alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 48123.

#### Protest 931039-G of S. H. Kress & Co. (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303) the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 210 was sustained.
Case No. 14,631a.

#### UNITED STATES v. BOX OF DRY GOODS.

[Cited in U. S. v. The .Francis Hatch. Case No. 15.158. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **6 4**  **43**

A DRIAN MARION SMITH ,
P laintiff

- Appell ant ,

v.
WARDEN JOHN MCCALL; CAPTAIN MELVIN BOSEMAN; CAPTAIN TINA SYPHERTT; DENNIS PATTERSON, Division of Operations; MAJOR MA RSH , Defendant s – Appell ees,
and

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SCDS CLASSIFICATION BELLINGER,
Defendants

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at C olumbia

. Margaret B. Seymour , Distric t Judge. ( 3 : 0 9

- c v - 0 2786

- M BS )

Submitted : Jul y 2 8 , 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by unpublished per curiam opinion

.

Adrian Marion Smith , Appellant Pro Se

. Evan Markus Gessner, LIDE & PAULEY , LLC, Lexington, South Carolina , for Appellee s .2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Adrian Marion Smith a ppeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. The
district c ourt referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. A. § 636(b)(1)(B) ( West 200 6 & Supp. 2011 ). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Smith that failure to file timely specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Smith has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 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.

AFFIRMED
No. 46365.

#### Protests 33008-K, etc., of Mervyn Brown (New York).

*275Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial of this case a quantative and qualitative analysis of the merchandise was ordered by the court upon motion of counsel, which report disclosed that it is peat compressed into a briquette. In view of the evidence the court was unable to find anything sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the action of the collector. The protests were therefore overruled.
(Reap. Dec. 9398)

#### Heemsoth Kerner Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 803490, etc.

(Decided April 21, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Goehran DoxCb,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of this decision, were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

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

*610I, therefore, fiad and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Northam Trading Corp. *v.*United States

No. 6256.

Entry No. 713733, etc.

Invoices dated Riga, Latvia, June 1929.

Certified July 2, 1929, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 19, 1929, etc.

(Decided February 14, 1946)

No appearance by the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samvel D. Spector,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

When these- appeals for reappraisement were called on the calendar, no appearance was made on behalf of the plaintiff, although duly notified of the time and place thereof.

As this record contains no evidence to warrant a disturbance of the values reported by the appraiser, I find the proper values to be'; the appraised values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Lee MIDDLETON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10148

Non-Argument Calendar.

D.C. Docket No. 04-14049-CR-KAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 1, 2005.

Leon Daniel Watts, West Palm Bch, FL, Kathleen M. Williams, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Anne R. Schultz, Kathleen M. Salyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

*263PER CURIAM.

*Leon*Daniel Watts, counsel for Samuel Lee Middleton, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Middleton’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
December 18, 1944

No. 49880.

Suit 4471.

#### United *States*v. *Garlock Packing Co.*

C. D. 812 reversed October 30, 1944, C. A. D. 289.
Exhibit 32.2

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of VSE
Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the best of the
undersigned's knowledge:


	1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009 (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 Company's Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.


Dated: October 30, 2009                  /s/ T. R. Loftus
                                         ____________________________________
                                         T. R. Loftus
                                         Executive Vice President and
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         (Principal Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 340 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 340

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 493 (to prohibit discrimination 
on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance 
and employment) the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make 
the following technical corrections:
            (1) In section 104(d)--
                    (A) in paragraph (2), strike ``June 30, 2008'' and 
                insert ``October 31, 2008'';
                    (B) in paragraph (3), strike ``October 1, 2008'' 
                and insert ``July 1, 2009''; and
                    (C) in paragraph (4)--
                            (i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), strike 
                        ``October 1, 2008'' and insert ``July 1, 
                        2009''; and
                            (ii) in subparagraph (B)(ii)--
                                    (I) strike ``in 2008'' and insert 
                                ``in 2009''; and
                                    (II) strike ``July 1, 2008'' and 
                                insert ``July 1, 2009''.
            (2) In section 202(b)(6), strike ``law enforcement'' and 
        all that follows through ``and requests'' and insert ``law 
        enforcement purposes as a forensic laboratory or for purposes 
        of human remains identification, and requests''.
            (3) In section 205(b)(6), strike ``law enforcement'' and 
        all that follows through ``and requests'' and insert ``law 
        enforcement purposes as a forensic laboratory or for purposes 
        of human remains identification, and requests''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 1, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 340

