alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9655)

#### J. J. Boll *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 950002; 966857.

(Decided April 7, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

The proper dutiable value of certain telephone equipment exported from Belgium is the subject of the above-enumerated appeals for a reappr'aisement.

By stipulation of the parties hereto, it has been agreed that on or about the date of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in Belgium either for home consumption or for export to the United States. It was further stipulated and agreed that, on or about that date, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the United States and that the cost of production of said merchandise, as defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(f)), is the invoice unit values, plus 6.64 per centum.

Upon the agreed facts, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f), *supra,*is the proper basis of value for the telephone equipment in issue and that said value is the invoice unit values, plus 6.64 per centum.

As to any other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

May 27, 1944

No. 49441.

#### Protests 965159-G, etc., of Atlantic & Pacific Packing Co., Inc. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

From the testimony of the examiner in behalf of the plaintiffs, and defense’s sole witness who was a smoked-fish dealer of 29 years’ experience, and who corroborated to some extent the examiner’s testimony; and further, in view, of Abstract 47541 and cited decisions, the court found that the merchandise in question is hard dry-smoked herring within the terms of the said Canadian Trade Agreements and therefore held it dutiable at % of 1 cent per pound as claimed.
----

----

**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**CERTIFICATE        OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**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/  Thomas                  W. Maher                                                            |   |   |   |
|                                                                                                       |   |   |   |
| Thomas                  W. MaherChief                  Financial OfficerNovember                  19, 2007 |   |   |   |

----
# C_2013026EN.01002403.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 5 November 2012 — Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins v Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé

(Case C-492/12)

2013/C 26/47

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the specificity requirement for the profession of dental practitioner, laid down by Article 36 of Directive 2005/36/EC, (1) prevent the creation of a postgraduate university training course leading to a qualification which is common to medical students and dental students? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the specificity requirement for the profession of dental practitioner, laid down by Article 36 of Directive 2005/36/EC, (1) prevent the creation of a postgraduate university training course leading to a qualification which is common to medical students and dental students?

1

| 2. | Must the provisions of the Directive on specialties related to medicine be construed as meaning that disciplines such as those listed in point 3 of this decision (2) may not be included in a dental training course? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the provisions of the Directive on specialties related to medicine be construed as meaning that disciplines such as those listed in point 3 of this decision (2) may not be included in a dental training course?

2

---

(1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

1

(2)  Namely, on the one hand, theoretical training in oral surgery including in particular training in surgery on the periapex and on odontogenic and non-odontogenic cysts of the jaws, pre-prosthetic and implant surgery, the study of benign tumour conditions, salivary conditions and orthodontic-surgical and orthognathic treatment, and on the other, practical training lasting at least three semesters in a specialist dentistry department and three semesters in a specialist maxillofacial department.

2

---
#### Tobias & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6846

Entry Nos. 703113; 750979.

Invoices dated London, England, June 23, 1942, etc.

Certified July 6, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 7, 1942, etc.

(Decided February 6, 1947)

*Lane & Wallace*for the plaintiff.

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

Laweence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all *373material 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), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importer on entries because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDGAR AYALA BRIBIESCA,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER

, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 71016

Agency No. A200

- 691

- 635

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 27, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Edgar Ayala Bribiesca , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal

, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

DEC 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 71016

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the BIA ’s

factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006).

We deny the petition for review.

Among other reasons, the BIA denied asylum as a matter of discretion

.

Bribiesca does not raise any arguments challenging this dispositive determination.

See Martinez

- Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996)

. Thus, we deny

the petition as to Bribiesca’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA ’s determination that Bribiesca failed

to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground

. See

INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) ( an applicant “ must provide some

evidence of [moti ve], direct or circumstantial ”) (emphasis in original); see also

Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’ s “desire to be

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Bribiesca’s withholding of

removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA ’s denial of CAT relief because

Bribiesca failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with

the consent or acq

uiescence of the government of Mexico. See Delgado

- Ortiz v.

Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and

crime in Mexico was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish3 15

- 71016

eligibility for CAT relief

).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1394 

To allow a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue 

to serve on the Commission if a successor is not appointed and confirmed 

in a timely manner. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 20 (legislative day, JULY 19), 2011 

Mr. WEBB (for himself and Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To allow a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue to serve on the Commission if a successor is not appointed and confirmed in a timely manner. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COMMISSIONER TERMS. 

4 Section 201(c) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 

5 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5841(c)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘(c) Each member’’ and insert7 ing the following: 

8 ‘‘(c) TERM.— 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1394 IS

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (3), 

2 each member’’; 

3 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘For the 

4 purpose’’ and inserting the following: 

5 ‘‘(2) EXPIRATION OF TERM.—For the purpose’’; 

6 (3) in paragraph (1) (as designated by para7 graph (1)), by striking ‘‘appointment; and except 

8 that’’ and all that follows through the end of the 

9 paragraph and inserting ‘‘appointment.’’; and 

10 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(3) EXCEPTIONS.— 

12 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any member who is 

13 appointed to fill a vacancy that occurs prior to 

14 the expiration of the term of the predecessor of 

15 that member shall be appointed for the remain16 der of the term of the predecessor. 

