alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SLIP OP. 01-128

AMENDED JUDGMENT

__________

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

JANE A. RESTANI, JUDGE

__________

________________________________________

:

BORDEN, INC., GOOCH FOODS, INC. AND :

HERSHEY FOODS CORP., :

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

UNITED STATES and : 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, : Consol. Court

: No. 96-08-01970

:

Defendants, :

:

and :

:

DELVERDE, SrL and DELVERDE USA, INC., :

:

Defendant-Intervenors. :

________________________________________:

As the final results of the redetermination of the

Department of Commerce of October 15, 2001, that Delverde, SrL is

to be excluded from the antidumping order did not elicit any

objection during the relevant remand proceeding, the results are

affirmed. The history of this matter is reflected in Borden,

Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998),

rev’d in part, Borden, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 99-1575, 99-

1576 (Fed. Cir. March 12, 2001). See also Borden, Inc. v. United

States, Consol. Court No. 96-08-01970 (Ct. Int’l Trade May 21,

2001) (order).

____________________________

Judge of the United States

Court of International Trade

Dated: New York, New York

 This 2nd day of November, 2001.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Case No. DA 21-0273 

R.S. and D.S., 

Plaintiffs and Appellants, 

vs. 

UNI1ED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, 

Defendant and Appellee. 

GRANT OF EXTENSION 

Upon consideration of Appellee's Unopposed Motion for Extension of 

Time, and good cause appearing therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time up 

to and including January 11, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve 

Appellee's answer brief
Frederick R. Bieber, Ph.D. is a medical geneticist at Brigham 

and Women's Hospital and an associate professor of pathology 

at Harvard Medical School (HMS). He lectures on genetics, 

pathology, and forensics and is a director in the Center for 

Advanced Molecular Diagnostics serving patients in the 

Partners Healthcare System. Dr. Bieber has taught courses 

continuously at the Harvard Extension School for over three 

decades and his research focuses on the forensic aspects of 

DNA-based human identification, leading to service as an 

expert in state, federal, and military civil and criminal investigations.

As a commissioned officer in the US Army Reserve, he served on active duty at the U.S. Army 

Criminal Investigation Laboratory and the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL). 

Dr. Bieber served on the World Trade Center Kinship and Data Analysis Panel, working with the 

New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in the DNA-based identification of victims of 

the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center twin towers, and as a member of the 

Hurricane Victim DNA Identification Expert Group, assisting the Louisiana State Police in the 

identification of victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Dr. Bieber is an appointed member of the National DNA Databank of Canada Advisory 

Committee, the DNA Subcommittee of the New York State Forensic Commission, and served as 

a member of numerous state and federal forensic advisory boards, including the FBI DNA 

Advisory Board, and the Scientific Advisory Board of the Virginia Department of Public Safety. 

He served as a senior advisor in forensic science to the Executive Office of Public Safety in 

Massachusetts, and to the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental 

Services and Public Protection.

In 2014, Dr. Bieber was appointed to the first-ever U.S. National Commission on Forensic 

Science which makes recommendations for improvements to the use of forensic science in the 

U.S. justice system.

He was appointed to the FSSB in 2018.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER>      1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                           1,043
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                       139
<INVENTORY>                                      1,577
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,754
<PP&E>                                           8,935
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,781
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,744
<BONDS>                                          1,380
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,030
<SALES>                                          3,297
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,297
<CGS>                                            1,671
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,671
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    15
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  56
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    344
<INCOME-TAX>                                       141
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                203
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       203
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
#### Manhattan Transp. Co., Limited, *v.*Mayor, etc.1

*(District Court, S. D. New York.*

December 11, 1888.)

Wharves—Concealed Obstruction.

A wharf-owner is liable for damage caused to a vessel by concealed obstructions which might have been ascertained by the owner with reasonable diligence.

In Admiralty. Libel for damages.

*Wilcox, Adorns & MaclcUn,*for libelant.

*Henry R. Beekman,*for respondent.

1

 Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq:., of the New York bar.

Brown, J.

The liability of the owner of a wharf for damages caused to a vessel by concealed obstructions which might have been ascertained by the owner by reasonable diligence has been frequently declared as a rule of law. *Christian*v. *Van Tassel,*12 Fed. Rep. 884. The case of *Smith*v. *Havemeyer,*32 Fed. Rep. 844, has been recently affirmed in the circuit court, reasserting the same doctrine. 36 Fed. Rep. 927. See, also, *The Moorcock,*13 Prob. Div. 157.

