alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 11059)

#### International Distributors, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 4474.

(Decided September 9, 1965)

*William E. Bush*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Nichols, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement is before me on the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

> I.

> That the merchandise covered by the above indicated appeal for reappraisement consists of two- and eight-transistor radio sets exported from Japan and respectively identified by invoice code numbers '87304 and 87379;

> II.

> That at the time of exportation thereof to the United States the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was $2.00 (U.S. currency) for the two-transistor radio and $5.00 (U.S. currency) for the eight-transistor radio, respectively;

> III.

> That the merchandise the subject of this Stipulation was exported, entered, and withdrawn from warehouse for consumption after the effective date (February 27,1958) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927, 84th Congress, T.D. 54165) ;

> IV.

> That the merchandise the subject of this Stipulation is not included or enumerated in the final list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956;

> Y.

> That the agreed basis of proper appraisal for the merchandise the subject of this Stipulation is “export value” as defined by Section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended;

> VI.

> That the appeal for reappraisement may be deemed submitted for decision on this Stipulation and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 ('b) of the Tariff Act of 1980, as amended by *593the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein and that said values are $2 (United States currency) for the two-transistor radios and $5 (United States currency) for the eight-transistor radios.

As to all other merchandise, the appeal, having been abandoned, is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         410,736
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  161,223
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    281,864
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               889,082
<PP&E>                                         184,711
<DEPRECIATION>                                  86,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,565,908
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,798,444
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,160
<OTHER-SE>                                   (237,696)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,565,908
<SALES>                                        355,644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               355,644
<CGS>                                          226,650
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,434,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,083,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,083,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,083,500)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 134/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 134 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5915 April 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 134

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5915 April 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 134/1 | Notice from the Commission pursuant to Article 85 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, implementing the provisions of the Community Customs Code — Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) rules of origin — Extension to Turkey of the bilateral cumulation system established by that article | 1 |
| 2016/C 134/2 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7573 — DMK/DOC Kaas) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 134/1

Notice from the Commission pursuant to Article 85 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, implementing the provisions of the Community Customs Code — Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) rules of origin — Extension to Turkey of the bilateral cumulation system established by that article

1

2016/C 134/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7573 — DMK/DOC Kaas) (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 134/3 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 134/3

Euro exchange rates

3

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2016/C 134/4 | Corrigendum to the explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union ( OJ C 76, 4.3.2015 ) | 4 |

Corrigenda

2016/C 134/4

Corrigendum to the explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union ( OJ C 76, 4.3.2015 )

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
No. 58301.

petition 7099-R (New York).

#### Wessel Duval & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The vice president of the broker who made the entry testified that the importation consisted of 15 bales of goatskins and that, after verification with the examiner as to values, a split entry was made, 5 bales being entered for consumption and the 10 bales in question being entered for warehouse. The customs examiner testified that the 5 bales, not here involved, were appraised as entered, less consular fees and ocean freight, but that no allowance was made for the consular fees and ocean freight on the entry of the 10 bales herein. He admitted that this was an error, that there was no intended advance in value, and that both entries covered by the importation were intended to be appraised at the same values. Upon the record presented, it was held that there was no intent to defraud the Government or to deceive its officials. The petition was therefore granted.
II

★(Star Print)

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 41

Approving the location of a Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial in the Nation’s

Capital.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 23, 1998

Mr. SARBANES (for himself and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following joint

resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

JOINT RESOLUTION

Approving the location of a Martin Luther King, Jr.,

Memorial in the Nation’s Capital.

Whereas section 508 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands

Management Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1003 note; 110

Stat. 4157) authorized the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity

to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District

of Columbia to honor Martin Luther King, Jr.;

Whereas section 6(a) of the Commemorative Works Act (40

U.S.C. 1006(a)) provides that the location of a commemorative work in the area described as Area I (within

the meaning of the Act) shall be deemed not authorized

unless approved by law not later than 150 days after notification to Congress that the Secretary of the Interior
2

SJ 41 IS1S

recommends location of the commemorative work in Area

I; and

Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has notified Congress

of the recommendation of the Secretary that the memorial be located in Area I: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., MEMORIAL.

4 The location of the commemorative work to honor

5 Martin Luther King, Jr., authorized by the Omnibus

6 Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (40

7 U.S.C. 1003 note; 110 Stat. 4157), within Area I is ap8 proved under section 6(a) of the Commemorative Works

9 Act (40 U.S.C. 1006(a)).

Æ
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

ORD ON REQUEST FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

A PLACE FOR MOM, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PATRICIA GRACE, et al.,

Defendant(s).

NO. C06-470

 ORDER ON REQUEST FOR 

 PROTECTIVE ORDER

 

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Marsha J.

Pechman, United States District Judge:

(1) The Court declines to sign the proposed protective order, Dkt No. 11. The Court will

not sign stipulated protective orders to authorize documents to be filed under seal simply based on the

fact that they were marked by the parties as confidential in the course of discovery. “There is a strong

presumption of public access to the court’s files and records which may be overcome only on a

compelling showing that the public’s right of access is outweighed by the interests of the public and

the parties in protecting files, records, or documents from public review.” Local Rule CR 5(g)(1). 

The parties have not made a compelling showing that the public and the parties’ interests in protecting

the documents marked “confidential” from public review outweigh the public’s right of access. 

