alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 11078)

#### Parsons & Whittemore, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 4405.

*620(Decided October 13, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for plaintiff.

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

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by tbe undersigned, subject to tbe approval of fbe Court:

> 1. That tbe subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to wbicb tbe Secretary of tbe Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to tbe Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported tbe purchase price (Sec. 162) and tbe foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to tbe merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the 'times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Order entered April 29, 2020

In the

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00460-CV

IN RE MONTINE JANNETTE NYHAN, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-19-03495-3

ORDER

Before Justices Whitehill, Pedersen, III, and Carlyle

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s April 16, 

2020 petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
From: hmaribel@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:11:59 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,

Maribel Herrera

Miami, FL 33175
Order filed November 10, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00601

- CV

____________ In the Interest of N.S., a Child

On Appeal from the 314th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014

- 03294J

ORDER
This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue

. Appellant's brief was due November 9, 2015

. No brief has been filed. Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed.
See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). This accelerated schedule requires gr eater compliance with briefing deadlines. Therefore we order appellant’s appointed counsel William M . Thursland , to file appellant’s brief no later than November 20, 2015. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why h e should not be held incontempt of court. In addition, the court may require appointment of new counsel due to the failure to timely file appellant’s brief.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         644,411
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,781,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                   514,426
<INVENTORY>                                 20,092,607
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            39,372,651
<PP&E>                                      12,783,273
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              55,290,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,516,425
<BONDS>                                      1,717,725
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                        19,830
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,036,373
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                55,290,355
<SALES>                                     41,164,828
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,164,828
<CGS>                                       31,005,534
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,005,534
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,002,773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,188,926)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,188,926)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,188,926)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 68

Designating April 9, 1997, and April 9, 1998, as ‘‘National Former Prisoner

of War Recognition Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 20, 1997

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. AKAKA, and Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire)

submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating April 9, 1997, and April 9, 1998, as ‘‘National

Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day’’.

Whereas the United States has fought in many wars;

Whereas thousands of members of the Armed Forces of the

United States who served in such wars were captured by

the enemy and held as prisoners of war;

Whereas many prisoners of war were subjected to brutal and

inhumane treatment by their captors in violation of international codes and customs for the treatment of prisoners

of war and died, or were disabled, as a result of the

treatment; and

Whereas the great sacrifices of the prisoners of war and their

families deserve national recognition: Now, therefore, be

it
2

•SRES 68 ATS

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates April 9, 1997, and April 9, 1998,

3 as ‘‘National Former Prisoner of War Recognition

4 Day’’ in honor of the members of the Armed Forces

5 of the United States who have been held as pris6 oners of war; and

7 (2) requests that the President issue a procla8 mation calling on the people of the United States to

9 commemorate this day with appropriate ceremonies

10 and activities.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kevin McRay SMITH, Appellant.

No. 00-3548.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 2001.

Filed July 16, 2001.

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kevin McRay Smith appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 following his guilty plea to drug offenses. The district court sentenced Smith to 188 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Smith challenges the district court’s finding that he was a career offender, arguing that his burglaries of commercial buddings should not be considered crimes of violence under U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2.

As Smith concedes, in *United States v. Hascall,*76 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*519 U.S. 948, 117 S.Ct. 358, 136 L.Ed.2d 250 (1996), this court determined that second-degree burglary of a commercial building is a crime of violence. Smith urges us to find that *Hascall*was wrongly decided. Even if we were inclined to do so, we are not at liberty to overturn the decision; only the court sitting en banc may do so. *See United States v. Reynolds,*116 F.3d 328, 329 (8th Cir.1997) (refusing to consider argument that *Hascall*was wrongly decided).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
|What's New ·

