alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10858)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 820689; 900514-1/3.

(Decided November 18, 1964)

*Sharp & Bogan*for tbe plaintiff.

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

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part thereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

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

> 1. That tbe subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which tbe Secretary of tbe Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published *484in 89 T.D. 197, T.D. 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C.,160, etseq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (See. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the 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 said schedule A, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.O. § 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.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Leonhard Dreimann, Chief Executive Officer of Salton, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
         period ended December 28, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: May 13, 2003                            /s/Leonhard Dreimann
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Leonhard Dreimann
                                               Chief Executive Officer
Before the Second Division,

March 11, 1958

No. 61659.

#### Eugene Dietzgen Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 262850-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the boxes the subject of Abstract 59557, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
_______________________________________ __ 

# Order

June 26, 2007

133439 133440

AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

MARK ALLEN MURDOCK, Defendant-Appellant,

and

JUANITA DENISE MURDOCK, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/ Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

SC: 133439, 133440 COA: 262786, 265111 Wayne CC: 03-320706-CZ

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0618 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2007

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 78 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J. Res.78

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and 
                           for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 106-62 is 
further amended by striking ``November 10, 1999'' in section 106(c) and 
inserting ``November 17, 1999'', and by striking ``$288,903,248'' in 
section 119 and inserting ``$346,483,754''. Public Law 106-46 is 
amended by striking ``November 10, 1999'' and inserting ``November 17, 
1999''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      19,370,244
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,446,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (616,275)
<INVENTORY>                                  8,682,967
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,404,139
<PP&E>                                       1,282,856
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,608,745
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,226,852
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    79,101,745
<OTHER-SE>                                (34,943,510)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,608,745
<SALES>                                      8,726,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,726,170
<CGS>                                        5,390,809
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,785,510
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (726,346)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (14,332,994)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (14,332,994)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (14,332,994)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.34)
        


</TABLE>
Case No. 8,301.

#### LEVY v. THE CAROLINE.

[Cited in Case No. 88. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
# L_2022304DE.01010601.xml

| 24.11.2022 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 304/106 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2022

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 304/106

---

Berichtigung der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2022/1299 der Kommission vom 24. März 2022 zur Ergänzung der Richtlinie 2014/65/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates durch technische Regulierungsstandards zur Festlegung des Inhalts von Positionsmanagementkontrollen der Handelsplätze

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 197 vom 26. Juli 2022
  )

Seite 2, Artikel 2 Absatz 1:

Anstatt:

„(1)   Handelsplätze, die den Handel mit Warenderivaten anbieten, legen als Teil ihrer Positionsmanagementkontrollen im Spot-Monat im Sinne von Artikel 2 Nummer 3 der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2022/1301 der Kommission (4) und in den anderen Monaten im Sinne von Artikel 2 Nummer 4 der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2022/1301 Rechenschaftswerte für Warenderivate fest, die für den Handel zur Verfügung gestellt werden und physisch abgewickelt werden oder abgewickelt werden können.“

muss es heißen:

„(1)   Handelsplätze, die den Handel mit Warenderivaten anbieten, legen als Teil ihrer Positionsmanagementkontrollen im Spot-Monat im Sinne von Artikel 2 Nummer 3 der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2022/1302 der Kommission (4) und in den anderen Monaten im Sinne von Artikel 2 Nummer 4 der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2022/1302 Rechenschaftswerte für Warenderivate fest, die für den Handel zur Verfügung gestellt werden und physisch abgewickelt werden oder abgewickelt werden können.“

Seite 2, Fußnote 4:

Anstatt:

„Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2022/1301 der Kommission vom 31. März 2022 zur Änderung der in der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2020/1226 festgelegten technischen Regulierungsstandards im Hinblick auf die Informationen, die gemäß den Anforderungen an die STS-Meldung bei synthetischen Bilanzverbriefungen zu übermitteln sind (ABl. L 197 vom xx.xx.2022, S. 10)“.

muss es heißen:

„Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2022/1302 der Kommission vom 20. April 2022 zur Ergänzung der Richtlinie 2014/65/EU des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates durch technische Regulierungsstandards für die Anwendung von Positionslimits für Warenderivate und für Verfahren für Anträge auf Ausnahmen von Positionslimits (ABl. L 197 vom 26.7.2022, S. 52).“

---
#### Xin Hang CHEN, Appellant, v. Lawrence W. RAZ, Riggs Bank, et al., Appellees.

