
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 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 quarterly report of United-Guardian, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kenneth H. Globus,  President of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
 
  Date:  November 12, 2009
By:
/s/ Kenneth H. GlobusKenneth H. Globus
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000097452
<NAME> TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             323
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,267
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,709
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               147,219
<PP&E>                                       1,063,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,274,912
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          130,311
<BONDS>                                        251,087
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     634,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,274,912
<SALES>                                            101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,368
<CGS>                                              106
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,322
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,875
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,337
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,844
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,493
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>