What's Next ·

Site Map ·
A-Z Index ·
Careers ·

RSS ·
All Videos ·

Current FAQs |  | Search Advanced Search | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 Current Release
Release Dates
Enhanced Financial Accounts
Financial Accounts Guide
Technical Q&As
Announcements
  L.123 Closed-End Funds  
 Billions of dollars; amounts outstanding end of period, not seasonally adjusted Description
Series code
2014
2015
2015   Q1
2015   Q2
2015   Q3
2015   Q4
2016   Q1
2016   Q2
2016   Q3
LineClosed-end funds; total financial assets
	LM554090005
	289.2
	260.8
	289.3
	283.2
	264.6
	260.8
	259.5
	265.3
	268.6
	1Closed-end funds; debt securities; asset
	LM554022005
	169.9
	161.1
	170.7
	167.3
	163.2
	161.1
	161.9
	163.9
	165.3
	2Closed-end funds; Treasury securities; asset
	LM553061103
	6.4
	5.8
	6.4
	6.2
	6.1
	5.8
	5.8
	4.2
	4.2
	3Closed-end funds; municipal securities; asset
	LM553062003
	90.2
	89.5
	90.3
	87.9
	88.5
	89.5
	90.7
	93.3
	91.8
	4Closed-end funds; corporate and foreign bonds; asset
	LM553063003
	73.3
	65.8
	74.1
	73.1
	68.7
	65.8
	65.3
	66.4
	69.3
	5Closed-end funds; corporate equities; asset
	LM553064103
	119.3
	99.7
	118.6
	115.9
	101.4
	99.7
	97.6
	101.4
	103.3
	6Closed-end funds; total financial assets
	LM554090005
	289.2
	260.8
	289.3
	283.2
	264.6
	260.8
	259.5
	265.3
	268.6
	7Closed-end funds; total financial assets in domestic equity funds
	LM554091603
	89.0
	72.1
	87.7
	84.6
	73.5
	72.1
	70.5
	74.3
	75.4
	8Closed-end funds; total financial assets in world equity funds
	LM554092603
	30.4
	27.5
	30.9
	31.3
	27.8
	27.5
	27.1
	27.2
	27.9
	9Closed-end funds; total financial assets in domestic taxable bond funds
	LM554091303
	56.8
	51.7
	57.7
	56.9
	54.0
	51.7
	51.2
	50.5
	52.8
	10Closed-end funds; total financial assets in municipal bond funds
	LM554091203
	90.2
	89.5
	90.3
	88.0
	88.5
	89.5
	90.7
	93.3
	91.8
	11Closed-end funds; total financial assets in world bond funds
	LM554092303
	22.9
	19.9
	22.8
	22.5
	20.8
	19.9
	19.9
	20.1
	20.7
	12 Back to top
   Home Economic Research & Data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer Website Policies FOIA
 PDF Reader
No. 63911.

protest 59/7940 (New York).

#### I. B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that two cases, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision ■cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon the two cases of merchandise, which were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest •was sustained to this extent.
#### In the Matter of Santo Marciano, Respondent, v General Accident Insurance Company, Sued Herein as Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 345]

—In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award dated February 21, 1993, of $375,000 for personal injuries sustained by the petitioner in an automobile accident under the underinsurance coverage provision of an insurance policy, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated April 25,1994, which confirmed the award.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant is not entitled to a trial de novo. In this case, the petitioner demanded arbitration pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association and the parties proceeded to arbitration pursuant to that demand. By award dated February 21, 1993, the American Arbitration Association arbitrator awarded the petitioner $375,000. The policy provides that if an arbitration award exceeds "the minimum limit for bodily injury liability specified by the financial responsibility law of [this] [S]tate * * * either party may demand [a trial de novo]”. While the policy provisions granting the right to a trial de novo are not against public policy *(see, Allstate Ins. Co. v Jacobs,*208 AD2d 578), the appellant cannot invoke those provisions because "the parties proceeded to arbitration in accordance with the rules applicable to the American Arbitration Association, and not in accordance with the policy provisions” *(Matter of Eckart v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 208*AD2d 533).

Insurance Law § 5106 (c), which grants the statutory right to a trial de novo where a "master arbitrator’s award is five thousand dollars or greater”, is inapplicable here since we are not dealing with a master arbitrator’s award.

*749The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Copertino, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
No. 67629.

#### Transamerican Match Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 62/15069-16694 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Official Journal C 1/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 1 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 595 January 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 1

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 595 January 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 001/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2016/C 001/2 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 001/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2016/C 001/2

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 001/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7844 — ACEK/Sumitomo/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 001/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7844 — ACEK/Sumitomo/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
No. 57808.

protests 780151-G, etc. (New York).

#### Chinkor Fur Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
# Official Journal C 87/2018

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 87 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 617 March 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 87

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 617 March 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 87/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8710 — JD/Sonae MC/Balaiko/JDSH/Sport Zone) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 87/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8710 — JD/Sonae MC/Balaiko/JDSH/Sport Zone) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 87/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 87/02

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 87/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8802 — KKR/Unilever Baking Cooking and Spreads Business) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2018/C 87/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8763 — KKR/Tekfor) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 87/05 | Publication of an application for approval of minor amendments in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 6 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2018/C 87/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8802 — KKR/Unilever Baking Cooking and Spreads Business) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

2018/C 87/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8763 — KKR/Tekfor) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

5

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2018/C 87/05

Publication of an application for approval of minor amendments in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

6

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN