alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 46515.

#### Petition 6069-R of Edward P. Paul & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It appeared from the uncontradicted testimony of the president of the petitioning corporation that the agreed price was 2.40 Czecho-Slovakian crowns f. o. b. Czecho-Slovakia, or 3 Czecho-Slovakian crowns f. o. b. Hamburg, the difference representing the freight from factory to seaport. When the invoice upon which entry was made arrived it was noted that the price given thereon was 3 Czecho-Slovakian crowns f. o. b. factory, whereupon the witness instructed entry at 2.40 Czecho-Slovakian crowns. He wrote to the factory for a correct invoice, which was supplied, but in the meantime appraisement had been made at the higher price. Through oversight no appeal to reappraisement was filed. The court was satisfied that entry was made without any intention to defraud the revenue or deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7514

TYRONE L. ROBERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LARRY DUBOSE, Captain; MR. SOTTILE, Chief

Jailer; J. JENKINS, Jailer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District

Judge. (CA-97-3444-5-11-BF)

Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 16, 2001

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone L. Roberson, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac McDuffie Stone, III,

LAW OFFICE OF DUFFIE STONE, Bluffton, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Lamar Roberson, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the

district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants,

denying his motion for appointment of counsel, denying his writ of

mandamus and denying relief requested in supplemental motions to

his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28

U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). This Court reviews only those

issues raised in the appellant’s informal brief, therefore, only

the motion for summary judgment is before this Court. 4th Cir. R.

34(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find that

this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. See Roberson v. DuBose, No.

CA-97-3444-5-11-BF (D.S.C. Sept. 13, 2000). 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
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20043]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 072297F]


Magnuson Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The NMFS Alaska Region will hold an essential fish habitat 
(EFH) team meeting to discuss the following items: development of FY 98 
funding proposals; review of salmon, crab, scallop, and groundfish 
habitat assessment reports; discussion of a process for public 
involvement and incorporation of traditional knowledge; Geographical 
Information Systems needs, research needs.

DATES: The Alaska Region core EFH team will meet August 4-5, 1997, in 
Juneau, AK. The meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. each day.

ADDRESSES: The team will meet in room 445 B and 445 C in the Federal 
Building located at 709 W. 9th Street, Juneau, AK.
    Questions be addressed to Protected Resources Management Division, 
709 W. 9th Street, Suite 461, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; 
telephone: (907) 586-7235.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Hartmann, NMFS, (907) 586-7585; 
e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f99a90979d80d791988b8d94989797b997969898d79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99faf0f7fde0b7f1f8ebedf4f8f7f7d9f7f6f8f8b7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The NMFS Alaska Region core EFH team was formally established in 
April 1997 to implement the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. EFH provisions include the 
description and identification of essential fish habitat and threats to 
that habitat.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Cindy Hartmann, (907) 586-7235, at least 5 
working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: July 24, 1997.
Bruce C. Morehead,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 97-20043 Filed 7-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


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

                                   Exhibit 21

            List of Subsidiaries of Reliance Acceptance Group, Inc.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

<S>       <C>                                        <C>
Reliance Acceptance Corporation* (2)

          Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Arizona (2)   Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Nevada (2)
          Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Colorado (2)  Reliance Acceptance Corp. of New Mexico (2)
          Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Florida (2)   Reliance Acceptance Corp. of North Carolina (2)
          Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Georgia (2)   Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Ohio (3)
          Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Illinois (2)  Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Oregon (2)
          Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Indiana (2)   Reliance Acceptance Corp. of South Carolina (2)
          Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Iowa (2)      Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Tennessee (2)
          Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Kentucky (2)  Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Texas (4)
          Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Minnesota(2)  Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Utah (2)
          Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Missouri (2)  Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Washington (2)
          Reliance Acceptance Corp. of Michigan(2)   Reliance Auto Receivable Corporation (2)
</TABLE>

*    Indicates direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Reliance Acceptance Group, Inc.


