alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 50699.

#### Protests 56066-K, etc., of Johnson & Faulkner, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         241,411
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,208
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,101
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               289,152
<PP&E>                                       8,391,064
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,676,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,034,601
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          605,937
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       791,782
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,032,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,034,601
<SALES>                                        180,728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,059,655
<CGS>                                           99,370
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  971,529
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,493
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             88,126
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    88,126
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000102438
<NAME> USP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,185,978
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  729,119
<ALLOWANCES>                                   228,916
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               426,201
<PP&E>                                      40,694,216
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,331,475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,475,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,368,981
<BONDS>                                     14,034,337
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,880,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,191,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,475,123
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,622,786
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  642,936
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               118,519
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             349,074
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                512,257
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            512,257
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   512,257
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7009** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TIMNAH K. RUDISILL , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:01

- cr - 00048

- MR

- 9 )

Submitted : September 30, 2010 Decided: October 1 2 , 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam o pinion
. Timnah K. Rudisill, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timnah K. Rudisill appeals the district court ’ s order denying his “Emergency Motion for Dismissal and/or Immediate Release Due to Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Rudisill , No. 1:01

- cr - 00048

- MR

- 9 (W.D.N.C. June 17, 2010) . 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
EXHIBIT 31.1


I, Douglas D. Cole, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Trinity Learning
     Corporation;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
     statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
     were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
     report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c)   disclosed in this report any change in internal control over financial
          reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
          quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
          materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
          reporting;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.


Date: June 14, 2004

      /S/ DOUGLAS D. COLE
      -------------------

      Douglas D. Cole
      Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.8.2

                     AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE ADVERTISING
                               SERVICES AGREEMENT

         This Amendment Number One ("Amendment One") to the Advertising Services
Agreement dated as of July 17, 2002 (the "Agreement") is entered into as of
October 23, 2002 (the "Amendment One Effective Date") by and between Ask Jeeves,
Inc. a Delaware corporation, with principal place of business at 5858 Horton
Street, Suite 350, Emeryville, CA 94608 ("Customer"), and Google, Inc., a
California corporation with its principal place of business at 2400 Bayshore
Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043 ("Google").

         Whereas, Customer and Google are parties to the Agreement, pursuant to
which Google provides Customer with certain services for Customer's Site (as
defined in the Agreement); and

         Whereas, Customer and Google desire to amend the Agreement as set forth
herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein, the parties agree as follows:

1.       Definitions. For purposes of this Amendment, the capitalized terms
         used, but not defined herein, shall have the same meanings set forth in
         the Agreement.

2.       Delete Section 1.15 in its entirety and replace with the following:
         "1.15 "Syndicated Sites" means [*].

         With respect to Syndicated Sites, [*].

3.       The following is added to the list of Syndicated Sites in Section B (2)
         of Schedule A:

         [*].

4.       Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in
         full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment by persons
duly authorized as of the date and year first written above.

ASK JEEVES, INC.                              GOOGLE, INC.

By: /s/ Steve Sordello                        By: /s/ Joan Braddi

Print Name: Steve Sordello                    Print Name: Joan Braddi

Title:      Chief Financial Officer           Title:   VP Search Services

Address:        5858 Horton Street            Address: 2400 Bayshore Parkway
                Suite 350                              Mountain View, CA  94043
                Emeryville, CA 94608

Tel: __________________                       Tel:  (650) 330-0100

Fax: __________________                       Fax:  (650) 618-1835

Date: 10/22/02                                Date: 10/23/02

______________________
[*] Indicates that certain information in this exhibit has been omitted and
filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential
treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.
No. 48770.

#### Protest 69212-K of Greene Cattle Co., Inc. (Nogales).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial a stipulation was entered into between counsel that “at the time of importation and when weighed, the cattle carried at least five pounds of water in the hair and on its hide each, making a total for the 9/5 head of cattle of 4,875 pounds, and that also the cattle carried with them on to the scale a total of 384 pounds of mud on all of the 975 head, making a total of 5,259 pounds of water and mud.’-’ The Government moved'to dismiss the protest on the ground that the importer had failed to comply with the Customs Regulations of 1937, but this motion was denied. The invoice and entry papers disclosed that the cattle were duly weighed by the customs weighers at the time of importation, and there is nothing to indicate that the weight thereof was less than so reported, nor was any application for an allowance for excessive moisture or other impurities filed with the collector as required under Article 811, Customs *263Regulations of 1937, which was issued in conformity with section 507. Inasmuch as these regulations were not complied with, the claim for allowance as a nonimportation was held to be without merit. *American Bitumuls Co.*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 106, C. D. 732) cited.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v FRANCIS J. SMITH, Jr., Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

12 USCMA 594, 31 CMR 180

No. 15,228

December 22, 1961

*Captain Vernon C. Maulson*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel Ralph W. Wofford*and *First Lieutenant Ira M. Lechner.*

*First Lieutenant Carl F, Wrench*argued the cause for Appellee, United *595States. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel James G. Mc-Conaughy*and *Major Francis M. Cooper.*

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

The issue in this case is the same as that presented in United States v Kitchens, 12 USCMA 589, 31 CMR 175. For the reasons set out in our opinion in that case, we set aside the decision of the board of review as to the sentence. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to a board of review. In its discretion, the board of review may reassess the sentence as indicated in the *Kitchens*case, supra, or direct a rehearing thereon.