The libelant’s canal-boat was moored on March 10, 1888, along tlie bulk-head between the piers off Sixty-First and Sixty-Second streets, East river, heading up. On the following morning she was found sunk. An examination showed that two or three of her planks were broken on the port side, not far from her keel, and the adjoining planks chafed and rubbed up to the bilge.. This was from 15 to 20 feet aft of the stem. Her captain estimates that she was moored -with her stem about 45 feet below the Sixty-Second street pier. When found sunk, her stem-lines were broken, and her bow swung off a considerable distance into the deep water. Other evidence shows that she sank about 3 o’clock a. m. , about the time of low water there. Subsequent examination of the bottom showed a bowlder at a point about 75 feet below the Sixty-Second street pier, and from 6 to 8 feet off the bulk-head. This corresponds as nearly as is to be expected with mere estimates of the position of the boat; and as no other probable or adequate cause appears for the wound in the bottom of the boat, or for her sinking, I must find it to have been caused by the bowlder above referred to. That was 7.3 feet below the surface at low water. The canal-boat drew between 8 and 9 feet. If she had first sunk from leaking, and then slid down the incline against some bowlders in the deeper water outside, the wound would have been on the starboard • side. No cause for her leaking before striking the bowlder appears, the allegation that she was previously in leaky condition not being sustained.

The master of the boat had no notice of any obstruction in that locality, though he was cautioned to keep away from the upper corner, and for that reason, as he says, moved his boat considerably downward. The obstruction being one that was-discoverable by reasonable care on the defendant’s part, the. libelant, not being in fault, is entitled to a decree, and to an order of reference to compute the damages.
1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-3840

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Israel Ayala-Gomez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 27, 2009 Filed: November 27, 2009

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Israel Ayala-Gomez (Gomez) challenges the within-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pled guilty to illegally re-entering the United States after being deported, in violati on of 8 U.S.C. § 1326( a), (b)(2), 6 U.S.C. § 202(3) & (4), and 6 U.S.C. § 557. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issues of the validity of Gomez’s guilty plea, the dispositi on of objections made to the pre-sentence-2- investigation report (PSR), and whether the sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable.
First, we discern no basis for finding Gomez’s plea invalid: Gomez may not attack the voluntariness of his plea for the first time on appeal, see United States v. Villareal-Amarillas , 454 F.3d 925, 932 (8th Cir. 2006); and we find no plain error in the court’s decision not to use a Spanish- speaking interpreter during the plea hearing, see United States v. Gonzales , 339 F.3d 725, 728-29 (8th Cir. 2003) (failure to raise issue of interpreter at hearing results in plain error review; no plain error where lack of interpreter did not affect defendant’s substantial rights). Second, we decline to review the issue of the objections to the PSR. See United States v. Thompson , 289 F.3d 524, 526-27 (8th Cir. 2002) (declining to review district court’s findings related to sentencing enhancement, drug quantity, and criminal history, even for plain error, where defendant’s counsel withdrew objections to PSR at sentencing hearing and asked for sentence at low end of Guidelines range).
Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to impose the within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (s tandard of review); Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 347-50 (2007) (approving appellate presumption of reasonableness for sentences within properly calculated Guidelines range); United States v. Cadenas , 445 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir. 2006) (although sentence within applicable Guidelines range is presumed reasonable, presumption may be rebutted by evidence that district court failed to consider relevant factor, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or committed clear error of judgment).
After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.J.G. and * From the 29 th District Court

L.R.G., children, of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. C48678

.

No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 1 0 9

- C V * A pril 11, 2019

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Stretcher, J. , and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, in accordance

with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

.
FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 1, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16443 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 0 3 0 - MC - 1 7 - T GW U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f- A p p e lle e , v ersu s M I C H A E L S . F L A N A G A N , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea lfr om the U ni ted S t ates D i stri ctC ou rt forthe M i ddl e D i s tri c tof F l ori da

