alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. §1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Valspar Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
William L. Mansfield, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Lori A.
Walker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§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 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/William
 L. Mansfield                                             
| | William L.
 Mansfield 
 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer         
| |                                                                      
| | March 11,
 2009                                                      
| |                                                                      
| | /s/Lori A.
 Walker                                                   
| | Lori A.
 Walker 
 Senior Vice President and 
 Chief Financial Officer
| |                                                                      
| | March 11,
 2009                                                      

---
#### In re: Randy Lee HAMMITT; Sandra Marie Hammitt, Petitioners.

No. 05-1970.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 14, 2005.

Decided: Sept. 19, 2005.

Randy Lee Hammitt and Sandra Marie Hammitt, Petitioners Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Randy Lee Hammitt and Sandra Marie Hammitt petition for a writ of prohibition, seeking an order preventing the district court from enforcing a civil forfeiture order.

A writ of prohibition is a drastic remedy that is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *See In re Vargas,*723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir.1983). A writ of prohibition may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *See In re Missouri,*664 F.2d 178, 180 (8th Cir.1981).

Because the Hammitts do not have a clear right to the relief they seek, and because they may appeal any final adverse judgment in the district court proceeding, *550the relief sought is not available by way of a writ of prohibition. Accordingly, we deny the petition. We also deny the motion to stay proceedings in the district court. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### Lakhwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-72272.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 16, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 20, 2005.

*890Susan E. Hill, Esq., Hill & Piibe, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald-E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, MCKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Lakhwinder Singh appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed an immigration judge’s (“IJ)” denial of Petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture, and voluntary departure.

We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s finding that Petitioner lacked credibility, *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and hold that there is substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility finding here. Among other things, documents proved that Petitioner was arrested in the United States at the time he claimed to have been in India suffering persecution. When confronted by documents, Petitioner attempted to explain the discrepancy by asserting that the persecution had actually occurred the year before the date printed on his asylum application. The IJ was entitled to discredit Petitioner’s explanation because this new date preceded the events that allegedly motivated the persecution.

Insofar as Petitioner asks us to review the denial of his request for voluntary departure, we lack jurisdiction. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f).

PETITION DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
No. 62069.

#### Roberts, Reilly & Sons *v.*United States,

protest 316077-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Since the protest was not filed within the time required by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, it was dismissed as untimely.
|  |  | [if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have  reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection  (FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the  FDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's  suite of cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S.  Government Publications.
 
Title: Fuel  cell catalyst [electronic resource].
SuDoc Number:E 12.2:F 95/SPAN/
Item Number:  0430-S (online)
 
[if !supportLists]>·          [endif]>Catalyst_April2004_sp.pdf
[if !supportLists]>·          [endif]>Catalyst_January2004_sp.pdf
[if !supportLists]>·          [endif]>Catalyst_October2004_sp.pdf
[if !supportLists]>·          [endif]>Catalyst_Summer2004_sp.pdf
 
[if !supportLists]>·          [endif]>Catalyst_Fall2005_sp.pdf
[if !supportLists]>·          [endif]>Catalyst_Spring2005_sp.pdf
[if !supportLists]>·          [endif]>Catalyst_Summer2005_sp.pdf
[if !supportLists]>·          [endif]>Catalyst_Winter2005_sp.pdf
A service of the Superintendent of Documents,  U.S. Government Printing Office..

 

Last updated:  January 27,  2017  Page Name:  https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps95625/index.htm
  |
|--|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Randolph CROCKER, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Reginald WRIGHT; Darlene A. Veltri; Robert Lucerro; M.D. Brown; Marlone Houston, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-6068.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 30, 2005.

Decided July 29, 2005.

*524Randolph Crocker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Randolph Crocker, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his complaint filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Because we conclude one of Crocker’s claims is not frivolous, we affirm in part and vacate in part the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.

