alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KIMPTON v. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 19, 1909.)

No. 256 (5,239).

Customs Duties (§ 47*) — Dutiable Value — “Coverings”—Stone Bottles.

The value of stone bottles filled with ad valorem goods (ink) should not be added to the dutiable value of their contents, to make up the dutiable value of the imported merchandise, under Customs Administrative Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, § 19, 26 Stat. 139 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1924); such bottles not being “coverings,” within the meaning of the act.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Cent. Dig. § 20; Dec. Dig. § 47.*]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

On appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court, which affirmed the Board of General Appraisers in sustaining the action of the collector.

For decision below, see 165 Fed. 236.

Walden & Webster (W. Wickham Smith, of counsel), for importer.

Henry A. Wise, U. S. Atty. (J. Osgood Nichols, of counsel), for the United States.-

Before LACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.

*

For other oases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1807 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

*79PER CURIAM.

The appellant imported ink in stone bottles. The collector added the value of the bottles to the value of the ink, and assessed an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent, upon the aggregate value under paragraph 26 of the tariff act of 189? (Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule A, 30 Stat. 153 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1628]); his action in this regard being founded upon section 19 of the customs administrative act (Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, 26 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1924]). This section provides in substance that, whenever imported merchandise is subjected to an ad valorem duty, the duty shall be assessed upon the actual market value or wholesale price of such merchandise at the time of exportation, “including the value of all cartons, cases, crates, boxes, sacks, and coverings of any kind.” The legality of the collector’s action turns upon the question whether these stone bottles are “coverings” of the ink contained therein.

In United States v. Nichols, 186 U. S. 298, 22 Sup. Ct. 918, 46 L. Ed. 1173, this court certified the following question to the Supreme Court:

> “Should the value of the bottles filled with ad valorem goods be added to the dutiable value of their contents, under section I!) *of the*customs administrative act of 1890, to make up the dutiable value of the imported merchandise?”

The question was answered in the negative, and as the facts are in all essential particulars identical we feel ourselves bound by the decision.

The decision of the Circuit Court is reversed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 4829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1434]

[[Page 4829]]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than January 31, 2001.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Cynthia C. Goodwin, Vice 
President) 104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Nancy Barr Dixon, Eufaula, Alabama; Michael Charles Dixon, Sr., 
Eufaula, Alabama; Hope Cotton Dixon, Eufaula, Alabama; Michael Charles 
Dixon, Jr., Eufaula, Alabama; Claudia Dixon Balkcom, Atlanta, Georgia; 
Heather Barr Dixon, Eufaula, Alabama; Marian Christine Dixon, 
Birmingham, Alabama; Rebecca Janie Mac Dixon, Auburn, Alabama; Robert 
Mack Dixon, Eufaula, Alabama; Mary Elliott Dixon, Eufaula, Alabama; 
Mary Clayton Dixon, Eufaula, Alabama; Eric Ross Fenichel, Atlanta, 
Georgia; Janie Dixon King, Eufaula, Alabama; William Daniel King, 
Eufaula, Alabama; Robert Mack Dixon, Jr., Eufaula, Alabama; Preston 
Copeland Dixon, Birmingham, Alabama; James Franklin Dixon, III, 
Birmingham, Alabama; Rita Hallett Dixon, Birmingham, Alabama; Thomas 
Seay Lawson, Jr., Montgomery, Alabama; Sarah Clayton Lawson, 
Montgomery, Alabama; and Preston Copeland Clayton, Jr., Eufaula, 
Alabama; all to retain voting shares of Eufaula BancCorp, Inc., 
Eufaula, Alabama, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of 
Southern Bank of Commerce, Eufaula, Alabama, and First American Bank of 
Walton County, Santa Rosa Beach, Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 11, 
2001.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-1434 Filed 1-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of BTHC XV, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) that:




1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 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.









Date:  May 26, 2011





/s/ Zhang ShanjiuZhang ShanjiuChief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald DAWSON, a/k/a Tree, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-7232.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.

Ronald Dawson, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*254PER CURIAM:

Ronald Dawson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Dawson,*No. 5:06-cr-00061-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 2, 2011). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - [DA 01-1323, MM Docket No. 99-297, RM-9726] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Commission, at the request of Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc., permittee station KOCO-TV, substitutes DTV channel 7 for DTV channel 16 at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.                         *See*64 FR 54268, October 6, 1999. DTV channel 7 can be allotted to Oklahoma City in compliance with the principle community coverage requirements of Section 73.625(a) at reference coordinates (35-33-45 N. and 97-29-24 W.) with a power of 42.0, HAAT of 446 meters and with a DTV service population of 1248 thousand. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.                     

# DATES:

Effective July 23, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-297, adopted June 1, 2001, and released June 6, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. 

# List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

      - Television
      - Digital television broadcasting

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

# PART 73—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: 

Authority:47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.622

2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under Oklahoma, is amended by removing DTV channel 16 and adding DTV channel 7 at Oklahoma City. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Barbara A. Kreisman, 

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 01-14742 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
# FILED
December 23, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION

BRUCE BELK, ) ) APPELLANT, )

) No. 03-C-01-9703-CR-0 0109 ) ) Morgan County v. ) ) E. Eugene Eblen , Judge ) ) (Habeas Corpus) CHARLES JONES, WARDEN ) ) APPELLEE. )