Parties seeking an order to seal any documents must provide a specific description of particular

documents or categories of documents they seek to protect and “a clear statement of the facts

justifying a seal and overcoming the strong presumption in favor of public access.” Local Rule CR

5(g)(2) (emphasis added). The facts supporting any motion to seal must be provided by declaration or

Case 2:06-cv-00470-MJP Document 12 Filed 12/06/06 Page 1 of 2
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

ORD ON REQUEST FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2

affidavit. To obtain a court order sealing documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, the parties

must make a particularized showing under the “good cause” standard of FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c). See

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). To obtain a court

order sealing documents attached to a dispositive motion, such as a summary judgment motion, the

parties must meet a “compelling reasons” standard and not the lesser “good cause” standard. Id. at

1177-79; Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003).

The parties may agree on confidentiality among themselves, but when they ask that the Court

be involved, they must make the requisite showing. The stipulated protective order received by the

Court does not make sufficiently clear that the parties cannot seal any court filings in this matter

absent a motion to do so which is granted by the Court. The stipulated protective order will remain on

the docket, but will not be signed and entered by the Court in its present form.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record.

Dated: December 6, 2006

AMarsha J. Pechman

U.S. District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00470-MJP Document 12 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 107 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 107

 To authorize the production of records by Senator Robert C. Byrd and 
                    Senator John D. Rockefeller IV.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 9, 1997

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize the production of records by Senator Robert C. Byrd and 
                    Senator John D. Rockefeller IV.

Whereas, a prosecutor for the State of West Virginia has requested that Senator 
        Robert C. Byrd and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV provide him with 
        copies of constituent correspondence relevant to a criminal case, State 
        of West Virginia v. Brenda S. Cook, No. 97-F-20 (Circ. Ct. of Hardy 
        Cnty., W. Va.);
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be 
        taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that documents, papers, and records under the control 
        or in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of 
        justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote the ends of 
        justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That Senator Robert C. Byrd and Senator John D. 
Rockefeller IV are authorized to provide to the State of West Virginia 
copies of correspondence relevant to the criminal case, State of West 
Virginia v. Brenda S. Cook.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                       471
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,560
<PP&E>                                          31,748
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,082
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           113
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,520
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,365
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,085
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,962)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       863
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,099)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,099)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)
        

</TABLE>
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 42

To disapprove the certification of the President under section 490(b) of

the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 regarding foreign assistance for

Mexico during fiscal year 1998.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 3, 1998

Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HELMS, and Mr. HUTCHINSON) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

JOINT RESOLUTION

To disapprove the certification of the President under section

490(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 regarding

foreign assistance for Mexico during fiscal year 1998.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That pursuant to subsection (d) of section 490 of the For4 eign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j), Congress

5 disapproves the determination of the President with re6 spect to Mexico for fiscal year 1998 that is contained in

7 the certification (transmittal no. 98–15) submitted to
2

•SJ 42 IS

1 Congress by the President under subsection (b) of that

2 section on February 26, 1998.

Æ
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 SEATTLE

JAIME GARCIA ROJAS B.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY FRANKEL, et al.,

Defendants.

 NO. C06-602JLR

 ORDER

 

On October 5, 2006, the court issued an order to show cause why the court has subject

matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff responded with an affidavit describing her

allegations against a King County Superior Court judge as well as a court reporter. She

alleges corruption in an unspecified proceeding in that court, and seeks to subpoena records

of the proceeding. Plaintiff’s allegations, even if true, do not state a basis for federal

jurisdiction in this matter. This court does not review state court decisions, and has no

plenary power to review allegations of corruption against state courts. The court therefore

DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and directs the clerk to enter

judgment consistent with this order.

Dated this 1st day of November, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00602-JLR Document 13 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 1
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 SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTOPHER J. NEAL,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CR06-107C

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the joint motion of the United States of America and

Defendant Christopher J. Neal to continue the trial date (Dkt. No. 20).

The current pretrial motions cut-off date was October 2, 2006, and the current trial date is

October 30, 2006. Defendant Christopher J. Neal has joined in the requested continuance, and the

Government agrees that a continuance is necessary to allow Defendants to complete discovery and

prepare for trial. Accordingly, defendant Neal has waived speedy trial rights through March 31, 2007

(Dkt. No. 21). 

Given the complex nature of this case, the Court finds that a denial of the requested extensions

would unreasonably deny Defendants adequate preparation by their attorneys and would deny counsel

reasonable time to prepare. Due to these factors, exclusion of additional time under 18 U.S.C. §

Case 2:06-cr-00107-JCC Document 22 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 2
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 – 2

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv) is appropriate.

The proposed continuance of the trial does not appear to prejudice any party. The Court finds

that failure to grant the requested continuance likely would result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court

further finds that the interests of the public and the Defendants in a speedy trial are outweighed by the

ends of justices, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pre-trial motions cut-off date shall be extended

until February 5, 2007, with a new trial date of March 5, 2007. Voir dire, Trial Briefs, and Jury

Instructions shall be due by March 1, 2007. The time between the date of this order and the new trial

date shall be excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(8)(A) and

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

SO ORDERED this 18th day of October, 2006.

AJohn C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00107-JCC Document 22 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 62317.

#### F. L. Kraemer & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 112972-K, 112973-K, and 112974-K (Tampa).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of flavoring sirup, composed of a mixture of sugar, water, flavoring, and coloring matter, in chief value of invert sugar, having a minus polariscopic reading the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Jovita Perez et al.*(44 C. C. P. A. 35, C. A. D. 633), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 75-1594.

#### Kennebec Log Driving Co. et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002








Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of AmeriResource Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned, Delmar Janovec, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











Dated: September 9, 2009





/s/ Delmar A. Janovec


Delmar A. Janovec


Chief Executive Officer