alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

George Grigsby,

Petitioner,

v.

Judge Mary Thomas, Circuit Court of 

Cook County Illinois,

Respondent.

Case No. 20-cv-3197 (CRC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner George Grigsby has filed a pro se “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

Pursuant to 28 USC 2241, 2254.” In the petition, which names as respondent Judge Mary 

Thomas, of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Grigsby challenges Judge Thomas’s 

decision “to place him in a mental health institution without a grand jury indictment[.]” Pet. at 1. 

Grigsby has filed repeated prior habeas actions in this District, each naming Judge Thomas as 

respondent and raising this same challenge. See Grigsby v. Thomas, 14-cv-1579, 2014 WL 

4661195, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2014) (noting five prior petitions). In each, this Court found 

that it did not have jurisdiction over Grigsby’s petition. See, e.g., Grigsby v. Thomas, 18-cv2221 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2019) (ECF No. 3). The Court reaches the same conclusion here, and so 

dismisses the petition without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.

The proper respondent for a habeas petition is the petitioner’s custodian. See Rumsfeld v. 

Padilla, 542 US. 426, 438–41 (2004). As in his previous unsuccessful petitions, Grigsby has not 

here indicated “how Judge Mary Thomas”—who he alleges placed him in a mental health 

institution—“could be his custodian.” Grigsby, 2014 WL 4661195, at *1. Moreover, even if 

Judge Thomas were the proper respondent, this Court would not have jurisdiction over Grigsby’s 
2

petition because a federal district court “may not entertain a habeas petition [under § 2241] 

unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction.” Stokes v. U.S. Parole 

Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004). As a fellow judge of this Court has already 

recognized, if Grigsby “is confined at all, his confinement appears to be” in Illinois, “not 

Washington, D.C.”— the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Grigsby, 2014 WL 4661195, at 

*1.

Because the Court does not have jurisdiction over Grigsby’s petition, it will dismiss this 

matter without prejudice. A separate Order shall accompany this memorandum opinion.

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER

United States District Judge

Date: August 18, 2021
April 4, 1942

No. 47047.

Suit 4364.

#### *S. L. Jones & Co.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 472 affirmed. C. A. D. 194.
19 MAY 201 6

Mr. Pat Mullen

FAA

- Small Airplane Directorate

901 Locust St

Room 301 Kansas City, MO 64106

USA

Dear Mr. Mullen :

SUBJECT: FAR 23.1549(b)

- Exemption No. 1 3042

– Application for Exemption Extension

REFERENCE: Regulatory Docket N o. FAA

- 2011

- 1345

The DHC

- 6 Series 400 aircraft that are “ N ” regi stered in the United States, are currently operating under Exemption No. 1 3042 . Prior to this, they have been operating under Exemption No. 10465 and Exemption No.

11059

.

On January 6, 2016

, Viking Air Limited (VAL) obtained Transport Canada certification of our Phase 2A avionics upgrade that enables S

. O

. O

. 6280 “ FAA Instrument Display Colours ”

. S

. O

. O

. 6280 address es the non

compliance with 23.1549(b) for the DHC

- 6 Series 400

.

VAL is currently in the process of having Phase 2A validated with the FAA and just wrapped up two days of meetings (12

- 13 MAY 2016) at the New York Aircraft Certification Office . Although the FAA team will make every effort to complete their validation in time to meet the requirements of Exemption No. 1 3042 , VAL was advised to request an additional extension to m inimize the e ffect a delay in the valid ation process m a y have.

Please accept this letter as VAL ’ s official application to extend Exemption No. 1 3042 f or an additional twelve

month s

.

I appreciate your consideration and look forward to hearing back from you at your earliest convenience

.

Yours truly,

Adam Dennis

, P.Eng. Manager, Certification Engineer ing

cc.

Serge Napoleon, FAA

– New York Aircraft Certification Office

Brian Hernandez , FAA

– New York Aircraft Certification Office

Jim Rutherford

, FAA

- Small Airplane Directorate Roger Goossens, TCCA

- Prairie and Northern Region
# C_2015236EN.01001001.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Finanzamt Ulm v Ingeborg Wagner-Raith

(Case C-560/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Derogation - Movement of capital involving the provision of financial services - National legislation providing for flat-rate taxation of investment income from holdings in foreign investment funds - Black funds))

(2015/C 236/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Finanzamt Ulm

Appellant:

Respondent: Ingeborg Wagner-Raith

Respondent:

Intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Intervener:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 64 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for flat-rate taxation of the income of holders of units in a non-resident investment fund when the latter has not fulfilled certain statutory obligations constitutes a measure which relates to movement of capital involving the provision of financial services within the meaning of that article.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

1

---
No. 39208.

#### Protest 852625-G of John Alban & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was agreed that certain items consist of origan or herb leaves similar to the merchandise the subject of *United States*v. *Strohmeyer*(25 C. C. P. A. 120, T. D. 49242). The claim for free entry as crude vegetable substances under paragraph 1722 was therefore sustained.
## TEEEA~~~RNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS

AUBTIN 

## H.TEXAS GERAID C. MANN 

## -N ATl’ORNpN GENE-X.

Honorable George Ii.Sheppard Comptroller-~of

Public Accounts Austin, Texas
Dear Sir: OpinionNo. O-2045 Re: Is the Comptroller authorized to issue Warrant against the' $25,000.00 ContlngenVExpense Approprlation'to the Board of Education for the payment of fire'lnsurancepremium insuring textbooks In storage belonging to the State of Texas?
We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 

## 5,1940, as follows:

"Is this department authorized to issue warrant against the $25,OOO.OO Contingent Expense Appropriation to the Board of Educatlon for the payment of fire insurancepremium insuring textbooks in storagebelonging to the State of Texas?
"For explanation I am attaching clatm of A. N. McCalluin,

Jr. & Co., General Insurance and Loans, against the State Department of Education in the amount of $92.25, covering the premium for fire insurancepolicy issued as protection against loss by fire of such books."
In opinionNo. Q-201, addressed to Dr. George W.'Cox, State Health Officer, this department advised that the directors of Public Health distr%cts were not authorized to insure State property in their respective offices against fire and pay the premiums therefor aut of their local contingent funds. The controlling reason given for that opinionwas a resolutionby the Senate declaring the policy of the State to be that it Would carry its own insurance.

OpinionNo. O-842, addressed to Honorable Charles E. Baughinan,Chief Clerk,Department of Agriculture, involving insurance on jacksand stallionsbelonging to the department, followed opinionNo. O-201, and further noted the absence ofHonorable Lee Brady, page 2 O-2045

any specific appropriation for the purpose of payingpremiums upon insurance.

In oplnnion

No. O-1100, and a supplement thereto, addressed to Honorable 0. J. S. Elllngson,General Manager, Texas Prison System,we-advised that in the absence of statutory authority so to do, it would be improper to pay premiums upon Insurancepolicies. In opinionNo. 

## o-1762, addressed to ytirself,we followed these opinions,and specificallydlsapproved for payment claims for Insurancepremiumsupon certain ferry boats owned by the State Highway department.

The $25,OOO.OO item of appropriationreferred to by you is for maintenance and miscellaneous, and Itemized: "Office and depository supplies,postage, express,drayage, telephone, telegraph,printing, stationery, rent, contingent expense, lneluding freight on used ~textbooks." It is not that specific appropriation for insuranceas will suffice for the payment of the items presented to you.

We are returning herewith the statements, in accordance with your request.

Trusting that thi,s will have satlsfactorllyanswered your question,we are Very truly yours ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS

OS-MR-WC Enclosure
APPROVED MAR 20, 1940 s/GeraldC. Mann ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS By s/Ocie Speer Ocie Speer Assistant

Approved Opinion CommitteeBy s/BWB Chairman
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Broadwind Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Cameron Drecoll,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ J. Cameron Drecoll                                |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| J. Cameron Drecoll                                    |   |
| Chief Executive Officer(principal  executive officer) |   |
|                                                  |   |
|                                                  |   |
| Date: May 11, 2009                               |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 99.14

                           CERTIFICATION 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  of The  Art  Boutique,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I,
Ronald A. Shogren, President and CEO of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sction 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/ Ronald A. Shogren
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Ronald A. Shogren, President/CEO

Dated:  1/14/02
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION 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 of FirstBingo.com (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Thomas M. Sheppard, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 12th day of August, 2003.



| | /s/ Thomas Sheppard
Thomas M. Sheppard 
Chief Executive Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------













---
# C_2014112EN.01001501.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — HaTeFo GmbH v Finanzamt Haldensleben

(Case C-110/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises - Types of enterprises taken into consideration in calculating staff numbers and financial amounts - Linked enterprises - Notion of ‘group of natural persons acting jointly’))

2014/C 112/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HaTeFo GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Haldensleben

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) of the Annex to the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36) — Types of enterprises taken into consideration in calculating staff numbers and financial amounts — Linked enterprises — Notion of group of natural persons acting jointly.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises must be interpreted as meaning that enterprises may be regarded as ‘linked’ for the purposes of that article where it is clear from the analysis of the legal and economic relations between them that, through a natural person or a group of natural persons acting jointly, they constitute a single economic unit, even though they do not formally have any of the relationships referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that annex.

Natural persons who work together in order to exercise an influence over the commercial decisions of the enterprises concerned which precludes those enterprises from being regarded as economically independent from each other are to be regarded as acting jointly for the purposes of the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that annex. Whether that condition is satisfied depends on the circumstances of the case and is not necessarily conditional on the existence of contractual relations between those persons or a finding that they intended to circumvent the definition of a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of that recommendation.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of DCI USA, Inc. (the "Company")
does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 11, 2005                          Michael Gibbs
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Michael Gibbs
                                                  Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 46432.

#### Protests 59310-K, etc., of Hochhauser Leather Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9814]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending May 11, 2007

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: OST-2007-28180.
    Date Filed: May 8, 2007.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: May 29, 2007.
    Description: Joint Application of ATA Airlines, Inc. (``ATA''), 
North American Airlines, Inc. (``North American'') and World Airways, 
Inc. (``World'') requesting approval of the de facto transfer of 
certain international certificate and exemption authority currently 
held by North American and World to ATA.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E7-9814 Filed 5-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
(Reap. Dec. 9076)

#### Bemo Shipping Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 791994, etc.

(Decided February 19, 1958)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon stipulation of counsel reading as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise the subject of the appeals enumerated in the attached Schedule A consists of certain rubber gloves imported from the United Kingdom.

> 2. That on or about the dates of exportation of the said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption therein or.for export to the United States; that such or similar imported merchandise was not at the aforesaid time freely offered for sale in the United States for domestic consumption therein; that cost of production, as defined in Section 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis of appraisement of the said merchandise; and that such cost of production for the merchandise covered by each appeal is as set forth in Schedule A attached hereto.

On the agreed facts I find cost of production, as that value is defined In section 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the rubber gloves involved, and that such values were as set forth in said schedule *“A.”*

Judgment will issue accordingly.

> Schedule *“A”*

> Bemo Shipping Co.

> Reap. No. Cost of production in English pounds sterling per dozen pairs Date of export Entry

> 249816-A/8502. 24 shillings_ 1/3/52 •791994

> 249817-A/8505. 17 shillings 3 pence_ 1/10/51 821044

> 249818-A/8506. 22 shillings_ 1/12/51 818455

> 250030-A/8620. 22 shillings. 3/3/51 846063

> 250035-A/8629. 3/13/52 825375

> 250038-A/8632. 3/27/52 833653

> 250041-A/8635. 250043-A/8637. 4/24/52 5/3/52 ■ 24 shillings. 842975 848453

> 250050-A/8648. 5/8/52 852084

> 250056-A/8654. 6/25/52 872744

> 256900-A/3305. 1/22/551 834956

> 258494-A/4779. 258888-A/5098. 260219-A/6173. 3/24/551 shillings, less 3 %, less 13.0175 pence 3/30/55J 857496 869992 873544

> *697Reap. No. Date of export Cost of production in English pounds sterling per dozen pairs Entry-

> 260218-A/6169_ 4/28/55 892567

> 260698-A/6629_ 5/17/55 905510

> 261624r-A/7703_ 261625-A/7704_ 6/21/55 6/21/55 26 shillings, less 3%, less 13.0175pence. 929035 929036

> 261626-A/7705_ 5/26/55 910436

> 262912-A/8705_ 6/26/55J 701399

> 265250-A/10236_ 10/10/65' 772787

> 265873-A/10833 _ _ 11/2/55 28 shillings, )4 pence, less 3%, less 790175

> 268484-A/725_ 12/22/55 13.0175 pence 831476

> 269880-A/01841__ 11/30/55J 815992
# C_2014261EN.01000802.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/8

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-412/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 34(1), 75 and 77(1) - Earlier national and international figurative marks MEDINET - Claiming seniority - Refusal))

2014/C 261/13

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.

1

---