alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before Chief Judge Rao,

February 8, 1967

No. R67/34.

No. R67/35.

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

reappraisement R59/10176 (New Orleans).

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

reappraisement R60/8677 (Chicago).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues of fact and law are the same in all material respects as those in *Kurt Orban Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 20, C.A.D. 851), the court found and held that 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, is the proper basis of value for the galvanized wire and round steel wire in issue and that said value is the appraised value, less inland freight and f.o.b. charges of $11 per metric ton.
# Official Journal C 309/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.309.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 309 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5218 December 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.309.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 309

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5218 December 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 309/01 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)
   (1) | 1 |
| 2009/C 309/02 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast)(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)
   (1) | 29 |
| 2009/C 309/03 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning pressure equipment(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)
   (1) | 66 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 309/01

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)
   (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)

1

2009/C 309/02

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast)(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)
   (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)

29

2009/C 309/03

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning pressure equipment(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)
   (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)

66

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
No. 66116.

#### Hercules Div. American Machine Foundry Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/4688-S, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard*& *Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00776-CR

Christopher BUSTOS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR13086

Honorable Christine Del Prado, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Lori Massey Brissette, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 11, 2024

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

Following an abandonment hearing in the trial court due to appellant’s court-appointed 

attorney’s failure to file a brief, on July 15, 2024, counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts there are no meritorious 

issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies she has served copies of the brief and motion on 

appellant, has informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and has 

explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 
04-23-00776-CR

- 2 -

85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

On July 19, 2024, appellant filed a pro se motion to dismiss his appeal. However, because 

appellant is represented by counsel, he is not entitled to hybrid representation. Patrick v. State, 906 

S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means 

appellant’s pro se motion was treated as presenting nothing for this court’s review. See id. 

Accordingly, on August 8, 2024, we denied appellant’s pro se motion to dismiss.

On August 12, 2024, appellant’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion 

is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Exhibit 16.1











April 29, 2013
 Securities and Exchange Commission
 100 F Street, N.E.
 Washington, DC 20549
 
 
 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen:
  We have read Item 16F. of Form 20-F dated April 29, 2013, of DHT Holdings, Inc. and are in agreement with the statements contained in the second and third  paragraphs (including statements specified under points (i) and (ii) of the third paragraph) on the pages that include the Item 16F disclosure therein. We have no basis to agree or disagree with other statements of the registrant contained therein.
 
 Regarding the registrant's statement concerning the lack of internal control to prepare financial statements, included in the third paragraph under point (ii) on the pages that include the Item 16F. disclosure therein, we had considered such matter in determining the nature, timing and extent of procedures performed in our audit of the registrant's 2011 consolidated financial statements.
 
 
 
 /s/ Ernst & Young AS
 Oslo, Norway
No. 65245.

#### Hygrotester, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/4912 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
Exhibit
14.1









Consent
of Independent Registered


Public
Accounting Firm








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form
F-3 No. 333-152906 and Form S-8 No. 333-129136) of DHT Maritime, Inc. and in the
related Prospectus of our reports dated March 11, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of DHT Maritime, Inc. and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of DHT Maritime, Inc., all included in
this Annual Report of DHT Maritime, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2008.






/s/ Ernst
& Young LLP





New York,
New York


March 11,
2009

































1
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 191

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the

Brooklyn Museum of Art should not receive Federal funds unless it closes its exhibit featuringworks of a sacrilegious nature.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 191

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas on October 2, 1999, the Brooklyn Museum of Art

opened an exhibit entitled ‘‘Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection’’;

Whereas this art exhibit features a desecrated image of the

Virgin Mary;
2

•HCON 191 EH

Whereas the venerable John Cardinal O’Connor considers the

exhibit an attack on the Catholic faith, and is an affront

to more than a billion Catholics worldwide;

Whereas the exhibit includes works which are grotesque, immoral, and sacrilegious, such as one that glorifies criminal behavior with a portrait of a convicted child murderer

fashioned from small hand prints;

Whereas the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s advertisement acknowledges that the exhibit ‘‘may cause shock, vomiting,

confusion, panic, euphoria, and anxiety’’;

Whereas the Brooklyn Museum of Art refuses to close the exhibit, despite strong public opposition to the show from

religious leaders, government officials, and the general

population;

Whereas the American taxpayer, through the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for

the Humanities, provides funding to the Brooklyn Museum of Art; and

Whereas the American taxpayer should not be required to

subsidize art that desecrates religion and religious beliefs:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 Brooklyn Museum of Art should not receive Federal funds
3

•HCON 191 EH

1 unless it closes its exhibit featuring works of a sacrilegious

2 nature.

Passed the House of Representatives October 4,

1999.

Attest:

Clerk.
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 OF DISMISSAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

SUZIE MODRELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-981MAT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Counsel having notified the Court of the settlement of this case, and it appearing that no

issue remains for the court’s determination,

IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs to any party.

In the event that the settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case,

provided that such motion is filed within 60 days of the date of this order. Any trial date and pretrial

dates previously set are hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of May, 2007.

 A Mary Alice Theiler, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00981-MAT Document 17 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4722-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-4722-DR), dated July 19, 2023, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued September 7, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 19, 2023.

Mille Lacs and Wabasha Counties for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2023-23189 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
No. 63454.

protests 123758-K, etc. (New York).

#### Park & Tilford Import Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Danny E. LEE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent.

No. 00-3276.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 9, 2001.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
# C_2017357EN.01000201.xml

| 23.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/2

---

Appeal brought on 20 March 2017 by QuaMa Quality Management GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2017 in Case T-225/15, QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-139/17 P)

(2017/C 357/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (represented by: C. Russ, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Microchip Technology, Inc.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017;

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2015 (Joined Cases R 1809/2014-4 and R 1680/2014-4). |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2015 (Joined Cases R 1809/2014-4 and R 1680/2014-4).

