alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Third Division,

January 29, 1940

No. 43140.

#### Protests 10602-K, etc., of Canton Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 14, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 14, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24I0255. BROOKSIDE PARK ATLANTA APARTMENTS LP et al v. AMONTAE 

BARNES.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2020CV00537
# C_2015311EN.01003401.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/34

---

Request a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) of 10 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Luciano Baldetti

(Case C-350/15)

(2015/C 311/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Luciano Baldetti

Question referred for a preliminary ruling

Question referred for a preliminary ruling

On a proper construction of Article 4 of [Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] and Article 50 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], is the provision made under Article 10b of Legislative Decree No 74/00 consistent with Community law, in so far as it permits the criminal liability of a person to whom a final assessment by the tax authorities of the State has already been issued imposing an administrative penalty in the sum of 30 % of the unpaid amount to be assessed in respect of the same act or omission (non-payment of VAT)?

---
#### Juan Manuel OROZCO-SOLIS, Petitioner—Appellee, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Ronald J. Smith in his capacity as District Director; et al., Respondents—Appellants.

No. 03-35689.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 13, 2005.

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

David N. Shomloo, Esq., Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellee.

Judith D. Kobbervig, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Respondents-Appellants.

Before: RYMER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and WEINER,* Senior District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

While the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) to review the denial of Orozco-Solis' naturalization *770application, the district court did not have jurisdiction over the merits of Orozco-Solis’ removal order. Only the courts of appeals can directly review final orders of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). The district court’s jurisdiction to review denials of naturalization applications does not encompass the authority to review orders of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c); see *Bellajaro v. Schiltgen,*378 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir.2004). Therefore, the district court’s order purporting to reverse the immigration judge is vacated.

Section 1429 of Title 8 did not divest the district court of its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction stripping statutes are interpreted narrowly. *Ana Intern., Inc. v. Way,*393 F.3d 886, 894 (9th Cir.2004). Because 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) plainly confers jurisdiction, and the language of 8 U.S.C. § 1429 does not mandate jurisdiction-stripping, section 1429 did not strip the district court of its jurisdiction under section 1421(c). *See Bellajaro,*378 F.3d at 1047. However, because Orozco-Solis was in removal proceedings at the time the INS issued its decision, the district court should have affirmed the INS’ denial of his naturalization application. *See id.*

REVERSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Hilborn-Hamburger, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6774.

Entry No. 730328, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, March 1944, etc.

Certified March 1944, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y,, April 8, 1944, etc.

(Decided January 17, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Sidney Mandell*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the value of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importers on entries because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Sendar & Kay Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7474.

Invoices dated Tunstall, England, August 30, 1941, etc.

Certified September 15, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 17, 1941, etc.

Entry No. 720127, etc.

(Decided December 11, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson*<fc *Colburn (Hadley 8. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
CERTIFICATION  OF  PERIODIC  FINANCIAL  REPORT  PURSUANT  TO SECTION  906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (subsection (a) and
(b)  of  Section  1350,  Chapter  63 of  Title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned  officer of Penseco Financial  Services  Corporation (the "Company")
certifies to his knowledge that:

     (1) The  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of the  Company  for the year  ended
     December 31, 2006 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act");
     and

     (2) The  information  contained  in the Form 10-K fairly  presents,  in all
     material  respects,  the financial  conditions and results of operations of
     the  Company as for the dates and for the  periods  referred to in the Form
     10-K.

                               /s/ Craig W. Best
                               -------------------
                               Craig W. Best
                               President and CEO
                               February 26, 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CERTIFICATION  OF  PERIODIC  FINANCIAL  REPORT  PURSUANT  TO SECTION  906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (subsection (a) and
(b)  of  Section  1350,  Chapter  63 of  Title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned  officer of Penseco Financial  Services  Corporation (the "Company")
certifies to his knowledge that:

     (1) The  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of the  Company  for the year  ended
     December 31, 2006 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act");
     and

     (2) The  information  contained  in the Form 10-K fairly  presents,  in all
     material  respects,  the financial  conditions and results of operations of
     the  Company as for the dates and for the  periods  referred to in the Form
     10-K.
                               /s/ Patrick Scanlon
                               -------------------
                               Patrick Scanlon
                               Controller
                               February 26, 2007
Before the Second Division,

September 30, 1942

No. 47609.

#### Protests 7367-K, etc., of International Clearing House of New York (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the items consist of woven mufflers composed wholly or in chief value of silk, hemmed, of the same character as those in Abstract 45938, they were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 1209 as claimed.
No. 56162.

protests 174877-K, etc. (New York).