17 ‘‘(B) APPLICABILITY OF TERM LIMITA18 TION.—Notwithstanding the term limitation 

19 under paragraph (1), any member who has not 

20 been removed by the President under subsection 

21 (e) may continue to serve on the Commission 

22 until the earlier of— 

23 ‘‘(i) the date on which the successor 

24 of the member has been appointed and 

25 confirmed; or 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1394 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) the date on which the first new 

2 Congress begins after the term of the 

3 member has expired.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Edward Thomas Zakarian, Private Pilot

– Section 333 Amendment Petition

To: U.S. Department of Transportation

, Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Rm. W 12

- 140

12 00 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Fr: Edward T homas Zakarian , 3169 Santa Margarita Road, West palm Beach, Florida

33411

Date: December 27 , 2015



### Regarding: Request to amend and allow for an additional aircraft on exemption #11739 and #11739A , docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0893 and to amend

al titude to include “at or below 4 00 feet Above Ground Level” (AGL).

Dear Sir or Madam :

On June 5, 2015, I was granted exemption un der Section 333 of the “FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012” (the “Reform Act”), number 11739 for the purpose of aerial data collection. I respectfully request to amend my exemption to allow for an additional sUAS, the DJI Inspire 1 (Pro) , to be operated i n full compliance with the conditions as set forth within subject exemption.

Exemption No. 11739 allowed for operation of the DJI Phantom 2 Vision + UAS. On

N ovember 5, 2015, I was granted A mendment N o. 11739A , for the addition of the DJI Phantom 3. As technology progresses and improv es with each new generation of quad copter, clients seek service providers offering the latest im agery. Consequently, I am requesting to add the new DJI Inspire 1 to my COA. The DJI Inspire 1 continues to
operate with the same or greater level of safety standards and possesses the same operating specifications and similar weight cr iteria as can be found in the operating
manual attached , but with the addition of technology upgrades to its electronics making this an even safer aircraft to operate. The DJI Inspire 1 will be operated in full compliance within the same terms and conditions contained under Exemption 11739 and
11739A and within the sa fety guidelines specified in the manufacturers operating manual.
I have attached D JI Inspire 1 manual in the docket for your reference.

I also request subject exemption be amended from the current “at or below 200 feet
AGL” limitation to “at or below 400 feet AGL”. This altitude limitation has been granted in similar exemptions such as Exemption No. 12157. Authorization to operate at or below 400 feet AGL shall be conducted in accordance to all FAA airspace and safety guidelines and would allow my services t o be competitive to other Aerial Data Collection companies permitted to operate at the higher altitude.

As there is no change in the conditions of Exemption 11739 or 11739A , other than those specified above, the exemption awarded continues to benefit the public inte rest and safety, I request my petition to amend subject exemption be granted. Further, should theEdward Thomas Zakarian, Private Pilot

– Section 333 Amendment Petition

examiner determine not to approve either of my two proposed amendments, I ask they be considered individually so as not to negatively effect one another.

Si ncerely,

Edward Thomas Zakarian
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MONTAVIOUS J. SANDERS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 2

- 0421

[ May 19, 2022 ]

Appeal from order denying rule 3.850 motion in the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Lawrence Mirman

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562018CF002976

.

Montavious J. Sanders, Crawfordville , pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, C IKLIN and G ERBER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 54339.

#### Kary Safe Paper Bag Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 151769-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the papers failing to disclose any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
No. 54934.

#### Otto Roth & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 155673-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers, the court was unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6822

MAURICE EDGAR MCKENZIE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CA-01-4700-9)

Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 24, 2004

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Edgar McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Maurice Edgar McKenzie, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,

368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that McKenzie has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

Additionally, we construe McKenzie’s notice of appeal and

informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or

successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). In order

to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a

prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of
- 3 -

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the

Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly

discovered evidence that would be sufficient to establish by clear

and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have

found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2),

2255 (2000). McKenzie’s claim does not satisfy either of these

conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize McKenzie to file a

successive § 2255 motion. 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
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 10852 and # 10853] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 1. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-1692-DR), dated 4/24/2007. 

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms and Inland and Coastal Flooding.                     

*Incident Period:*                         4/14/2007 through 4/18/2007.                     

*Effective Date:*                         5/3/2007.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         6/25/2007.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         1/24/2008.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of New York, dated 4/24/2007 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: 

*Primary Counties:*

Albany, Dutchess, Richmond. 

*Contiguous Counties:*

New York: Columbia, Greene, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie. 

Connecticut: Litchfield. 

Massachusetts: Berkshire. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-9161 Filed 5-11-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 2, 2009 

jm 

Order 

 

December 2, 2009 

139623 

EDDIE L. DILLARD, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 139623 

 CoA: 292778 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

___________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff-appellant having failed to pay the 

partial filing fee as required by the order of September 9, 2009, the Clerk of the Court is 

hereby directed to close this file.