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant bases its appeal, lodged against the judgment of the General Court, on the following considerations:

The appeal alleges an infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. (1) The General Court, it is submitted, erred in proceeding on the basis of the premiss that the intervener had, on 9 April 2013, submitted the correct application for registration of the change of ownership and had merely used an incorrect form for that purpose. In fact, the application for a ‘change of name or address of a proprietor’ related to all of SMSC Europe GmbH’s trade marks (14) and was also interpreted by EUIPO in that manner, as the letter of 14 April 2013 makes clear. It is therefore not in dispute that EUIPO dismissed the application of 9 April 2013 in its entirety and upheld only the application lodged on 14 June 2013, after the period for submitting a statement of opposition had expired.

1

The appeal further alleges infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. Neither the Opposition Division nor the Board of Appeal, it is submitted, addressed the determination of the relevant public in anything approaching a sufficiently satisfactory manner. The assessment of the likelihood of confusion cannot take place without determination of the relevant public and the distinctiveness in relation to each of the individual goods and services. This is even more so the case as regards the General Court’s finding that the similarity of the signs in question for a specialist public — to which the General Court does not belong — is ‘low’.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
|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.119.c Federal Government Employee Retirement Funds Defined Contribution Plans (1)  
 Billions of dollars; amounts outstanding end of period, not seasonally adjusted Description
Series code
2014
2015
2016
2015   Q3
2015   Q4
2016   Q1
2016   Q2
2016   Q3
2016   Q4
LineFederal government retirement funds; total financial assets held by Thrift Savings Plan
	FL344090025
	411.9
	430.2
	466.6
	410.5
	430.2
	434.3
	440.7
	455.9
	466.6
	1Federal government defined contribution retirement funds; debt securities; asset
	FL344022025
	203.8
	220.0
	236.0
	12.8
	220.0
	226.3
	230.0
	235.7
	236.0
	2Federal government defined contribution retirement funds; Treasury securities held by Thrift Savings Plan; asset(2)
	FL343061155
	195.0
	210.9
	226.5
	3.9
	210.9
	217.0
	220.4
	225.5
	226.5
	3Federal government retirement funds; agency- and GSE-backed securities held by Thrift Savings Plan; asset
	FL343061723
	5.5
	5.7
	5.9
	5.6
	5.7
	5.7
	6.0
	6.2
	5.9
	4Federal government retirement funds; corporate and foreign bonds held by Thrift Savings Plan; asset
	FL343063023
	3.2
	3.4
	3.6
	3.3
	3.4
	3.5
	3.7
	4.0
	3.6
	5Federal government retirement funds; corporate equities held by Thrift Savings Plan; asset
	LM343064123
	208.2
	210.2
	230.6
	197.8
	210.2
	208.0
	210.7
	220.3
	230.6
	6Federal government defined contribution retirement funds; claims of pension funds on sponsor; asset(3)
	FL343073053
	0.0
	0.0
	0.0
	199.9
	0.0
	0.0
	0.0
	0.0
	0.0
	7Federal government retirement funds; total financial assets held by Thrift Savings Plan
	FL344090025
	411.9
	430.2
	466.6
	410.5
	430.2
	434.3
	440.7
	455.9
	466.6
	8 Back to top
  **NOTES** Thrift Savings Plan.
Includes nonmarketable and marketable Treasury securities held by the Thrift Savings Plan G and F funds.
Suspended investments in the Thrift Savings Plan G Fund by the Treasury.
  Home Economic Research & Data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer Website Policies FOIA
 PDF Reader
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 3.1

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

     The following resolution was approved by the Board of Directors of 
SpeedFam International, Inc., an Illinois corporation (the "Company"), on 
November 19, 1998, and approved by the shareholders of the Company on April 6, 
1999:

          RESOLVED, THAT: the amendment to the articles of incorporation of
          SpeedFam International, Inc., which would amend article one to read:
          "the name of the corporation is SPEEDFAM-IPEC, Inc." be approved.

     The Certificate of Amendment effecting such amendment was filed with the 
Illinois Secretary of State on April 6, 1999.

                                        /s/ Frank S. Currie
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Frank S. Currie
                                        Secretary
                                        SpeedFam-IPEC, Inc.
Before the Third Division,

June 10, 1965

No. 69365.

#### Novelty Import Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/18687, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that tbe issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 CCPA 112, C.A.D. 351), and that tbe merchandise reported by tbe inspector as manifested, not found, was not in fact received by the importers, tbe claim of tbe plaintiffs was sustained to tbe extent that duties and taxes were assessed upon quantities of merchandise in excess of that which was imported.
Before the Third Division,

February 3, 1955

No. 58748.

protests 240180-K, etc. (New York).

#### Paolo Alonge, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Pecorino (sheep’s milk) cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fontana Hollywood Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1503), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Order to Seal - 1

Kerfoot, CR06-252Z

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

(206) 553-7970

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

27

28

The Honorable Thomas S. Zilly

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN DONALD KERFOOT,

 Defendant.

NO. CR06-252Z

ORDER TO SEAL

Having read the Government’s Motion to Seal, docket no. 31, and because of the 

sensitive information contained in the four exhibits,

It is hereby ORDERED that Exhibits 1 through 4 to the United States’ Sentencing 

Memorandum, docket no. 32, shall remain sealed.

DATED this 25th day of July, 2017.

A

Thomas S. Zilly

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00252-TSZ Document 36 Filed 07/25/17 Page 1 of 1