alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>              1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                                 554
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       17,420
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (1,036)
<INVENTORY>                                          4,752
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    24,292
<PP&E>                                              93,589
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (37,687)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     105,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               18,265
<BONDS>                                             20,029
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             4,993
<OTHER-SE>                                          31,079
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       105,207
<SALES>                                             44,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    44,471
<CGS>                                               25,277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       40,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    15,170
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      3,966
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,310
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  2,656
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         2,656
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.53
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

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

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), each of the undersigned officers of Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (the company) does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 of the company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 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: April 30, 2010

/s/ Fernando AguirreName: Fernando AguirreTitle: Chief Executive Officer


Dated: April 30, 2010



/s/ Michael B. SimsName: Michael B. SimsTitle: Chief Financial Officer
No. 42047.

#### Protest 12478-G of C. Willenborg *&*Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation' of counsel embroidered trimmings were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.
No. 6407.

#### SUCCESSION OF ELIZABETH KOLL, WIFE OF OSCAR L. VILLENEUVE.

Syllabus.

In the choice of the administrator the preference shall be given to the beneficiary heir over every other person, if he be of age and present in the State. *G. G.;*1042.

*372Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “A,” No. 106,922. Honorable T. C. W. Ellis, Judge.

G-. J. Hntereiner, A. J. Peters, for plaintiff and appellant.

Oscar Schreiber, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

This is a contest for appointment as administrator o.f a wife’s estate between the wife’s brother and the administrator of the deceased husband’s estate.

The evidence shows that the wife left both community and separate property; that she died intestate leaving neither ascendants nor descendants; that her husband survived her.

Under the circumstances her husband was heir to the community property, and the brother, and a sister heirs to the separate property. But husband and brother were therefore “beneficiary heirs.”

During the' life of the husband he claimed the administration and was not opposed.

After his death the only remaining beneficiary heirs of the deceased were his brother and sister.

The law provides, C. C., 1042:

> “In choice of the administrator the preference shall be given to the beneficiary heir over every other person, if he be of age and present in the State.”

The trial Judge simply followed the law when he appointed the brother in preference to the administrator of the husband’s succession.

Succession Romero, 42 A., 894.

*373Opinion and decree, June 14th, 1915.

"We cannot in these proceedings undertake to determine >or eken consider the quantum of community .and separate property respectively, left by the deceased. Nor are we called upon to determine or consider here whether the wife’s administrator or that of the husband, is entitled to liquidate the community between husband and wife, and to that end administer directly upon the community assets.

The judgment appealed from is correct.

Judgment affirmed.
### Floods of August 1967 in east-central Alaska

By: Joseph M. ChildersJames P. MeckelGary S. Anderson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1880A

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- 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.
### Preliminary report on the ground waters of San Joaquin Valley, California

By: Walter Curran Mendenhall

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp222

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (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. 40398.

#### Protest 951903-G of Sardo Lace Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that the merchandise consists of handkerchiefs similar to those involved in Abstráct 36849. The claim at 2 cents each and 30 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1529 (b) and the Swiss Trade Agreement (T. D. 48093) was sustained.
#### INTELLISYNC CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NCR CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-1183.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 20, 2005.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).
#### Marco Antonio ZARATE CORTES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-75285.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2005.

David M. Sturman, Esq., Law Office of David M. Sturman, APC, Encino, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John C. Cunningham, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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 **

Marco Antonio Zarate Cortes, his wife, Maria De Lourdes Robles Sanchez, and their three daughters, Luz, Julissa and Diana Robles, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, *see Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft,*298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002), and we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA abused its discretion when it failed to address the affidavit submitted by petitioners’ attorney of record stating that she did not receive notice that the hearing date had been changed from June 25, 2003 to June 23, 2003. *See Salta v. INS,*314 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2002) (noting the presumption of delivery is weaker when notice of hearing is delivered by regular mail as opposed to certified mail); *Celis-Castellano,*298 F.3d at 892 (noting that in a motion to reopen “[t]he Board must accept the facts in an alien’s affidavit as true unless inherently unbelievable”). We therefore remand for an evidentiary hearing on this issue. *See Salta,*314 F.3d at 1079 (“sworn affidavit ... should ordinarily be sufficient to rebut the presumption of delivery and entitle [the petitioner] to an evidentiary hearing to consider the veracity of her allegations”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 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.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Ubi sumus? : the state of navaland maritime history [electronic resource].**
PDF|Mobi|EPUB|
 
SuDoc Number:D 208.210:11

Item Number: 0408-A-02 (online)

CGP systemNumber:001081997 
October 11, 2018
No. 44236.