#### Barnet Bros. Leather Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstact 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsConcepts for improving the damage tolerance of composite compression panelsThe residual strength of specimens with damage and the sensitivity to damage while subjected to an applied inplane compression load were determined for flatplate specimens and blade-stiffened panels. The results suggest that matrix materials that fail by delamination have the lowest damage tolerance capability. Alternate matrix materials or laminates which are transversely reinforced suppress the delamination mode of failure and change the failure mode to transverse shear crippling which occurs at a higher strain value. Several damage-tolerant blade-stiffened panel design concepts are evaluated. Structural efficiency studies conducted show only small mass penalties may result from incorporating these damage-tolerant features in panel design. The implication of test results on the design of aircraft structures was examined with respect to FAR requirements.Document ID19840010610Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsRhodes, M. D.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Williams, J. G.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateFebruary 1, 1984Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-85748NAS 1.15:85748Meeting InformationMeeting: Conf. on Fibrous Composites in Structural DesignLocation: New Orleans, LACountry: United StatesStart Date: January 1, 1981Accession Number84N18678Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 534-06-23Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840010610.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Before the Second Division,

May 27, 1944

No. 49442.

#### Protests 97197-K, etc., of L. Greenberg & Son et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of pincushions or emeries in chief value of cotton, and others made or cut from velvet pile fabrics, all of which are in chief value of cotton having a staple of less than 1)4 inches in length. These items are similar to those involved in Abstracts 48406 and 49006. Those in chief value of cotton were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 923 as claimed, and those made or cut from velvet pile fabrics composed in chief value of cotton were held dutiable at 62)4 percent under paragraph 909 as claimed.
**DM** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0 382 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. QUINCY SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 3 0 -day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including June 19 , 2021 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 14 2021

05/14/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0382
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1296 

KA 08-00032 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JASON BROOKS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

SHIRLEY A. GORMAN, BROCKPORT, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JASON BROOKS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John

J. Ark, J.), rendered September 27, 2007. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree and

attempted murder in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence and as

modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to

Supreme Court, Monroe County, for resentencing. 

Same Memorandum as in People v Brooks ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d

___ [Feb. 6, 2015]).

Entered: February 6, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Innospec
Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ian P. Cleminson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/    IAN P.
CLEMINSON                                              
|Ian P. Cleminson
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                                     
|February 18, 2011                                                    



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of this Report or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. §1350
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
Exhibit 31.2
                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
             (A separate certification is required for each officer)

I, Olivier Meisel, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of BNP U.S. Funding L.L.C.;

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(s) 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 these entities, particularly
during the period in which the 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 upon such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 the 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: March 30, 2005

                                      /s/ Olivier Meisel
                                      --------------------------
                                      Title: President and Director
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 11, 2014

No. 04-13-00187-CR

Fernando RODRIGUEZ Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CRN-531-D3

Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant has filed a pro se motion requesting this court to reconsider his request for oral 

argument. Appellant is represented by Fausto Sosa. In Texas, appellants do not have a right to 

hybrid representation. Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Therefore, 

appellant’s motion is DENIED. 

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERALDINE L. LEE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

NORTHERN NEVADA ADULT

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-17215

D.C. No. 3:06-cv-00433-LRHRAM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Geraldine L. Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the towing of her automobile and her temporary

exclusion from a drop-in mental health center violated her constitutional rights. 

FILED

OCT 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-17215

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barnett v.

Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Lee’s claim that the towing of her

vehicle violated due process when, among other reasons, Lee’s car was towed for

being parked for many days in a disabled parking space with an expired disability

placard, and Lee had the opportunity to have a post-tow hearing on whether her

vehicle was wrongly towed. See N.R.S. 487.039 (providing for post-tow hearing);

Goichman v. Rheuban Motors, Inc., 682 F.2d 1320, 1323-25 (9th Cir. 1982) (Due

Process Clause does not entitle owner of towed vehicle to an immediate hearing,

and timely post-deprivation hearing satisfied due process); cf. Scofield v. City of

Hillsborough, 862 F.2d 759, 764 (9th Cir. 1988) (pre-towing notice is not required

for towing of unregistered cars).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lee’s claim that

her temporary exclusion from the Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services

Drop-In Center violated due process, because she had no protected interest in

accessing the center. See Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the claims

against defendant Flowers because Lee did not establish good cause to extend the
3 09-17215

deadline for service of process. See Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d

507, 511-12 (9th Cir. 2001). 

We do not consider Lee’s other claims because she has not adequately raised

them on appeal. See Entm’t Research Group, Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc.,

122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 1997) (“We review only issues which are argued

specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture

arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.”)

(citation omitted); Wilcox v. Comm’r, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988)

(arguments not raised on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned). 

Lee’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.