alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 69263.

#### Bunge Corporation *v.*United States,

protests 60/11766 and 61/6924 (New York).

Ford, Judge:

Tlie above protests are directed against the classification by the collector of customs of certain cotton yam rags under the provisions of paragraph 1529(a), Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T.D. 51802, as articles wholly or in part of fringe, and assessed with duty at the rate of 45 per centum ad valorem.

Plaintiff herein claims the imported merchandise to be properly subject to duty at the rate of 35 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 921 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as rugs, wholly or in chief value of cotton.

This matter was submitted on a stipulation of facts, entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties, which facts are as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the merchandise marked “A” and initialed LDB by Examiner L. DiBella on the invoices covered by the above protests, consists in fact of Japanese Cotton Yam Rugs, wholly or in chief value of cotton, in part of fringe.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that such merchandise was classified under the provisions of Paragraph 1529(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as “an article in part of fringe” and plaintiff’s sole claim is for classification under Paragraph 921 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as “Other floor covering including carpeting, carpets, mats, and rugs, wholly or in chief value of cotton: * * * Other”, with duty at 35% ad valorem under that Paragraph, as modified.

It is apparent from the foregoing stipulation that plaintiff admits that the imported rugs are, in fact, in part of fringe. The provision under which the imported merchandise was classified, paragraph 1529(a), as modified, *supra,*has been held to invade all paragraphs, not specifically excepted therein. *United States*v. *C. I. Penn,*27 CCPA 242, C.A.D. 93, and cases cited therein. A reading of par. 1529(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC § 1001, paragraph 1529(a)), indicates the following paragraphs as being excepted from the provisions of said paragraph:

Paragraphs 915, 920,1006,1022,1111,1116(a), 1504,1505,1513,1518,1523, and 1530(e).

It is obvious that paragraph 921, which is relied upon by plaintiff herein, is not specifically excepted from the provisions of paragraph 1529(a). This, coupled with the fact that plaintiff has admitted the imported rugs to be “in part of fringe,” brings the imported merchandise within the purview of said paragraph 1529(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, *supra,*as classified herein.

Accordingly, the protest is overruled. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
(R.D. 11550)

#### American Tortoise, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 912440; 910818.

(Decided June 20, 1968)

*Siegel, M and ell £ Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Watson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties herein:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States:

> That the merchandise covered by the above enumerated appeals consist of “Nicotherm-Rigid-PVC Foils, Quality UG 300” exported from West Germany during November, 1966, and that said merchandise is not on the list of products published in T.D. 54521, from which the application of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 is withheld.

That the price at the time of exportation to the United States of the instant merchandise at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold, or in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was 450, U.S., per pound, less the invoice ocean freight and insurance.

*914That the appeals for reappraisement enumerated above be deemed submitted upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value for the merchandise, covered by the appeals, was 45 cents, U.S., per pound, less the invoice ocean freight and insurance.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996             JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           8,035                   8,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,738                  12,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    241,803                 241,803
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               262,576                 262,576
<PP&E>                                         207,608                 207,608
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 599,306                 599,306
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          592,335                 592,335
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     95,482                  95,482
<COMMON>                                     4,181,736               4,181,736
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,700,206)             (6,700,206)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   599,306                 599,306
<SALES>                                         26,260                  61,807
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,324                 169,001
<CGS>                                          173,520                 285,702
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  173,520                 285,702
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               487,437                 863,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              73,399                 141,334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (706,032)             (1,121,455)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (706,032)             (1,121,455)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (706,032)             (1,121,455)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.39)                   (.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.39)                   (.63)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,460
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  156,044
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,723
<INVENTORY>                                      4,345
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               169,128
<PP&E>                                          42,742
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,286
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 243,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          152,931
<BONDS>                                         13,657
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,555
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   243,187
<SALES>                                        224,266
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               224,266
<CGS>                                          199,066
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  199,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   207
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 298
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,375
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,075
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
        

</TABLE>
From: gtewell@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:19:23 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,

Gail Tewell

Matawan, NJ 07747
Did You

Know...

You MUST

be ABLE to

Read and

Speak

English

to Drive

Trucks

in the

United

States

	What will happen if I am 

placed out of service?

A driver can be placed out of 

service for not meeting the 

English language proficiency. 

The motor carrier, however, can 

find a replacement driver, but the 

replacement driver must also meet 

the language proficiency in order 

to drive the CMV.

	When can I drive a truck in 

the United States again?

If the driver is placed out of service 

he or she will not be able to drive 

trucks in the United States until 

the motor carrier determines the 

driver can demonstrate they can 

understand and respond to official 

inquires and directions in the 

English language.

	Will I receive a fine?

All violations discovered during 

roadside inspections may result 

in a fine. The inspector has the 

discretion whether or not to issue a 

fine to the driver or motor carrier.

	Will I lose my commercial 

driver’s license?

The driver will not lose his or her 

commercial driver’s license during 

the roadside inspection process.

	Who can I call for 

additional information?