#### Protest 834614-G of H. R. Lukaiser (New York).

Opinion by

Bbown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protest was therefore sustained.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Health, Insurance, and Pension Plans in Union Contracts

              																	Rowe, Evan Keith					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Health, Insurance, and Pension Plans in Union Contracts : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1187*,												Washington: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										October 1955,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4483,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Cite as 2014 Ark. 317

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. D-12-459

STARK LIGON, AS EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR OF THE SUPREME

C O U R T C O M M I T T E E O N

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

PETITIONER

V.

H E A T H E R P A T R I C E

HOGROBROOKS, ARKANSAS BAR

NO. 92029

RESPONDENT

Opinion Delivered June 26, 2014

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS AND FOR ENTRY OF

FINAL ORDER OF DISBARMENT OR

ALTERNATIVELY FOR A SHOW

CAUSE HEARING AS TO WHY

JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE

ENTERED

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS AND FOR ENTRY OF

FINAL ORDER OF DISBARMENT

GRANTED.

PER CURIAM

Stark Ligon, as Executive Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on

Professional Conduct, petitions this court to impose the sanction of disbarment against

attorney Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks. 

On August 27, 2012, pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Procedures Regulating

Professional Conduct, section 13, we assigned Special Judge John Cole to preside over

disbarment proceedings involving Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks. Judge Cole found that Ms.

Hogrobrooks committed serious misconduct that warranted disbarment. Judge Cole’s

findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed with this court, along with the transcript and

record of the proceedings. Briefing commenced and pursuant to section 13(D),
Cite as 2014 Ark. 317

Ms. Hogrobrooks was to file the opening brief, which was due to be filed by January 20,

2014. Ms. Hogrobrooks obtained an extension of time and thereafter had until March 6,

2014, to file her brief. Ms. Hogrobrooks tendered her brief on March 17, 2014, but it was

rejected as non-compliant. On March 24, 2014, Ms. Hogrobrooks filed a “petition for

information regarding the status of appeal” but has filed nothing with this court since that

time. 

Pursuant to section 13, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the special judge

are accepted by this court unless clearly erroneous. Here, Ms. Hogrobrooks failed to file a

brief in compliance with section 13(D). By failing to file an abstract and brief, this court’s

review is limited to Judge Cole’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. There being nothing

before this court to show Judge Cole’s findings of fact to be clearly erroneous, we grant

petitioner’s request for a final order disbarring Ms. Hogrobrooks. Her name is ordered

removed from the registry of attorneys licensed by the State of Arkansas. She is barred and

enjoined from the practice of law in this state. 

Order of disbarment granted. 

Stark Ligon, Executive Director, by: Michael E. Harmon, Deputy Director, for

petitioner.

Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks, pro se respondent.

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7276

EDWARD W. JEFFERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:11-cv-02536-JFM)

Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward W. Jefferson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward W. Jefferson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal 

the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Jefferson 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 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
No. 56696.

protest 181510-K (New York).

#### Bleyeo Paper Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cellophane sheets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Coughlin Mfg. Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 40, C. D. 1345) and *Gillette Safety Razor Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 44, C. D. 1346), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

May 15, 1952

No. 56683.

protest 894327-G (Los Angeles).

#### W. X. Huber Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of kumquats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 342), the claim at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 was sustained. Fish and beans in tins, stipulated to be the same as those involved in Abstract 42516, were held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1558.
#### Bimini, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7472.

Invoices dated London, England, June 18, 1946, etc.

Certified June 19, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 28, 1946, etc.

Entry Nos. 1596; 1035.

(Decided December 11, 1947)

*Adolphus G. Redley*for the plaintiff.

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

Cline, 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA 19-0492

____________________________________

)

PARK COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL )

COUNCIL and GREATER )

YELLOWSTONE COALITION, )

)

Plaintiffs and Appellees, )

) GRANT OF UNOPPOSED

v. ) MOTION FOR EXTENSION

) OF TIME

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF )

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY and )

LUCKY MINERALS, INC., )

)

Defendants and Appellants, )

)

and )

)

TIM FOX, in his capacity as Attorney )

General of the STATE OF MONTANA )

)

Intervenor and Appellant. )

____________________________________)

Pursuant to Rule 26(1), M.R.App.P. and for good cause appearing, the 

Department of Environmental Quality’s unopposed motion for an extension of 

time to file a supplemental brief on the issues identified in this Court’s Order 

issued on May 19, 2020 is GRANTED. All parties shall file their respective 

supplemental briefs on or before July 10, 2020.

06/03/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0492
Electronically signed by:

Laurie McKinnon

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 3 2020
Before the Flest Division,

August 28, 1939

No. 41996.

#### Protest 738291-G of Patten MacKenzie & Co. (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

There was an absence of competent evidence with regard to the component material of chief value of the boots and shoes in question. The protest was therefore overruled. Brown, J., concurred with qualifications.