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

February 11, 1942

No. 46937.

#### Protests 969971-G, etc., of Quon Quon Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the merchandise consists of boxes, napkin rings, salt and pepper shakers, vases, cups, bowls, jars, letter openers, candy boxes, rulers, stamp boxes, trays, sets of seven pieces, snuff bottles, etc., which are chiefly used in the kitchen or household or on the table for utilitarian purposes, not plated, and that they are similar to those the subject of Abstract 45722. In accordance therewith they were held dutiable as table or *465household utensils at 40 percent • under, paragraph 339. It was also stipulated that merchandise consisting of boxes, sets of three pieces, holders, trays, sets of seven pieces, etc., are smokers’ articles composed in chief value of metal, and that said articles are not plated and contain no electrical elements. These articles were held dutiable as smokers’ articles at 60 percent under paragraph 1552 as claimed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8314

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

BERNARD GIBSON, JR., 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:94-cr-00454-PJM-7) 

Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Bernard Gibson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Chan 

Park, Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Bernard Gibson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order construing his petition for a writ of audita 

querela as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2008), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Gibson 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
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1485 

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to include ultralight vehicles under the 

definition of aircraft for purposes of the aviation smuggling provisions 

under that Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2011 

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. HELLER, Mr. BINGAMAN, and 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to include ultralight vehicles under the definition of aircraft for purposes of the 

aviation smuggling provisions under that Act, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may cited as the ‘‘Ultralight Aircraft Smug5 gling Prevention Act of 2011’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1485 IS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE AVIATION SMUGGLING PRO2 VISIONS OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 590 of the Tariff Act of 

4 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1590) is amended— 

5 (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub6 section (h); and 

7 (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘(g) DEFINITION OF AIRCRAFT.—As used in this sec10 tion, the term ‘aircraft’ includes an ultralight vehicle, as 

11 defined by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad12 ministration.’’. 

13 (b) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—Subsection (d) of section 

14 590 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1590(d)) is 

15 amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by insert16 ing ‘‘, or attempts or conspires to commit,’’ after ‘‘com17 mits’’. 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section apply with respect to violations of any provi20 sion of section 590 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on or after 

21 the 30th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

22 SEC. 3. INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION. 

23 The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 

24 Engineering shall, in consultation with the Under Sec25 retary for Science and Technology of the Department of 

26 Homeland Security, identify equipment and technology 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1485 IS

1 used by the Department of Defense that could also be used 

2 by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to detect and 

3 track the illicit use of ultralight aircraft near the inter4 national border between the United States and Mexico. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-11342

Summary Calendar

 

KIRK DOUGLAS THOMPSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; TIM

MORGAN, Warden; JAMES DUKE, Assistant Warden;

JAMES WAKEFIELD, Warden; S. O. WOODS, 

Classification Chief; ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:98-CV-74-BA

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

September 29, 1999

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kirk Douglas Thompson, a Texas prisoner (# 636131), appeals

from a judgment, entered by the magistrate judge, which dismissed

his civil rights complaint as frivolous. For the reasons

assigned, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate

jurisdiction.
No. 98-11342

-2-

The statutory authority for a magistrate judge to adjudicate

a matter is found in 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), which provides in

pertinent part: 

 (1) Upon the consent of the parties, a . . .

magistrate [judge] . . . may conduct any or all

proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order

the entry of judgment in the case, when specially

designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the

district court or courts he serves. . . . 

(emphasis added). When the magistrate judge enters final

judgment in a suit pursuant to § 636(c)(1), lack of consent and

defects in the order of reference are jurisdictional errors that

cannot be waived. EEOC v. West Louisiana Health Servs., Inc.,

959 F.2d 1277, 1281-82 & nn.3 and 4 (5th Cir. 1992); see also

Mendes Jr. Intern. Co. v. M/V Sokai Maru, 978 F.2d 920, 923-24

(5th Cir. 1992). 

A review of the record reveals that Thompson never provided

written consent to the entry of judgment by the magistrate judge. 

The magistrate judge thus lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment

in this case. See West Louisiana Health Servs., 959 F.2d at

1281-82. 

Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction, and the

appeal is DISMISSED. See Trufant v. Autocon, Inc., 729 F.2d 308,

309 (5th Cir. 1984).

DISMISSED.
No. 45237.

#### Protests 642519-G, etc., of Fares G. Deban et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 39105.

#### Protests 846087-G, etc., of F. W. Woolworth Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 37637 the spring daggers in question were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 397 as claimed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 12, 2014

NO. 03-14-00037-CV

Manouchehr Ziari, SAIF Corporation d/b/a Ace Taxi, and Ace Taxi, Appellants

v.

