alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 293 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, February 14, 2008, on a motion 

4 offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Ma5 jority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 

6 p.m. on Friday, February 15, 2008, or until the time of 

7 any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 
2 

•HCON 293 EH 

1 concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; that when 

2 the House adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, Feb3 ruary 15, 2008, on a motion offered pursuant to this con4 current resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, 

5 it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 

6 19, 2008, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant 

7 to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 

8 first; that when the House adjourns on the legislative day 

9 of Tuesday, February 19, 2008, on a motion offered pur10 suant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 

11 or his designee, it stand adjourned until noon on Thurs12 day, February 21, 2008, or until the time of any re13 assembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolu14 tion, whichever occurs first; that when the House adjourns 

15 on the legislative day of Thursday, February 21, 2008, 

16 on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution 

17 by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned 

18 until 2 p.m. on Monday, February 25, 2008, or until the 

19 time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this con20 current resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when 

21 the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Friday, 

22 February 15, 2008, through Friday, February 22, 2008, 

23 on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution 

24 by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed 

25 or adjourned until noon on Monday, February 25, 2008, 
3 

•HCON 293 EH 

1 or such other time on that day as may be specified in the 

2 motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any re3 assembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolu4 tion, whichever occurs first. 

5 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority 

6 Leader of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting 

7 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

8 House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify 

9 the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, 

10 to reassemble at such place and time as they may des11 ignate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant 

12 it. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 13, 

2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 293 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the 

cess or adjournment of the Senate. House of Representatives and a conditional re-
No. 44263.

#### Protest 33727-K of Georges Mouracade *&*Fils (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the apricot paste in question is similar to that the subject of *United States*v. *Sahadi*(23 C. C. P. A. 293, T. D. 48165). The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 735 was therefore sustained.
No. 46398.

#### Protests 43009-K of Wo Kee & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is the same as that passed upon in *Wing Duck*v. *United States*(6 Cust. *Ct.*133, C. D. 446) *it was*held that the Internal Revenue *tax is*not applicable. That claim was therefore sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
financial  statements of San Diego Soccer  Development  Corporation for the year
ended  December  31, 1999 and is  qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statement.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY>                                   US DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         50,253
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               50,253
<PP&E>                                         236,522
<DEPRECIATION>                                 11,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 236,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          737,826
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5,284,369
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   236,522
<SALES>                                        58,789
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               252,842
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,365,625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             17,870
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,353,828)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,353,828)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.50)


</TABLE>
#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6413.

Entry No. 748809, etc.

Invoices dated Glasgow, Scotland, March 15, 1946, etc.

Certified March 21, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 29, 1946, etc.

(Decided October 3, 1946)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

*354Cole, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not be be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. G. 1940 edi § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts established that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.
#### Charles Happel, Inc., a/c Sidney R. LeVine *v.*United States

No. 6093.

Invoices dated Failsworth, Manchester, England, June 16, 1941, etc.

Certified June 17, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 12, 1941, etc.

Entry No. 702515, etc.

(Decided February 2, 1945)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

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

> It is hereby stipulated. and agreed by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject to the approval of the court:

> That the merchandise the subject of the appeals to reappraisement enumerated above, consists of fur felt hats imported from Great Britain; that at the time of exportation, the merchandise covered by the instant appeals to reappraisement or such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Great Britain in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to. the United States at the entered values, less the amount added by the importer under duress; that such or similar merchandise was offered for sale in .Great Britain only for export to the United States; that the appeals are abandoned as to all merchandise not entered under duress and the instant cases 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 entered under duress, and that such values are the entered values, less the amount added by the importer under duress.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all merchandise not entered under duress, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
### Discharge and runoff in the Missouri River basin

By: Bruce R. ColbyRoy E. Oltman

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir37

#### Links

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

#### Abstract

Within the Missouri River Basin the precipitation and temperature vary greatly with both time and geographical location. Differences in weather and climate combine with differences in topography and geology to produce large differences in runoff from time to time and from place to place in the basin. The average annual runoff ranges from a fraction of an inch for some drainage areas to more than 40 inches for a few small ungaged areas at high elevations. For some drainage areas the maximum annual discharge is 10 to 20 times the minimum.

The amounts and distribution of runoff and discharge throughout a drainage basin are essential parts of any study of the water resources of that basin. Discharge records at gaging stations are only spot samples of surface-water resources and require interpretation in order to furnish a general knowledge of the amounts and distribution of runoff and discharge. Such a knowledge is necessary to an adequate understanding of the water resources of the drainage basin. This report contains maps that show for the Missouri River Basin. Representative average rates of discharge, the distribution of the average discharge by months for several gaging stations. representative annual runoff, and minimum annual runoff. These maps are supplemented by explanations and comments and by charts that show the development of irrigation by drainage areas and by States.

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.
No. 50267.

#### Protests 739619-G, etc., of Akawo & Co., Ltd. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that passed upon in *United States*v. *Nippon Import & Trading Co.*(30 C. C. P. A. 89, C. A. D. 220), the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 921 was sustained.
1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-1757

___________ Melissa L. Land, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Washington County, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 3, 2001 Filed: October 4, 2001

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. MelissaLand appeals the District Court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her action under the “association” provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(4) (1994) (unlawful discrimination includes “excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association”). Having conducted a de novo review, see Mole v.-2-

Buckhorn Rubber Prods., Inc. 165 F.3d 1212, 1214 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 821 (1999), we affirm. We agree with the District Court that Land failed to establish a prima facie case of association discrimination. See Hilburn v. Murata Elecs. N. Am., Inc. , 181 F.3d 1220, 1230-31 (11th Cir. 1999) (listing elements of a prima facie case). We also conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Land’s motions for discovery sanctions. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1


                                    DELAWARE

NUMBER                                                                  SHARES

                                Enterworks, Inc.

FULLY PAID                        COMMON STOCK                NON-ASSESSABLE

                            $.01 Par Value Per Share

This Certifies that              SPECIMEN
                     ----------------------------------------------------------
is the owner of                                  Shares of the Capital Stock of
               ----------------------------------
                      Enterworks, Inc.
transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in
person or by 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 its Corporate Seal to be hereunto
affixed
                    this              day of                A.D.
                         ------------        --------------        --------


---------------------------------               ------------------------------
Daniel P. McGrath                               Dee Ann Revere
Vice President                                  Secretary


<PAGE>   2
                                   [GRAPHIC]

                                  CERTIFICATE

                                      FOR

                              --------------------
                                     SHARES

                                       OF

                                 Capital Stock
                                   ISSUED TO

                                  -----------
                                     DATED

    For Value Received, ____ hereby sell assign and transfer unto
                                                                 ---------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shares of the Capital Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do
hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
                                         -------------------------------------
                              to transfer the said Stock on the books of the
-----------------------------
within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.

     Dated
           -----------------------------------------
           In presence of


NOTICE. THE SIGNATURE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS
WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Douglas Walter CHILDS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6811.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 17, 2005.

Decided: Sept. 14, 2005.

Douglas Walter Childs, Appellant pro se. Jerry Wayne Miller, Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE OF THE UNITED *540STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Walter Childs, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Childs has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
No. 56659.

protests 133566-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Hurricane Import Co. (Successor to S. S. Perry) *v.*United States,

*482Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fishing nets similar in all material respects to the articles involved in *The American Import Co.*v. *United States*(27 Oust. Ct. 65, C. D. 1349), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### Methods for determining permeability of water-bearing materials, with special reference to discharging-well methods, with a section on direct laboratory methods and bibliography on permeability and laminar flow

By: Leland Keith WenzelVinton Crews Fishel

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp887

#### 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.
No. 48767.

#### Protests 938949-G, etc., of American Fabrics Co. et al. (Bridgeport, etc.).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Penson & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6795.

Entry No. 724154, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, October 26, 1945, etc.

Certified October 26, 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 28, 1945, etc.

(Decided January 22, 1947)

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

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

Lawbence, 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), *11*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.