(2)  State of Incorporation = Delaware
(3)  State of Incorporation = Ohio
(4)  State of Incorporation = Texas

                                       56
EXHIBIT
32.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002







In
connection with the Quarterly Report of nFinanSe Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 27, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry R. Welch, in my
capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





The
Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/
      Jerry R. WelchDate:  
      November 11, 2008
            Jerry
      R. Welch
              Chief
      Executive Officer and Director
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-40631 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee

v. ORLANDO GARCIA, also known as Orlando Amador Garcia Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:10-CR-1128-11

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Orlando Garcia appeals his jury-trial c o nviction for conspiracy t o possess, with intent to dis t r i b u t e, more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 2 1 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. G arcia, who testified at trial, claims the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Denial of a motion f

or a judgment of acquittal i s reviewed de novo . E.g. , United States v. T

homas , 690 F.3d 358, 366 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied , 2013 WL 598783 (19 Feb. 2013). The convictio n will be upheld if, “viewing the U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 5, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-40631 Document: 00512199227 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2013No. 12-40631

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found t h e essential elements of the c rime beyond a reasonable doubt”. Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Garcia’s conspiracy conviction required the Government to prove: “(1) an agreement existed between two o r more p ersons to violate federal narcotics law, (2) the defendant knew of the existence of the agreement, and (3) the defendant voluntarily participated in the c o n s p i racy”. I d. (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Government’s evidenc e , including numerous recorded t e lephone conversations, s how e d G a r c i a , h i s c o - d e f e n d a n t s , a n d a n u n n a m e d c o - c o n s p i r a tor

w e r e members of a prison gang that required its members to sell d r u g s , a n d Garcia devised a plan to sell two pounds of m ethamphetamine in Arkansas; this evidence was s ufficient to p rove h e knowingly and voluntarily a greed t o violate federal narcotics laws. E.g. , id. a t 3 6 6

- 6 8 ; United States v. Baptiste , 264 F.3d 578, 587-88 (5th C ir. 2 001), rev’d on other grounds , 309 F .3d 274 (5th C ir. 2002). The jury was free to reject Garcia’s explanation that h e d i d not intend to carry out the plan. E.g. , United States v. Meza , 701 F.3d 4 11, 420 (5th Cir. 2012 )

. Further, that the methamphetamine was never put on the market or sold is of

no consequence. E .g. , Iannelli v . United States , 4 2 0 U .S. 770, 777-78 (1975); United States v. Dixon , 132 F.3d 192, 200-01 (5th Cir. 1997). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-40631 Document: 00512199227 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2013
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 22 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend and 

expand the additional standard deduction for real property taxes for 

nonitemizers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 

extend and expand the additional standard deduction 

for real property taxes for nonitemizers. 

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 be cited as the ‘‘Homeowner Tax Fair5 ness Act of 2011’’. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 22 IS

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF ADDI2 TIONAL STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR REAL 

3 PROPERTY TAXES FOR NONITEMIZERS. 

4 (a) PERMANENT EXTENSION.—Subparagraph (C) of 

5 section 63(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘in the case of any taxable year be7 ginning in 2008 or 2009,’’. 

8 (b) REMOVAL OF DOLLAR LIMITATION.—Paragraph 

9 (7) of section 63(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

10 is amended to read as follows: 

11 ‘‘(7) REAL PROPERTY TAX DEDUCTION.—For 

12 purposes of paragraph (1), the real property tax de13 duction is equal to the amount allowable as a deduc14 tion under this chapter for State and local taxes de15 scribed in section 164(a)(1). Any taxes taken into 

16 account under section 62(a) shall not be taken into 

17 account under this paragraph.’’. 

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

19 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

20 December 31, 2009. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
No. 48277.

#### Petition 6257-R of Adolff Bobbin Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It appeared that prior to entry of the merchandise two questions arose in discussion of the matter by the representatives of the petitioner and the customs officials. One was whether a deduction of 8 percent for profit was allowable and the other the deduction of a 25 percent countervailing duty in calculating the United States value. An impasse having been reached, it was decided to make up two test cases for determination of the questions by the courts, and the two entries here involved covered the merchandise represented by those cases. As the record showed that the petitioner cooperated at all times with the customs officials and that the undervaluation was the result of an honest difference of opinion respecting the application of the laws involved, the court was satisfied that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted.
(Reap. Dec. 9151)

#### United States *v.*Mailliard & Schmiedell

Entry No. CE 9168.

(Decided May 14, 1958)

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGibbon,*trial attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle, Jr.,*of counsel) for the defendant.

WilsoN, Judge:

This is a collector’s appeal for reappraisement of certain brisling sardines exported from Norway and entered at the port of San Francisco.

The following appears from the record:

> Mb. FitzGibbon: There are two .types of merchandise, one, brislings in pure olive oil in a 2-layer pack, that was appraised at $18 per case.

> I offer to stipulate that the proper dutiable value is $22 per ease.

> Me. Tuttle: We agree.

> Mb. FitzGibbon: And the other type of merchandise was brislings in pure olive oil in what is known as a cross pack. That merchandise was appraised at $18.25 per case, and I offer to stipulate that the correct dutiable-value is $22 per case.