A pro se litigant’s pleadings should be liberally construed, and his complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the litigant can prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief. *Gordon v. Leeke,*574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.1978). Crocker claimed Defendants confiscated letters he intended to send to members of Congress to inform them of alleged prison corruption. Crocker alleged this act infringed on his First Amendment right to communicate with the Government for redress of grievances. The district court rejected this contention, relying in part on *Mahler v. Slattery,*489 F.Supp. 798 (E.D.Va.1980), for the proposition that congressional mail was not subject to the same protections as legal mail. While we express no opinion as to the ultimate merit of Crocker’s claim, we note that the regulations governing the Bureau of Prisons provide that prisoner correspondence with Congress is considered “special mail,” and it is subject to specific protections, including the requirement that it be reviewed only in the presence of the inmate. 28 C.F.R. §§ 540.2, .12 (2005). We have found nothing that would authorize the indefinite confiscation of such correspondence merely because it contains allegations that are embarrassing to Defendants. Finally, we disagree with the district court’s assertion that Crocker had failed to allege an actual injury; the chilling of his First Amendment rights amounts to a cognizable injury sufficient to survive the court’s review for frivolousness.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings as to his claim regarding seizure of his letters to Congress. As to his remaining claims, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. We deny as moot *525Crocker’s motion to supplement the record. 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.

*AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED*
Case No. 13,330a.

#### STEADMAN v. CASWELL et al.

[2 Hask. 375.] 1

District Court, D. Maine.

Jan., 1880.

Bankruptcy — Conveyance —Validity—Title in Trust.

1. A conveyance by a bankrupt within one month of his bankruptcy proceedings, of real and personal property that he had previously sold, received pay for and surrendered to the purchaser, but had -not conveyed, in the absence of fraud, is valid.

2. The title to such property is held in trust for the purchaser, and the bankrupt's conveyance of the same after he became insolvent, and knew it. is not fraud of the bankrupt act [of 1867 (14 Stat. 517)].

In equity. Bill by the assignee in bankruptcy of Samuel B. Scribner, against him and his mother and sister, seeking to annul a conveyance by the bankrupt to his mother and sister of his distributive share in his father’s estate, made within one month of his bankruptcy proceedings as a fraudulent preference and a conveyance made in fraud of the bankrupt act. The defendants severally answered that, in 1873 and ’74, the bankrupt having sold his distributive share in his father’s estate, consisting of real and personal property, to his mother and sister, then received payment for the same, at which time they took and afterwards kept the possession thereof; and that his deed to them of the same made September 12, 1877, to perfect their equitable title, and within one month of the time when he filed his petition to be adjudged a bankrupt on October 2, 1877, was not void under the bankrupt law.

George E. Holmes and Almon A. Strouf, for orators.

H. S. and H. C. B. Reade, for respondents.

FOX, District Judge.

After perusing the entire testimony a second time, I have been brought to the conclusion that, in 1873 and 1874, the respondents, Abby M. Caswell and Betsey Scribner paid to Samuel B. Scribner the sum of $1100 in full for his interest in all the estate, real and personal, of his father at his decease.

From the time of such payment, Samuel B. Scribner held the title to the property in trust for the mother and sister; and, although he was insolvent at the time of the conveyance and was undoubtedly aware of his condition at that time, he was justified, under the bankrupt act, in perfecting his contract with his mother and sister, .and conveying to them the legal title to the property that they had previously purchased.

The assignee is not in a condition to question such a conveyance, although made less than a month before proceedings in bankruptcy were instituted. The result therefore is, bill dismissed without costs.
No. 46944.

#### Petition 6187-R of Atlas Trading Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

This petition involves the question of a 10 percent buying commission. It appeared from the testimony of the owner of the petitioning company that prior to entry he spoke with the customs broker, also with the general manager of his company and with the attorneys in this case regarding the commission, and was advised that it was a properly deductible item. From his testimony the court was satisfied as to his good faith and that the entry of the merchandise was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 11-15947 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cr-60131-JIC-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lPlaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VERNON MIMS, 

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lDefendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Florida

 ________________________

(August 2, 2012)

Before HULL, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 11-15947 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 1 of 2 
Vernon Mims appeals his 188-month sentence imposed after pleading guilty

to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of

crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. He argues the district

court erred in imposing a career offender enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.1, because his 1999 conviction under Fla. Stat. § 817.563 for selling a

counterfeit controlled substance was not a predicate controlled substance offense. 

