alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Third Division,

February 28, 1957

No. 60537.

#### Malhame & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 251512-K (New York).

Johnson, Judge:

The merchandise involved in this case consists of prayer books, assessed with duty at the rate of 12)4 per centum ad valorem under para*421graph 1410 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the trade agreement with Belgium, T. D. 47600, as prayer books of other than foreign authorship and not specially provided for. The classification is not challenged by the protest, but it is claimed that the collector failed to liquidate on the basis of the final appraised value; that, in deducting United States customs duty, he calculated that duty on the basis of the invoice prices and not on the basis of United States value.

This case has been submitted on the official papers, including the collector’s letter and the duress certificates.

It appears from these papers that this merchandise was imported from Belgium along with other items and was entered at the port of New York on December 11, 1946. The total value given in the entry for items including this merchandise was $9,619, but it was noted thereon that certain amounts had been added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases, and three entries were cited as test cases. These same cases are cited on the duress certificate, which states, however, that the merchandise consists of lamp vases. It gives the invoice value as $8,086.05, the addition as $1,532.83, and the entered value as $9,618.88. On the face of the duress entry, is a notation made by the examiner on May 5, 1947, stating that the importer’s citations were not correct.

The merchandise was appraised as entered on May 7, 1947, and an appeal for reappraisement was taken. Values were found as to certain leather-bound prayer books, not here involved, following *United, States*v. *Malhame & Co., Charles Happel,*39 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 108, C. A. D. 472, but the appeal was dismissed as to all other merchandise. *Malhame & Co.*v. *United States,*31 Cust. Ct. 373, Reap. Dec. 8237 (June 26, 1953).

There is no stamped notation on the entry showing the date of liquidation, but the protest gives the date as September 22, 1954. The collector’s memorandum states that the entry was liquidated on the basis of the entered value.

The issues in this case are the same as those involved in *Malhame & Co.*v. *United States,*38 Cust. Ct. 108, C. D. 1850, protest No. 247222-K, decided herewith. For the reasons stated in that ease, the protest is overruled and judgment will be rendered for the defendant.
OR-11

U

S-12

US-12 Clarkston

[29 Miles

Dayton 36 Miles

US-12

US-12

Û

TROY

CLARKSTON

WASHINGTON

OREGON

ASO-128

GAR-201

Peola-IronSprings Road

GAR-128

GAR-118

Tucannon River

COL-9233

WA-126

Road

COL-1931

COL-9115

Kendall-Skyline Road

ASO-110

ASO-105

Asot ni C- ol ver al nd Road

WA-129

WA-129

ASO-181

ASO-175

ASO-105

ASO-201

ASO-235

COL-9124

40

42

46

64

47

4304

ASO-127

ASO-100

Grande Ronde River Road

WAO-569

ASO-116

4039000

WAO-194

111

ASO-121

WAO-570

43

41

44

Wallowa

Union

Wenaha-Tucannon

Wilderness

North Fork Umatilla

Wilderness

Eagle Cap Wilderness

WA204

US12

I84

US12

WA82

US12

WA11

WA129

US12

WA125

WA124

WA124

WA203

WA237

WA11

WA203

WA125

US12

WA204

WA237

WA244

WA204

WA3

WA82

LOSTINE

SUMMERVILLE

IMBLER

ENTERPRISE

WALLOWA

ISLANDCITY

LAGRANDE COVE

UNION

JOSEPH

DIXIE

POMEROY

CLARKSTON

DAYTON

WAITSBURG

WALLAWALLA

MILTON-FREEWATER

FLORA

WESTON

ATHENA

ELGIN

MEACHAM

W A L L A W A L L A

C O L U M B I A

W A L L O W A

B A K E R

W H I T M A N

A S O T I N

U N I O N

U M A T I L L A

-

%

South George Project

Planning Area

%

South George Project

Planning Area

WASHINGTON

OREGON

IDA

H

O

Legend

South George Planning Area

Other Forests

Pomeroy Ranger District

Walla Walla Ranger District

Inventoried Roadless Areas(IRA)