> Me. Tuttle: We agree.

On the aforesaid agreement between the respective parties herein, the case was ordered submitted.

I, therefore, find and hold that the proper value of the two types of merchandise herein involved is $22 per case.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41955-41956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20430]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-317-002]


Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

July 29, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 23, 1997, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, Second Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 254. 
The proposed effective date of this tariff sheet is May 1, 1997.
    WNG states that it made a filing on April 1, 1997 and a compliance 
filing on May 15, 1997 to amend Article 14 of the General Terms and 
Conditions of WNG's FERC Gas Tariff to provide for the extension of 
WNG's pricing differential mechanism (PDM) until October 1, 1999. By 
order issued July 21, 1997, the Commission approved the extension until 
October 1, 1998, and directed WNG to file a revised tariff sheet within 
10 days of the issuance of the order. The instant filing is being made 
in compliance with the order.
    WNG states that a copy of its filing was served on all participants 
listed on the service lists maintained by the Commission in the dockets 
referenced above and on all of WNG's jurisdictional customers and 
interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of

[[Page 41956]]

the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20430 Filed 8-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Re: 27-June-2015

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir or Madam; Snaproli Media, LLC was issued an Exemption numbered #11063 (hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of conducting scripted, closed-set filming for the motion picture and television industry. Snaproll Media, LLC hereby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow an additional type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the Exemption. Snaproll Media, LLC wishes to operate a 

### Evolution Matrix XLunder the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption. Attached hereto, and submitted as a confidential document, is the Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM) for the additional UAS. AII operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption. As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of another type of unmanned aerial vehicle, Snaproll Media, LLC respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment. Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption.
Sincerely yours,

cc: James Williams Robert Pappas Jake Troutman John McGraw Jonathan B. Hill

111298720 v1
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 40727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20276]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 1997 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 40727]]

                Memorandum of July 24, 1997

                
Delegation of Authority Under Section 1424 of the 
                National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997

                Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

                By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and 
                the laws of the United States of America, including 
                section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, I 
                hereby delegate to you, in consultation with the 
                Secretary of State, the authority vested in the 
                President under section 1424(c) of the National Defense 
                Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-
                201).

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, July 24, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97-20276
Filed 7-29-97; 8:45 am]
Billing code 5000-04-M
EXHIBIT 99.1



                            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 Magnolia Ventures, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, and each of us, Richard O. Hassan, Jr., Chief
Executive Officer and Tricia A. Willis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant toss.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.

/s/ RICHARD O. HASSAN, JR.
___________________________
    Richard O. Hassan, Jr.
    Chief Executive Officer



/s/ TRICIA A. WILLIS
______________________
    Tricia A. Willis
    Chief Financial Officer



Dennis Melilli
August 12, 2002
**SECURITIES
      AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**


**Washington,
      D.C. 20549**






**FORM
      8-K**






**CURRENT
      REPORT**






**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE**


**SECURITIES
      EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**








Date
      of
      Report (Date of earliest event reported): February 9, 2006




**SOMERSET
      HILLS BANCORP**


(Exact
      name of registrant as specified in its charter)












**New
                Jersey**
              (State
                or other jurisdiction
              of
                incorporation)
            **000-50055**
              (Commission
              File
                Number)
            **22-3768777**
              (IRS
                Employer
              Identification
                No.)**155
                Morristown Road**
              **Bernardsville,
                New Jersey**
              (Address
                of principal executive
              offices)
            
            **07924**
              (Zip
                Code)


**(908)
      221-0100**


(Registrant's
      telephone number, including area code)





**Item
      2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition**




On
      February 9, 2006, the Registrant issued a Press Release with its fourth quarter
      results. See Exhibit 99.





***Item
      9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits***


****


Exhibit
        99- Press Release entitled: SOMERSET HILLS BANCORP
 REPORTS
        FINAL FOURTH QUARTER AND YEAR END RESULTS




SIGNATURE




Pursuant
      to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant
      has
      duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto
      duly authorized.




SOMERSET
                HILLS BANCORPDate:
                February 9, 2006
            By:/s/Stewart
                E. McClure, Jr.Stewart
                E. McClure, Jr.President,
                Chief Executive Officer and ChiefOperating
                Officer






EXHIBIT
      INDEX




Exhibit  Description




99:  Press
        Release Entitled: SOMERSET HILLS BANCORP REPORTS FINAL FOURTH QUARTER AND
        YEAR
        END RESULTS