_________________________ ( M ay 1, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , P R Y O R an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T ra cy D re i spul , appo i nt ed coun se lfor M i chae lS . F l anagan i n h i s di re ct2

c ri m i na lappe a l , ha s m ove d t o w i thdr a w f r om f urthe rr e pr e s e nt ati on of the ap p e lla n t a n d f

ile d ab rie f

p u r s u a n t to A n d e r s v . C a lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S .C t. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L .E d .2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . O u rin d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e e n tir e r e c o r d r e v e a ls th atco u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel ati v e m eri to f th e ap p eali s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in atio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r d r e v e a ls n o ar g u ab le is s u e s o f m e rit, co u n sel ’ s m o ti o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , a nd F l a na ga n’ s c onvi c ti on a nd se nt ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       20
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    20
<PP&E>                                              11
<DEPRECIATION>                                       7
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      91
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               37
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                        (54)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        91
<SALES>                                              4
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     4
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    18
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (14)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (14)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (14)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.003)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.003)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11003]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Library of Medicine; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Biomedical 
Library and Informatics Review Committee, June 11, 2009, 8 a.m. to June 
12, 2009, 2 p.m., National Library of Medicine, Building 38, Board 
Room, 2nd Floor, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was 
published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2009, 74 FR 13446.
    The meeting dates were previously scheduled for June 11-12, 2009, 
and the meeting will now will be held on June 11, 2009. The meeting is 
closed to the public.

    Dated: May 5, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-11003 Filed 5-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Order entered May 18, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01167-CV

No. 05-14-01168-CV

IN RE CRAIG WATKINS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-00257-VF13-54696-V,

ORDER

Before Justices Lang, Brown and Schenck1

In accordance with the opinion of the court of criminal appeals in In re Tyrone Allen, 

Nos. WR-82,265-01 & WR 82,265-02 (Tex. Crim. App. May 13, 2015) (orig. proceeding), we 

VACATE our order conditionally granting mandamus relief in this case. We DIRECT the 

Clerk to provide a certified copy of this order to the court of criminal appeals.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG 

JUSTICE 

 

1

Justice Michael O'Neill, who was a member of the original panel and participated in the submission of this case, 

retired December 31, 2014. Justice David J. Schenck succeeded Justice O’Neill.
EXHIBIT
32.1





STATEMENT
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant
to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Fred
O’Connor, Chief Executive Officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”),
hereby certifies that:





The
Company’s Form 10-K Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 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/ Richard DeGarmo


Richard
DeGarmo, Director and


Acting
Chief Executive Officer


Dated:
April, 2010
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3990 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]






                                                       Calendar No. 672
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3990

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 216 Oak Street in Farmington, Minnesota, as the ``Hamilton H. Judson 
                             Post Office''.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2006

Mr. Coleman (for himself and Mr. Dayton) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                            December 6, 2006

     Committee discharged and ordered to be placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL



 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 216 Oak Street in Farmington, Minnesota, as the ``Hamilton H. Judson 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. HAMILTON H. JUDSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 216 Oak Street in Farmington, Minnesota, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Hamilton H. Judson Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Hamilton 
H. Judson Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 672

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3990

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 216 Oak Street in Farmington, Minnesota, as the ``Hamilton H. Judson 
                             Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 6, 2006

     Committee discharged and ordered to be placed on the calendar`
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10898]



[[Page 21828]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,773]


United States Steel, Great Lakes Works, Ecorse, MI; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on December 23, 2008 in response to a 
worker petition filed on behalf of workers at United States Steel, 
Great Lakes Works, Ecorse, Michigan. The workers at the subject 
facility produce flat rolled steel.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 15th day of April 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10898 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3964 

To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage stamp in honor 

of Senator Blanche Kelso Bruce. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 

Mr. LOTT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage 

stamp in honor of Senator Blanche Kelso Bruce. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SENATOR BLANCHE KELSO BRUCE COMMEMO4 RATIVE POSTAGE STAMP. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Postmaster General shall 

6 issue a commemorative postage stamp in honor of Senator 

7 Blanche Kelso Bruce. 

8 (b) DENOMINATION AND DESIGN.—The commemora9 tive postage stamp issued under this Act shall— 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 3964 IS

1 (1) be issued in the denomination used for 1st 

2 class mail up to 1 ounce in weight; and 

3 (2) bear such designs as the Postmaster Gen4 eral shall determine. 

5 (c) ISSUANCE PERIOD.—The commemorative postage 

6 stamp issued under this Act shall— 

7 (1) be placed on sale as soon as practicable 

8 after the date of the enactment of this Act; and 

9 (2) be sold for such period thereafter as the 

10 Postmaster General shall determine. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS