alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Penson & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6791.

Entry No. 733324, etc.

Invoices dated Dundee, Scotland, March 30, 1944, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 9, 1944, etc.

(Decided January 22, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Kincheloe, 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.
|   | (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 result of operations of the Company      for the periods reflected therein. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| February      11, 2011 | /s/ Harvey B. Grossblatt           |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                   | Harvey      B. Grossblatt          |
|                   | Chief      Executive Officer       |
|                   | (principal      executive officer) |
|                   |                               |
|                   | /s/ James B. Huff                  |
|                   | James      B. Huff                 |
|                   | Chief      Financial Officer       |
|                   | (principal      financial officer) |

----
EXHIBIT 99.2
------------


                                  Certification

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

              (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
                        of Title 18, United States Code)


Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350), the
undersigned officer of SonomaWest Holdings,  Inc., a California corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  March 31, 2003 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the  information  contained  in the Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operations of the Company.


Dated: May 13, 2003

                                    /s/ Thomas R. Eakin
                                   ---------------------------------------
                                   Thomas R. Eakin
                                   Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  SonomaWest  Holdings,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by  SonomaWest
Holdings,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
NUMBER                                                              SHARES
   PRA-001                                                              800

                HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation

                            Series A Preferred Stock

This  Certifies  that    Cache Capital USA, L.P.   is the owner of Eight Hundred
                      ----------------------------                 -------------
(800)--------------  fully  paid and non-assessable Shares of Series A Preferred
-------------------
Stock,  $0.001  par  value  per  share  transferable  only  on  the books of the
Corporation  by  the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon
surrender  of  this  Certificate  properly  endorsed.
     In  Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed  by  its  duly  authorized officers and to be sealed with the Seal of the
Corporation.

Dated  January  12,  2000
       ------------------

/s/  Kent  Watts                                      Lewis  B.  Ball
-------------------------                            -------------------------
President                                            Secretary



<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1625

In re: MICHAEL RANKINS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(2:14-cr-00003-FL-1; 2:20-cv-00017-FL)

Submitted: October 22, 2020 Decided: October 26, 2020

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Rankins, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Rankins petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the 

United States to file a response to his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and an order from 

this court vacating his conviction and dismissing the underlying indictment. We conclude 

that Rankins is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. 

Because the relief sought by Rankins is not available by way of mandamus, and the 

record reflects that the United States has, in fact, filed its response to Rankins’ § 2255 

motion, we deny the petitions for a writ of mandamus. We deny as moot Rankins’ motion 

for a response from this court to his mandamus petition and we dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### *F. W. Woolworth*Co. *v.*United States

No. 6098.

Invoice dated Sonneberg, Germany, August 14, 1939.

Certified August 16, 1939.

Entered at Baltimore, Md., November 16, 1939.

Entry No. 1644/2.

(Decided February 7, 1945)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Edward P. Sharretts*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following.stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that the facts apd circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission in the case lis,ted in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoice with “xx” in green ink and the initials CHR of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, are in all material respects the same as the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission specified in the invoices relating to glass tree ornaments, novelties, and figures covered by reappraisements 113038-A, 113040-A, and 113468-A of the F. W. Woolworth Co. and passed upon by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co., B. Shackman & Co., Rice & Co. Corp., Strauss-Eckardt, Co., Inc., F. W. Woolworth Co.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, wherein the court held that “A purchasing commission, charged for the handling of merchandise, is not a proper part of dutiable value.”

> It is further stipulated and agreed that on the date of exportation of the merchandise involved in the case listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoices with “xx” in green ink and the.initials CHR of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, articles such and similar thereto were freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal markets pf the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the *333United States at the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus 3)4 per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> As to all other items, the appeal is abandoned.

> It is further stipulated and agreed, that the record in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co. et al.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 362, be incorporated herein and that the said appeal to reappraisement is submitted on this stipulation.

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 represented on the invoice by the items marked “xx” in green ink and the initials CHE of Examiner Charles H. Eitz, and that such values are the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus 3% per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus pacldng, as invoiced.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2016 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2016-2, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





|   |                                                                                                              
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.




|   |                                                                                      
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on April 20, 2016 and ending onFebruary 28, 2017and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.







Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 19th day of May, 2017 .