Judges Ferguson and Kilday concur.
#### Samson TEKLEWOLD, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-1270.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2005.

Decided Sept. 20, 2005.

Thomas Hailu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Debra J. Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Respondent.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Samson Teklewold, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review.

We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005). A motion to reconsider asserts the Board made an error in its earlier decision. The immigration regulations provide that a motion to reconsider must “state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2005); *see also Zhao v. United States Dep’t of Justice,*265 F.3d 83, 90-91 (2d Cir.2001) (discussing requirements for motion to reconsider). The burden is on the movant to establish that reconsideration is warranted. *INS v. Abudu,*485 U.S. 94, 110, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988).

We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. Accordingly, while we grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for review. 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        2
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   877
<PP&E>                                           9,717
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,023
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,308
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           343
<OTHER-SE>                                         875
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,571
<SALES>                                             32
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    32
<CGS>                                               91
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       91
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   290
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (295)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (295)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (295)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: Elineth Torres/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Stuart Sessions <sessions@environomics.com>, Tian H Liu <tianh.liu@cemex.com>, Hector.Ybanez@holcim.com Cc: Wo

jciech.Jozewicz@arcadis - us.com, Samudra Vijay/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/06/2009 10:33 AM Subject: Files for the ISIS_NESHAP Good Morning, Please find attached the NESHAP version of the EPA's ISIS Model. I'm also attaching the steps for running the ISIS - Cement NESHAP version on your machine. You will need to have GAMS/CPLEX on yo ur machine to run the model. Please save the attached "ISIS_N ESHAP.zik" file on your computer, then change the extension from "zik" to "zip". Once in the "ISIS_NESHAP" folder please notice that the results in the "ISIS_Outputs.xls' are those final results used in the Cement NESHAP analysis. Please save this file wi th another name on your machine so you can use it as reference if you need to do so. If you have questions, please feel free to contact us. Our contact information is: Elineth Torres; torres.elineth@epa.gov; 919 - 541 -4347 Sam udra Vijay; vijay.samudra@e pa.gov; 919 - 541 - 1315 Thank you, Elineth Torres Environmental Protection Specialist U.S. EPA OAQPS/SPPD/Program Design Group 109 T. W. Alexander Dr. Durham, NC 27711 Phone: 919 - 541 -4347 Fax: 919 - 541 - 5600 

### Note the attachments to this email are docketed se parately with the Email E. Torres to K . Barnett ISIS Files for Docket dated August 6, 2009.
Exhibit 35.6



|     |  |                                                                                                                        
|---- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Corporate Trust Services 
MAC R1204-010 9062 Old
Annapolis Road Columbia, MD 21045 
Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380



|                              
|------------------------------
|Citibank, National Association
|388 Greenwich Street          
|14th Floor                    
|New York, New York 10013      



|Re: | Annual Statement of Compliance for Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass- Through Certificates, Series 2016-GC36
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2016 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period):

(a) A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such
officers supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 1, 2017



|              
|--------------
|LOGO          
|BRIAN SMITH   
|Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
No. 56664.

protest 176220-K (New York).

#### Cuneo Brothers, Inc. *v.*United States,

*483Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

When the case was called for trial there was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff. Counsel for the Government requested that the case be submitted since a representative of the importer had advised him that plaintiff did not desire to appear. An examination of the record disclosed that the merchandise was entered on January 8, 1951, at which time the rate of duty on peppers in their natural state was 2.2 cents per pound under paragraph 774, as modified, *supra.*This rate superseded the rate of 2)4 cents per pound in the trade agreement with Mexico (T. D. 50797), which was terminated as of December 31, 1950, and the rate of 1.2 cents per pound in the exclusive trade agreement with Cuba (T. D. 51819). The protest was therefore overruled.
1The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1410

___________

Eddie C. Risdal, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Terry Mapes, Warden; Paul Fitzgerald, *

Story County Sheriff, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 29, 2006

Filed: January 10, 2007 

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Risdal appeals the judgment of the district court1

 dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint prior to service. Following careful review of the record and

Risdal’s arguments on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.
[if !vml]>[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(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Catalogue**
 
1966-67 | 1967-68 | 1968-69 | 1969-70
 
SuDoc Number:D 208.109:
Item Number:0390-A (online)
CGP systemNumber:001080297
 
September 26, 2018