Wilderness

County

Recreation Feature

Roads

Freeway

Forest and County Roads

Cities

Pomeroy Ranger District

Umatilla National Forest

Roadless Context Map

Showing South George Planning Area

Donna Dixon

GIS Specialist

06/03/2011

South George Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

Map H: Roadless Context Map

H
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          3,770
<SECURITIES>                                      840
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (241)
<INVENTORY>                                       544
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                7,989
<PP&E>                                         11,582
<DEPRECIATION>                                (4,952)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          16,561
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          184
<OTHER-SE>                                    (1,073)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,698
<SALES>                                        24,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               24,914
<CGS>                                          19,216
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  18,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 56
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (12,742)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (12,742)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (12,742)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.70)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20753]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Initial Review Group; Diabetes, Endocrinology 
and Metabolic Diseases B Study Section Diabetes, Endocrinology and 
Metabolic Diseases B Study Section.
    Date: October 25-27, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, NIDDK Democracy II, Suite 
7000A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Charlene J. Repique, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, NIDDK/Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of 
Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Room 7013, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
594-7791, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f0939891829c959e95de82958099818595b09e9998de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="debdb6bfacb2bbb0bbf0acbbaeb7afabbb9eb0b7b6f0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 20, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20753 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 60499.

Suit 4895.

#### United States *v.*Jovita Perez et al.

Abstract 60033 affirmed January 9, 1957. C. A. D. 633.
Before Judge Ford,

October 10, 1968

No. R68/37.

reappraisements R63/14923 and R63/15732 (Boston).

No. R68/38.

reappraisements R65/24428, etc. (Boston).

#### Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc. *v.*United States, Super Add-A-Matic Corporation *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, facts, and issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Ohadwick-MiTler*Importers, Die., *et al.*(54 CCPA 93, C.A.D. 914), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis of value for the sundry and novelty items involved herein and that said value is the invoice unit ex-factory prices, net packed.
From: Mary_Yager@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:07:04 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary Yager

Saint Louis, MO 63124
ORDER REVISING SCHEDULING ORDER - 1 

NO. C05-5656 JKA 

wilkinson\p\scheduling order 2d prop'd ord 

Hon. J. Kelley Arnold 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

JAMES Q. WILKINSON, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ELDON VAIL; SANDRA CARTER; 

TINA ADAMS; EARL RICHARDSON; 

GREGORY OLEKAS; SAUL 

MAZARIEGO; JOHN IDES; MICHAEL 

CHRISTENSEN; DAVID O’NEEL; 

PHYLLIS ELLIS; and ROBERT 

SIGNOR, 

Defendants. 

NO. C05-5656 JKA 

ORDER REVISING SCHEDULING ORDER 

 

 This matter having come before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion to Revise 

Scheduling Order, and the Court, having reviewed the Joint Motion, pleadings, and files herein, 

now hereby 

 ORDERS that the deadlines in the Case Schedule Order pertaining to discovery, discovery 

motions, and dispositive motions are revised as follows: 

Case 3:05-cv-05656-JKA Document 54 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 2
ORDER REVISING SCHEDULING ORDER - 2 

NO. C05-5656 JKA 

wilkinson\p\scheduling order 2d prop'd ord 

 Last Date to File Discovery Motions: February 16, 2007 

 Completion of Discovery: February 28, 2007 

 Last Date to File Dispositive Motions: March 16, 2007 

 So ordered this 23rd day of January, 2007. 

 /s/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Presented by: 

MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 

By 

 Jesse Wing, WSBA No. 27751 

 Jay S. Brown, WSBA No. 19835 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Approved as to form; Notice of Presentation Waived: 

ROB McKENNA 

Attorney General of Washington 

By 

 Allison Stanhope, WSBA No. 30486 

 Sara J. Olson, WSBA No. 33003 

 Assistant Attorneys General 

JACKSON & WALLACE LLP 

By 

 Matthew Wojcik, WSBA No. 27918 

 Attorneys for Defendant Ellis 

Case 3:05-cv-05656-JKA Document 54 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 2
From: Garycarlton@ymail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:38:22 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gary Carlton

Colorado Springs, CO 80921
From: mcurrant@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:51:32 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary Currant

Wentzville, MO 63385
Before the Third Division,

April 9, 1964

No. 68434.

protests 63/7086, etc.

(Los Angeles).

#### Hybern, Inc., dba The Akron *v.*United States,

*313Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hard crisp rye bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.,*(47 CCPA 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED AS PART OF THE
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,824
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,694
<ALLOWANCES>                                       933
<INVENTORY>                                     24,608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,734
<PP&E>                                          14,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 201,942
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,100
<BONDS>                                        138,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            91
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,038
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   201,942
<SALES>                                        115,310
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,326
<CGS>                                           65,216
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,239
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   442
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,114
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,804
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,804
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,804
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
        


</TABLE>
From: Colleen Boland Toder

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:10:21 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Colleen Boland Toder
Highland, New York