alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-7273 JAMES M. HALL, JR., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-90-9, CA-97-309-3) Submitted: July 31, 1998 Decided: September 16, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL James M. Hall, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Appellant's conviction b ecame final on December 2, 1991. On April 29, 1997, Appellant filed a § 2255 motion. The district court denied relief because Appellant filed his motion outside the one-year limitation period imposed by § 2255. Pursuant to our recent decision in Brown v. Angelone , ___ F.3d #6D6D 6D#, Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998), Appellant had until April 23, 1997, in which to file a timely motion. B ecause Appellant signed his§ 2255 motion on April 23, 1997, he may have given it to prison officials by that date. Accordingly, we remand for the district court todetermine when Appellant delivered his § 2255 motion to prison officials for mailing under Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). If the court determines that the § 2255 motion was filed under Houston before April 24, 1997, then we instruct the court to consider the § 2255 motion on the merits under Brown v. Angelone . Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability, vacate the district court's order, and remand this case for consideration consistent with this opinion.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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:31 PM

To: 'greyson@aerialapproach.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Petition for Exemption: Aerial Approach, LTD (FAA-2015-0753)

May 28, 2015 

Dear Mr. Morrow: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0753). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make, model, and type (i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual. 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by 

Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and 

remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the 

requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by June 11, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
### Ellensburg folio, Washington

By: George Otis Smith

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/gf86

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (4 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Quad Area**                            (6 pdf)                        
  - **Quad Structure**                            (4 pdf)                        
  - **Quad Topography**                            (5 pdf) 
- Cover:  **Cover**                            (5 pdf)                        
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

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.
EXHIBIT23.1(a)**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-89333,333-70290, 333-44306, 333-70210, 333-85340, 333-90848 (as amended), 333-114104, 333-116279) on FormS-8 of our report dated February 15, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statementsappearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bsquare Corporation for the year ended December 31,2006.   Seattle, Washington /s/ Moss Adams LLPFebruary 15, 2007
No. 49432.

#### Protests 635358-G, etc., of B. Chesman & Son, Inc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146, 48269, and 39667. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 39099.

#### Protest 924848-G of Brier Mfg. Co. (New York).

*357Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of imitation semiprecious stones, faceted. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1528 was therefore sustained.
**EXHIBIT23**

 

**Analysis,Research & Planning Corporation’s Consent**

 

Union CarbideCorporation:

 

Analysis, Research &Planning Corporation (“ARPC”) hereby consents to the use of ARPC’s name and thereference to ARPC’s reports appearing in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Union Carbide Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2008.

 

 
| /s/  B. THOMAS FLORENCE                             |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| B. Thomas Florence                                  |   |
| President                                           |   |
| Analysis,  Research & Planning Corporation |   |
| October 24, 2008                               |   |

 

25

----
# C_2017382EN.01000901.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 September 2017 — LG Electronics Inc. v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-588/15 P and C-622/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices relating to prices, markets sharing, customer allocation and production limitation - Rights of the defence - Sending of the statement of objections only to the parent companies of a joint venture and not to the joint venture itself - Fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Point 13 - Determining the value of sales relating to an infringement - Intragroup sales of the relevant product outside the European Economic Area (EEA) - Account to be taken of the sales within the EEA of final products in which the relevant product has been installed - Equal treatment))

(2017/C 382/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: LG Electronics Inc. (represented by: G. Van Gerven and T. Franchoo, advocaten), Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk, J.K. de Pree and S. Molin, advocaten)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, V. Bottka and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders LG Electronics Inc. and Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LG Electronics Inc. and Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016

1

OJ C 27, 25.1.2016

---
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18      U.S.C. 1350)**

| 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/              Michael D. Davidson |
|   | Michael              D. Davidson |
|   | Vice              President and  |
|   | Chief Financial Officer          |
|   | June 9, 2006                     |

----
(Reap. Dec. 9846)

#### Morlee Creations, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 41332, etc.

*560(Decided November 22, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

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

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

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

In the incorporated case, I held that a charge of 15 per centum, paid by the American importer to a foreign commissionaire for services rendered in connection with the purchase of merchandise in the foreign market and which amount did not inure to the benefit of the seller, was a *bona -fide*buying commission that did not enter into the dutiable value of the merchandise.

On the agreed facts and following my cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 48134.

#### Protest 802485-G of Fez-America (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

When the case was called for trial the plaintiff submitted the protest without the introduction of evidence. An examination of the record disclosed no evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action. The protest was therefore overruled.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000074926-SEP-201208:16 AM
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, J. Lyle Patrick, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of US LEC Corp.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date:March 7, 2006   By: /s/ J. Lyle Patrick  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 18.1



March 16, 1999

Hastings Entertainment, Inc.
Amarillo, Texas

Ladies and Gentlemen:


         We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of Hastings
         Entertainment, Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 31, 1998 and 1999,
         and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders'
         equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
         ended January 31, 1999, and have reported thereon under date of March
         16, 1999. The aforementioned consolidated financial statements and our
         audit report thereon are included in the Company's annual report on
         Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 1999. As stated in Note 2 to
         those financial statements, the Company changed its method of
         accounting for amortization of the cost of rental videocassettes from
         the straight-line method to an accelerated method and states that the
         newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances
         because (1) it will result in a better match of the cost of
         videocassettes with their revenues in the Company's current operating
         environment and (2) it is consistent with trends in industry practice.
         In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed with
         Company officials the circumstances and business judgment and planning
         upon which the decision to make this change in the method of accounting
         was based.

         With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative
         criteria have not been established for evaluating the preferability of
         one acceptable method of accounting over another acceptable method.
         However, for purposes of Hastings Entertainment Inc.'s compliance with
         the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are
         furnishing this letter.

         Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management's
         business judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method
         of accounting is preferable in the Company's circumstances.



                                       Very truly yours,


                                       /s/ KPMG LLP
# C_2016326EN.01000402.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/4

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie v ESET spol. s.r.o. sp. zo.o. Oddzial w Polsce

(Case C-393/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Article 169(a) - Company established in a Member State in which it carries out taxable transactions - Branch registered in another Member State for the payment of value added tax - Occasional taxable transactions made in that State - Main activity consisting in the performance of internal transactions for the benefit of that company - Input tax paid by that company - Deducted in the Member State of registration)

(2016/C 326/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie

Applicant:

Defendant: ESET spol. s.r.o. sp. zo.o. Oddzial w Polsce

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 168 and Article 169(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a branch registered in one Member State for the payment of value added tax for a company established in another Member State and which mainly carries out internal transactions not subject to that tax for that company, but also occasionally transactions taxed in the Member State where it is registered, is entitled to deduct input tax in the latter State charged on goods and services used for the needs of that company’s taxable transactions carried out in the Member State where the branch is established.

---

(1)  OJ C 337 of 12.10.2015.

1

---
#### United States *v.*G. L. Ramsey

No. 6281.

Entry Nos. 439-S, 440-S.

Invoices dated Monterrey, Mexico, April 20, 1944.

Certified April 21, 1944.

Entered at San Antonio, Tex., May 5, 1944.

(Decided June 3, 1946)

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

OliveR, Presiding Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into by and between tbe respective parties hereto:

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the undersigned that at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise to the United States, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at 580, United States currency, per crate, .packed, less cartage and loading and consular fees, as invoiced.

It is further agreed that there was no 'higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation of the imported merchandise.

It is further agreed that these cases may be submitted upon the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe export value, as tbat value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe mercbandise bere involved, and tbat sucb value was 580, United States currency, per crate, packed, less cartage and loading and consular fees, as invoiced.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.