No. 01-7033.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

July 2, 2001.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge; WILLIAMS and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant, and the supplement thereto. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the February 6, 2001 order of the district court, denying appellant’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration, be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its accompanying memorandum opinion. *See Browder v. Director, Illinois Dept. of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (denial of Rule 60(b) motion may be overturned only if the district court abused its discretion).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 19, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 19, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0361. DEW PLUMBING, INC et al. v. R. PETER FISHMAN et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

13GR068579
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Mailtec, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that amendment 2 to the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31,
2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/W. Ross C. Corace
                                 ----------------------
                                 W. Ross C. Corace
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer

November 18, 2006
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. MICHAEL WALKER,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 10068
D.C. No. 1:19

- cr - 00136

- SOM

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 26, 2020 * *
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Michael Walker appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 420

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for aiding and abetting second

- degree murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 2, 1111. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 2 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 10068

Walker contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately, and by basing the 55

- month upward variance on
factors that were already account ed for in the Guidelines range. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010) , and conclude that there is none. The district court thoroughly explained that the upward variance was warranted because of Walker’s aggravated role in the offense, his criminal history , his late acceptance of responsibility, and the horrific
nature of the crime . Contrary to Walker’s assertion, the court properly emphasized those factors, even though they were also accounted for in the Guidelines
calculation. See United States v. Christensen , 732 F.3d 1094, 110 0

- 0 1 (9th Cir. 2013) (sentencing court may conclude that the Guidelines do not sufficiently account for the harm caused by the defendant’s conduct )

. Moreover, the reco rd does not support Walker’s contention that the district court improperly relied upon

an ex parte memo randum filed in his co

- defendant’s case in selecting the sentence

. Walker next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable
because it gave undue weight to aggravating factors and created an unwarranted sentencing disparity

. The district court did not abuse its discretion

. S ee Gall v.
Unite d States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)

. The above

- Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and
the totality of the circumstances. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51 ; see also United States3 20

- 10068

v. Gutierrez

- Sanchez , 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) ( “ The weight to be given
the v arious factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court. ”)

. Furthermore, the disparity between Walker’s sentence and that of his co - defendant
is not unwarranted. See United States v. Carter , 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009) (no unwarranted sentencing disparity where defendants are not similarly situated).
AFFIRMED
.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 358 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 358

Calling upon the Government of Turkey to withdraw its armed forces from 
  the island of Cyprus and to negotiate, along with the Government of 
Turkish-occupied Cyprus, for the reunification of the Government of the 
                          Republic of Cyprus.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 21, 2000

 Mr. Campbell submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
          referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Calling upon the Government of Turkey to withdraw its armed forces from 
  the island of Cyprus and to negotiate, along with the Government of 
Turkish-occupied Cyprus, for the reunification of the Government of the 
                          Republic of Cyprus.

Whereas in 1960, the island Republic of Cyprus gained independence from Great 
        Britain;
Whereas under the terms of the Republic's constitution and the Treaty of 
        Alliance between the Kingdom of Greece, the Republic of Turkey, and the 
        Republic of Cyprus (done at Nicosia, Cyprus; effective August 16, 1960), 
        a Greek Cypriot president and Turkish Cypriot vice president were 
        elected;
Whereas beginning in 1964, Turkish Cypriots withdrew from most national 
        institutions, and a series of violent clashes occurred between the Greek 
        and Turkish Cypriots as a result of this action;
Whereas in 1974, Turkey sent armed forces to Cyprus and occupied over 36 percent 
        of the island, creating the widespread displacement of Greek Cypriots 
        from the northern part of the island;
Whereas since 1974, efforts by the United States and the United Nations to 
        resolve this dispute have been unsuccessful; and
Whereas 30,000 Turkish armed forces remain stationed on the island of Cyprus: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that Turkey should--
            (1) withdraw all its armed forces from the island of 
        Cyprus; and
            (2) along with the Government of Turkish-occupied Cyprus, 
        negotiate for the reunification of the Government of the 
        Republic of Cyprus.
                                 <all>
```
No. 68601.

protests 313796-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### Davies, Turner & Company et al. *v. United*States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rotary lawn sprinklers or metal parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 CCPA 56, C.A.D. 820), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
January 6, 1965

Reap. Dec. 10879.

#### Rex Cutlery Corp. *v.*United States,

reappraisement 271962-A, etc.

rehearing motion denied

Entered at New York, N.Y. Reap. Dec. 10819. Motion by plaintiff.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 111 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.111

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and 
                           for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 106-275 is 
further amended by striking ``October 14, 2000'' in section 106(c) and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``October 20, 2000''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
No. 59863.

#### Sprouse-Reitz Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 242694-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of blue willow coffee mugs, composed of earthenware having a nonvitrified absorbent body, ornamented, painted, printed, or decorated, and that if said merchandise were now before the appraiser for classification, it would be described and advisorily classified as tableware, kitchenware, or table or kitchen utensils at 10 cents per dozen pieces and 45 percent ad valorem under paragraph 211, as modified, *supra,*the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

EDWARD PHILLIP RUTHERFORD, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-546

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed March 28, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Charles E. Roberts, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Mark C. Katzef, Special Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and C. Todd Chapman,

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, MORRIS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
No. 54489.

#### Pan American Import & Export Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 151793-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Fobd, J.

The protests were dismissed.