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Enrique Mayor-Mora


Enrique Mayor-Mora


Vice President and Treasurer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-23-0000345

06-DEC-2023

08:30 AM

Dkt. 36 OGMD

NO. CAAP-23-0000345

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

DRAKE HATHON, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CR. NO. 1CPC-21-0001047)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Defendant-Appellant Drake

Hathon's August 7, 2023 Motion to Dismiss Appeal, the papers in

support, and the record,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted and the

appeal is dismissed, under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure

Rule 42(b) and (c).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, December 6, 2023.

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Presiding Judge

/s/ Clyde

Associate J. Wadsworth

Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry

Associate Judge
### Ground-water factors affecting the drainage of Area IV, First Division, Buffalo Rapids irrigation project, Montana

By: E. A. MoulderAlfred E. TorreyF. C. Koopman

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir198

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Leon Sabra BLATT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sgt. Sammy DEREZES, Officer; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-35965.

D.C. No. CV-01-00422-RSM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2005.

Leon Sabra Blatt, Seattle, WA, pro se.

Stephen Powell Larson, Stafford Frey Cooper, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Leon Sabra Blatt appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor *841of Seattle Police Officers in Blatt’s 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested in June 1998. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review determinations regarding timeliness and excusable neglect for abuse of discretion, *Comm. for Idaho’s High Desert, Inc. v. Yost,*92 F.3d 814, 824 (9th Cir.1996), and review the grant of summary judgment de novo, *id.*at 823. We affirm.

The district court concluded that Blatt’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation were untimely and that Blatt failed to show excusable neglect. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) and 72(b); *High Desert,*92 F.3d at 825. However, the district judge stated that he reviewed Blatt’s untimely objections and “determined that none of the arguments presented by plaintiff would alter the Court’s decision.” Similarly, the magistrate judge stated that she reviewed Blatt’s untimely opposition to the motion for summary judgment, but “that none of the evidence or arguments presented by plaintiff in his untimely response alter this Court’s conclusion.”

Even if Blatt’s untimely filings are considered, summary judgment was proper. Blatt faded to raise a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. *See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,*477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Moreover, even if the police officers were mistaken in their assessment that they had lawful consent and probable cause, they were entitled to qualified immunity. *See Saucier v. Katz,*533 U.S. 194, 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (“If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 24-7033 September Term, 2023

1:23-cv-03599-UNA

Filed On: August 2, 2024

Anthony J. Mills,

Appellant

v.

Mary Lou Soller, Esq., et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Katsas, Rao, and Childs, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered February 26,

2024, be affirmed. Appellant claims that appellees conspired with a D.C. Superior

Court judge to deprive him of his due process rights, which the court construes as

arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This claim is based on statements made by appellees

during D.C. Superior Court custody proceedings. However, witnesses and parties are

immune from damages liability for their testimony in judicial proceedings. See Briscoe

v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 330-34 (1983). Morever, the conclusory allegations in the

complaint do not plausibly suggest an agreement to violate appellant’s due process

rights. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk
PUBLIC LAW 106–333—OCT. 19, 2000 114 STAT. 1307

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4447:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

July 11, 12, considered and passed House.

Oct. 6, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–333

106th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 919 West

34th Street in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ‘‘Samuel H. Lacy, Sr. Post Office

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

919 West 34th Street in Baltimore, Maryland, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Samuel H. Lacy, Sr. Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Samuel

H. Lacy, Sr. Post Office Building’’.

Approved October 19, 2000.

Oct. 19, 2000

[H.R. 4447]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### United States Mint 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to United States Code, Title 31, section 5135(b)(8)(C), the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for May 15, 2007. 

*Date:*                         May 15, 2007.                     

*Time:*                         Public meeting time: 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.                     

*Location:*                         Philadelphia Marriott, 1201 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.                     

*Subject:*                         Review candidate designs for the 2008 American Bald Eagle Recovery and National Emblem Commemorative Coin, and other general business.                               ( print page 26200)    

*Interested persons should call 202-354-7502 for the latest update on meeting time and room location.*

Public Law 108-15 established the CCAC to:
      - Advise the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals.
      - Advise the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
      - Make recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cliff Northup, United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7200. 

Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following number: 202-756-6830. 

Authority:31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C). 

Dated: May 1, 2007. 

Edmund C. Moy, 

Director, United States Mint.

 [FR Doc. E7-8789 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810-37-P