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 To make technical corrections in the enrollment of the bill H. R. 493.
```
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

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

 

 

GS Mortgage SecuritiesCorporation II 

200 West Street

New York, New York 10282

 

 

Re:          Annual Statement of Compliance for GS Mortgage Securities Corporation Trust2016-RENT Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-RENT

 

Per the Trust and ServicingAgreement dated as of March 18, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a)           A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of itsperformance 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 hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

  

/s/Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

ReferenceisherebymadetothatcertainPoolingandServicingAgreementdated as of March 1, 2016, by and amongDEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC,as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee,DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, as Certificate Administrator, PayingAgent and Custodian and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisorand Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates, COMM 2016-DC2 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section10.11 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision,and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the ReportingPeriod.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary2019.

 

/s/ Leslie Hayton

Leslie Hayton 

Managing Director 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 254 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 254

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas on November 16, 1907, Oklahoma officially became the 46th State of the 
        Union;
Whereas prior to becoming a State, Oklahoma was designated as Indian Territory, 
        providing a vibrant history and culture that continues to enrich the 
        lives of its citizens;
Whereas the State of Oklahoma was shaped by those adventurous and daring 
        individuals who embraced the spirit of this great Nation as they opened 
        the frontier of the American West;
Whereas generations of proud people from all backgrounds have called Oklahoma 
        their home and have contributed to its spirited history;
Whereas these hearty and resilient people have defined what has come to be known 
        as the spirit of Oklahoma through their strength, character, and 
        persistent strides toward a bright future;
Whereas the continued strength, initiative, and pursuit of excellence displayed 
        by the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have produced its vibrant 
        economy and secured it as a place of opportunity and progress now and 
        for future generations;
Whereas the solid foundation of family and community embraced by the citizens of 
        Oklahoma has been a constant guide and source of strength to those 
        citizens throughout its history and will remain so long into its future;
Whereas the natural beauty and abundant resources of the State of Oklahoma 
        support a quality of life for its citizens that is unsurpassed; and
Whereas on November 16, 2007, the State of Oklahoma will begin a new century of 
        statehood: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress recognizes and celebrates the centennial of Oklahoma 
statehood and wishes its people another hundred years of continued 
growth, prosperity, and achievement.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 17, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 254

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

   Recognizing and celebrating the centennial of Oklahoma statehood.
```
No. 45209.

#### Protest 897421-G of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40493 squawker balloons in part of bamboo were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 409. Trick daggers like those the subject of Abstract 37637 were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 397.
Rialto CAPITAL(logo)  2016 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance
(Item 1123)  Pooling and Servicing Agreement
(the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of October 1, 2015 by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving
Corporation as Depositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital
Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent
and Custodian and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor relating to the COMM 2015-CCRE27 Mortgage Trust, Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates (COMM 2015-CCRE27)  The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special
Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:  1.All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.2.A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1,
2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been
conducted under my supervision.3.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been
a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically
identified herein.   Certified by:
    /s/ Adam Singer
    Date: March 1, 2017Adam Singer, Managing Director
July 29, 1970

No. 70-52

#### William C. Washington, PVT and Ernest L. Mays, SP-4, U. S. Army v LG V. P. Mock, Commanding General, HQ 5th Army, Fort Sheridan, Illinois, et al.

Petition denied without prejudice to the right to raise the issues presented when and if the pending charges are referred to trial. Halliman v Lamont, 18 USCMA 652 (1968); United States v Nelson, 18 USCMA 177, 39 CMR 177 (1969). (J. DARDEN would dismiss the petition. See his separate opinion in United States v Collier, 19 USCMA 511, 42 CMR 113 (1970).)
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4925



#  J ORGE M ACEDO -M OLINA , a/k/a Guijul Siriguanico, Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

James C. Fox, Senior District Judge.

(CR-00-79) Submitted: July 3, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney (Interim), Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Scott L. Wilkinson,Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Jorge Macedo-Molina pled guilty to one count of re-entry by a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1326 (West 1999 & Supp. 2000). The district court found Macedo-Molina had been convicted oftwo prior aggravated felonies, making the statutory maximum sentence a twenty-year term of imprisonment. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1326(b)(2). Macedo-Molina argues he should have been sentenced under the provisions of § 1326(a), which provides a maximum sentence of two years, because the Government did not charge a violation of § 1326(b)(2) in the indictment. We affirm. Because the Supreme Court has held § 1326(b)(2) sets forth a sentencing factor rather than an element of the offense, this claim is without merit. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Contrary to Macedo-Molina’s assertions, we find Almendarez-Torres was not overruled by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). See United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000) (finding Apprendi did not overrule AlmendarezTorres ), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001); United States v. Gatewood , 230 F.3d 186, 192 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding that, despite Apprendi , Almendarez-Torres remains the law); see also Columbia Union Coll. v. Clarke , 159 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 1998) (stating that lower courts should not presume the Supreme Court has overruled one of its cases by implication; courts must follow case law that directly controls unless clearly overruled by subsequent Supreme Court case). Consequently, we affirm the sentence imposed by 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.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. M ACEDO -M OLINA
#### Edward Powell *vs.*The United States.

Omission of an arraignment will bo á sufficient ground for reversing a judgment.

By the Court,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The first error assigned in this case is, that there was no plea pleaded by the defendant below, previous to the trial. It is not absolutely necessary in all cases, that the defendant should actually plead.- He will presume to plead not *18guilty, even if he should stand mute, especially in capital cases. But it is a general rule that the total want or omission of an arraignment will be a sufficient ground for reversing a judgement—(1 Chitty’s Criminal Law, p. 418.) Had the record stated that the defendant had regularly appeared and pleaded, an arraignment would have been implied by that act. As, however, there is no evidence, from the record, that the defendant pleaded—that he was arraigned—or that he even personally appeared, the judgment iu this case must be reversed. There are other essential errors, but the one already examined being sufficient, the others need not be considered.

Judgment reversed.
(Reap. Dec. 9599)

#### M. Farris & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 987131; 947948.

(Decided February 19, 1960)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Goehr an Boub,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeals for a re-appraisement were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff and the cases were ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> Tbe submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by tbe parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a ease does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and' hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.