The City of Austin, Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on October 23, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that Manouchehr Ziari, SAIF Corporation d/b/a Ace Taxi, 

and Ace Taxi have not prosecuted their appeal and did not comply with a notice from the Clerk 

of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution. The appellants

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
No. 50729.

#### Protests 65270-K, etc., of Carl Zeiss, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                 UT
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000,000
<CURRENCY>                                         British Pounds Sterling
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                             MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1.6765
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                         1060
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                         73
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             266
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                    1063
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2462
<COMMON>                                           440
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                               (117)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                     323
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                              1026 
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 483
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                         1026
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        5
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                     625
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                     2462
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                         1285
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                (1)
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        1124
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        1124
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            161
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 (24)   
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     122
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           121   
<NET-INCOME>                                      (117)    
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0     
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                     (117)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                           35   
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                              62
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0 <F1>
<FN>
<F1> NOT AVAILABLE 

</FN>

</TABLE>
# C_2017277EN.01003301.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2017 — Arbuzov v Council

(Case T-221/15) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list - Principle of sound administration - Rights of defence - Duty to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property))

(2017/C 277/48)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Machytková and V. Fišar, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 25), (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1), (iii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 76) and (iv) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Sergej Arbuzov to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Sergej Arbuzov to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

1

---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ John H. MarmadukeJohn H. MarmadukePresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Dan Crow

Dan CrowVice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 A signed original of this written statement required by §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has
been provided to Hastings Entertainment, Inc. and will be retained by Hastings Entertainment, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.
Exhibit 32.1



                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Security Instruments,
Inc. (the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2004 as
filed  with  the   Securities   and  Exchange   Commission  and  to  which  this
Certification  is an exhibit (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned  hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1)   The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            (2)   The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial  condition and result of
                  operations of the Company for the periods reflected therein.



Date: November 15, 2004                         /s/ Harvey B. Grossblatt
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Harvey B. Grossblatt
                                            Chief Executive Officer


                                                        /s/ James B. Huff
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            James B. Huff
                                            Chief Financial Officer
Draft Agenda

Telephone Conference Call of LV Group

December 20, 2011  

 Introductions

 Presentation of Small Business Survey results

 Presentation of Schneider proposal

 Discussion of EL for DL 7 and 8

 Discussion of Data Center Exclusion

 Vote

 Discussion of Next Steps
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                          Certification of CEO and CFO
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                       as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Urban Improvement Fund
- 1974 (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Paul H. Pfleger, as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of
the Partnership, and John M. Orehek as the equivalent of the Chief Financial
Officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of his knowledge:

     1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and 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 Partnership.







Date: 12-31-05                      /s/Paul H. Pfleger
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Paul H. Pfleger




Date: 12-31-05                      /s/John M. Orehek
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name:  John M. Orehek


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 23.2

                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-58315, 333-58319, 333-58323) of Aztec
Technology Partners, Inc. of our report dated June 7, 1996, except for Note
9, as to which the date is October 24, 1996, relating to the financial
statements of Fortran Corp., appearing on page F-3 of this Form 10-K/A.

Rubin, Koehmstedt and Nadler
Springfield, Virginia
August 2, 1999
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 90 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8972]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2219-020--Utah]


Garkane Energy Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Final 
Environmental Assessment

May 4, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for new license for the 
Boulder Creek Hydroelectric Project, located on Boulder Creek in 
Garfield County, Utah, and has prepared a final Environmental 
Assessment (EA) for the project. The project occupies 29.59 acres of 
Federal land, administered by the U.S. Forest Service as part of the 
Dixie National Forest.
    The final EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential 
environmental impacts of the project and concludes that issuing a new 
license for the project, with appropriate environmental protective 
measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in 
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket 
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to 
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#95d3d0c7d6dafbf9fcfbf0c6e0e5e5fae7e1d5f3f0e7f6bbf2fae3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f393a2d3c30111316111a2c0a0f0f100d0b3f191a0d1c51181009">[email protected]</span></a> or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and 
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, 
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Dianne Rodman at (202) 502-6077.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8972 Filed 5-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Before the First Division,

March 15, 1943

No. 48103.

#### Protests 980988-G, etc., of Kneeland Lumber Co., Inc., et al. (Portland, Maine).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

At the trial counsel for the parties stipulated that the merchandise was the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Pacific Customs Brokerage Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 146, C. D. 387), which involves certain sticks. The record in that case was incorporated herein. At a later hearing samples of the merchandise in question were received in evidence as collective exhibit 1. On the record presented and following the cited case the claim for free entry under paragraph 1803 was sustained, but the merchandise was held subject to tax under the internal revenue act as amended.