Specifically, he argues that because the conviction was for the sale of fake

cocaine, it involved neither a controlled substance nor a counterfeit substance. 

The district court did not err in finding Mims’s 1999 conviction was a

predicate controlled substance offense, as we have already held, in United States v.

Frazier, 89 F.3d 1501, 1505 (11th Cir. 1996), that a conviction under Fla. Stat.

§ 817.563 was a predicate offense for career offender sentencing purposes. Not

only was Mims convicted of the same offense as the Frazier defendant, he was

also engaged in the same offense conduct (namely, the sale of fake/simulated

cocaine). Therefore, applying the prior precedent rule, Frazier controls the instant

case. See United States v. Smith, 122 F.3d 1355,1359 (11th Cir. 1997) (noting that

under the prior panel precedent rule, we are bound by earlier panel holdings

“unless and until they are overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court”). 

AFFIRMED. 

2

Case: 11-15947 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 9819)

#### H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 39356, etc.

(Decided October 27, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the Schedule hereto annexed and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the issues in *Paramount Import Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697 and that the record in said ease may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in the cases listed in the Schedule hereto annexed less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases is equal to the market 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 ail purchasers in the principal markets of Czechoslovakia in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, packed ready for delivery, and that the foreign values of such or similar merchandise were no higher.

In the incorporated case, it was held that the amount paid a foreign commissionaire for services rendered in connection with the purchase of merchandise in the foreign market, and which amount did not inure to the benefit of the seller, was a buying commission and, therefore, was not part of the dutiable value of the merchandise.

On the agreed facts and following my cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act *534of 1980, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2015089EN.01005001.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/50

---

Action brought on 26 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-13/15)

(2015/C 089/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, N. de Montigny, D. Verbeke and T. Van Lysebeth, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions determining the applicants’ rights to reimbursement of annual travel expenses under Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013, amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the CEOS.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare illegal and inapplicable Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare illegal and inapplicable Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | annul the decisions cancelling all reimbursement of the applicants’ annual travel expenses as of 2014 onwards; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions cancelling all reimbursement of the applicants’ annual travel expenses as of 2014 onwards;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
Tnree hypotheses about fire system performane were formulated: (1) economic efficiency is affectcd by both the dollar amount of thc fire management budget and the mix or 

emphasis of the fire management inputs purchased with the budget (2) risk in the fire 

management system, where risk is measured by the probability distribution abwt the 

expected value economic efficiency, decreases with increasing fire management funding 

levelr: and (3) the moaefficiau funding level for a risk-aversc fire program managmr is 

higher than far a risk-neuual manager. There hypotheres were tested on selected public 

lands in the Nonhem Rocky Mountains using the Fire Economics Evaluation System 

(FEES). Study Cmdiigr show that efficiency is strongly affected by the firemanagement 

program level but relatively liule by changes in the fire management mix or emphasis. ?he 

most economically efficient initial attad program level war the lowest from among those 

tested. 75 percent below the bssc level funding for the study period. When only hazardreduction benefits are credited to fuel treatments, the zero program level war the most economically effioient. Thelevel of risk does decrease with increasing program levels, but the 

decrease in risk is relatively minor. Whetherthere is justification far a higher program level 

for the risk-averse than the risk-neutral decisionmaker is a function of how the risW 

efficiency tradeoff is displayed. 

Rerrieval Term: cost plus net value change, fire behavior, fuel treaunents, initial attack, 

fire suppression, fire effects, resource values, probability modeling, risk analysis
No. 44242.

#### Protests 877263-G, etc., of Harry Blandamer et al. (New York).

*301Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
No. 48107.

#### Protests 982846-G, etc., of Eurasia Import Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218) the protests were sustained as to this item.
No. 50643.

#### Protests 98298-K, etc., of Di Santo & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the reliquidation of the entries herein involved is similar in all material respects to that in *Bel Paese Sales Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(15 Cust. Ct. 7, C. D. 932). .In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited, judgment was entered directing the collector to reiiquidate the entries herein, refunding the duty established to have been taken in excess, in accordance with the decision and judgment in Abstract 45486.