FOR THE APPE LLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: Robert N. Meeks John Knox Walkup Attorney at Law Attorney General & Repor ter P.O. Box 8086 500 Charlotte Avenue Chattanooga, TN 37414 Nashville, TN 37243-0497 Michael J. Fahey, II Assistant Attorney Gener al 450 James Robertson Parkwa y Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Charles E . Hawk District Attorney General P.O. Box 703 Kingston, TN 37763-0703 Frank A. Harvey Assistant District A

ttorney General P.O. Box 703 Kingston, TN 37763-0703

OPINION FILED:_______________________________

_____ AFFIRMED Joe B. Jones, Pre siding Judge1 The appellant was indicted u nde r the name “Bruce D. Belk.” “Bruce Belk” and “Bruce D. Belk” are th e same person. 2 

## O P I N I O N

The appellant, Bruce Belk 1 (petitione r), appeals as of right

from ajudgment of the trial court denying

his action for habeas

corpus relief. He present s one issuefor review: “[T]he charging indictment fail ed to contain or state the essential mens rea elements of the offense as required by T.C.A.40-13-202, thus rendering appellant’s s ubsequent conviction and plea agreement void.” After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitt ed by the parties, and the law governin g the issue presented for review, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the tri al court should be affirmed. The remedy sought

by the petitioner, habeas corpus, was not available to him. The Hamilton County judgment is notvoid for the reasons outli ned in the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. When the court rendering the judg ment in question has juris diction of the defendant’s person, jurisdiction of the subject m atter (the crime), and has the authority to make the challenged judgment, the judgment is voidable, not void. Passarella v. State , 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App.), per . app . denied (Tenn. 1994). Thus, the only remedy available to the petitioner was post-c onviction relief. This court parenthetically notes that if the petitioner had pursued the post-conviction remedy, he would not be enti tled to relief. The Tennessee Supreme Court recently held the indictment, found to be defective i n State v. Roger Dale Hill, Sr. , Wayn e County No. 01-C-01-9508-CC-00267, 1996 WL 346941 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, June 20, 1996), was sufficient to allege t he offe nse of aggravated rape, the same offense alleged in th is case. State v. Hill , _____ S.W.2d _

____ (Tenn. 1997). The indictment in this case is a lmost identic al to the indictment in Hill . They charge the same offense. Thus, the indictment in this case pr operly alleged the offense of agg ravated rape.

__ ______________________ ___________________ _ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDIN G JUDGE3

CONCUR:

______________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JU DGE

______________________________________ CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE
```

[Federal Register: February 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 35)]
[Notices]
[Page 9096]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22fe06-66]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Meetings; Sunshine Act

agency holding the meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Sunshine Act Meetings

time and date: 11 a.m., Friday, March 31, 2006.

place:  1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

status: Closed.

matters to be considered:
    Surveillance Matters.

for further information contact: Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-1663 Filed 2-17-06; 11:09 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company.  The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.  The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank                           ( print page 31649)                        indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors.  Comments must be received not later than June 26, 2001.                

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City**                     (D. Michael Manies, Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

*1.  Iron Mound Investments, L.L.C., Steven C. Davis, Gail Davis, Ernest R. Davis, Shirley A. Davis, Ricky J. Davis, Pam Davis, Kenny R. Davis and Gina Davis,*                     all of Guthrie, Oklahoma, to acquire voting shares of First National Bancshares, Inc., Edmond, Oklahoma, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First National Bank of Edmond, Edmond, Oklahoma.                

*2.  Nancy Jones, as Trustee of the Gwendolyn Jones Irrevocable Trust*, Encino, California; to acquire voting shares of First Altus Bancorp, Inc., Altus, Oklahoma, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First National Bank, Altus, Oklahoma.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 6, 2001.

Robert deV. Frierson

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 01-14670 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### Tony Curtis BARRINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TREASURY OF the UNITED STATES; United States Government, Administration; Timothy Geithner; Barack Obama, President; Robert Gibb; Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-1674.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.

Decided: Oct. 25, 2010.

Tony Curtis Barrino, Appellant Pro Se.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tony C. Barrino appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *Barrino v. Treasmy of the United States,*No. 3:10-cv-00171-RJC (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 19, 2010 *&*entered Apr. 20, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the matei'ials 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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-435-000]

Take notice that on May 31, 2001, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, certain revised tariff sheets to to become effective July 1, 2001.

Williston Basin states that the revised tariff sheets reflect the annual reconciliation of the latest GSR cost recovery period, the elimination of the Rate Schedule IT-1 base rate unit cost, and the establishment of a new reservation charge surcharge applicable to service under Rate Schedule FT-1.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rule and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-14695  Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6079

GARY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, Wallens Ridge State Prison,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-03-448-7)

Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: July 8, 2004

Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Gary Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court dismissed

Williams’ petition in an order entered on November 12, 2003.

Williams’ notice of appeal, dated December 22, 2003, was received

in the district court on December 29, 2003. In his notice of

appeal, Williams stated that he “only received [the district

court’s order] from Prison Staff on December 11.” Williams’ notice

of appeal was made within the period of time applicable for a

determination of excusable neglect or good cause under Rule 4(a)(5)

of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and expressed his

desire to preserve his appeal. See Myers v. Stephenson, 781 F.2d

1036, 1038-39 (4th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we remand this case to

the district court for the limited purpose of permitting that court

to determine whether Williams has shown excusable neglect or good

cause warranting an extension of time for filing a notice of

appeal. The record, as supplemented, then will be returned to this

court for further consideration. 

REMANDED
Exhibit
32.2







Certification






The
undersigned certifies for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code, in his capacity as the chief executive officer of NORTH
HORIZON, INC. (“NORTH HORIZON”) that to his knowledge, the Form 10-Q of NORTH
HORIZON with financial statements for the quarter ended March 31,
2008, fully comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operation of NORTH HORIZON.






Date: April
      24, 2008/s/
      Wallace BoyackWallace
      BoyackChief Financial
      Officer