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration has a division 

office in each of the four Southern 

Border States:

Federal

Motor Carrier

Safety Administration

General

Telephone

State Number

Arizona .............(602) 379-6851

California........(916) 930-2760

New Mexico....(505) 346-7858

Texas.................(512) 916-5440

www.fmcsa.dot.gov

FMCSA-ESO-07-011	 September 2007

Frequently

Asked

Questions

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
You MUST be ABLE to

Read and Speak

English to Drive Trucks

in the United States

he Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)

require all drivers operating

trucks in the United States to be 

able to read and speak the

English language sufficiently to:

To verify English language

proficiency an inspector will

conduct a driver interview during

the driver/vehicle inspection.

The driver interview

will be conducted

in English.

If the driver is unable to

understand and respond

to official inquiries and

directions in English,

the driver can be placed

out of service.

Examples of

General Driver

Interview Questions

T

	Where did you start your 

trip today?

	Where are you driving 

to today?

	What are you 

“hauling” today?

	Show me your driver’s 

license, please.

	Show me proof of 

insurance for your vehicles. 

(if applicable)

	Show me the registration 

for your vehicle(s).

	Do you use time cards or 

log books?

	Converse with the general 

public;

	Understand highway traffic 

signs and signals in the 

English language;

	Respond to official inquiries; 

and

	Make entries on reports and 

records.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10285

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MELITON BONILLA-CASTANEDA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:00-CR-282-ALL-X

- - - - - - - - - -

October 29, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Meliton Bonilla-Castaneda (Bonilla) appeals the 71-month

sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of

being found in the United States after deportation, a violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the felony conviction that

resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)

was an element of the offense that should have been charged in

the indictment. 

Bonilla acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the

Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States,
No. 01-10285 

-2-

523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for

Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Bonilla’s

argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance or

dismissal of the appeal. The motion is GRANTED to the extent

that the Government requests an affirmance.
Before the First Division,

June 30, 1953

No. 57410.

#### Wanskuck Company *v.*United States,

protests 192298-K, etc. (Providence).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content T. D. 53159” in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 767 

Raising a question of the privileges of the House. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 23, 2007 

Mr. BOEHNER submitted the following resolution; which was laid on the table 

RESOLUTION 

Raising a question of the privileges of the House. 

Whereas United States soldiers and personnel in Iraq are 

fighting to protect innocent Americans from being attacked by al-Qaeda and radical jihadists who are determined to kill the American people; 

Whereas on October 18, 2007, in debate on H.R. 976, Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, 

the Member from California, Mr. Stark, stated: ‘‘You 

don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re 

going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can 

get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to 

Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s 

amusement.’’; 

Whereas, on October 18, 2007, in a press release, Rep. Pete 

Stark is quoted as saying: ‘‘I respect neither the ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:40 Oct 24, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR767.LTH HR767

ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HRES 767 LTH 

mander-in-Chief who keeps them in harms way nor the 

chickenhawks in Congress.’’; 

Whereas the Member from California, Mr. Stark, engaged in 

personally abusive language toward the President and 

Members of the House, including the use of language 

that impugns their motives; 

Whereas the Member from California, Mr. Stark, dishonors 

not only the Commander-in-Chief, but the thousands of 

courageous men and women of America’s Armed Forces 

who believe in their mission and are putting their lives 

on the line for our freedom and security; and 

Whereas the Member from California, Mr. Stark, has failed 

to retract his statement and apologize to the Members of 

the House, our Commander-in-Chief, and the families of 

our soldiers and commanders fighting terror overseas: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Member from California, Mr. 

2 Stark, by his despicable conduct, has dishonored himself 

3 and brought discredit to the House and merits the censure 

4 of the House for the same. 

5 Resolved, That the Member from California, Mr. 

6 Stark, is hereby so censured. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                             740
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,021
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                     19,298
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,363
<PP&E>                                         140,876
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 162,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,355
<BONDS>                                        169,156
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,155


<OTHER-SE>                                    (91,518)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   162,029
<SALES>                                         47,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,588
<CGS>                                           38,489
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,467
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (251)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (192)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (5,153)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (283)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (117)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,121
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (166)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# EPA REGISTRATION NO.85806-1______________________________________________________________ Page is not included in this copy. Pages 97 through 104 are not included in this copy.

_________________________________________________________________ The material not included contains the following type of information: _____ Identity of product inert ingredients.

__ __ Identity of product impurities.

__ __ Description of the product manufacturing process.

__ __ Description of quality control procedures.

__ __ Identity of the source of product ingredients. _____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. _____ A draft product label.

__ X __ The product confidential statement of formula. _____ Information about a pending registration action.

__ __ FIFRA registration data.

__ __ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _ . _____ The document is not responsive to the request.

__ __ Internal deliberative information.

__ __ Privileged attorney-client communication.

__ __ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the Agency.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

KEVIN G. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5751 RBL

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 8) is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, and to the Hon. Karen

L. Strombom.

DATED this 30th day of June, 2006.ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05751-RBL Document 24 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 1