alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 55840.

protest 162264-K (New York).

#### Jack Kreuter Co. *v.*United States,

*306Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the items of merchandise in question consist of watch movements similar in all material respects to those which were the subject of *United States*v. *Helbros Watch Co. et al.*(38 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 430). Upon the agreed statement of facts and the cited authority, the merchandise was held properly dutiable at the base rate of 90 cents each as watch movements more than 1 inch but less than 1.77 inches wide under paragraph 367 (a) (1), as modified, *supra.*
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24675]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD


Notice of Appointments of Individuals To Serve as Members of 
Performance Review Boards

AGENCY: National Labor Relations Board.

ACTION: Notice; appointment to serve as members of performance review 
boards.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Labor Relations Board is issuing this notice that 
the individuals whose names and position titles appear below have been 
appointed to serve as members of performance review boards in the 
National Labor Relations Board for the rating year beginning October 1, 
2022 and ending September 30, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roxanne L. Rothschild, Executive 
Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE, 
Washington, DC 20570, (202) 273-1940 (this is not a toll-free number), 
1-866-315-6572 (TTY/TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Name and Title

Andrew Krafts--Executive Assistant to the Chairman (Chief of Staff), 
Office of the Chairman
Grant Kraus--Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the Chairman
Terence G. Schoone-Jongen--Director, Office of Representation Appeals
Peter Sung Ohr--Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel
Joan A. Sullivan--Associate General Counsel, Division of Operations 
Management
Nancy Kessler Platt (Alternate)--Associate General Counsel, Division of 
Legal Counsel

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

    By Direction of the Board.

    Dated: November 3, 2023.
Roxanne L. Rothschild,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-24675 Filed 11-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7545-01-P
(Reap. Dec. 10937)

#### Bruce Duncan Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 57704.

*592(Decided March 30, 1965)

*Stein & ShostaJc*for the plaintiffs.

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

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon 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 to the mex’chandise covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumexated in the attached Schedule of Cases, which is incorporated herein:

> 1. That on the dates 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 incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values, ex factory, net packed.

> 2. That all the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement was entered subsequent to February 27, 1958.

> 3. That the merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule is not included on the 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, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, required to be valued in accordance with Section 402(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

> 4. That these appeals for reappraisement may be deemed submitted for decision on 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 in question and that such values were the invoice unit values, ex-factory, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DORA RAZO, :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4269

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04269-JD Document 8 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
8-1

Chapter 8 Portfolio Sales

Interim Guidance

An updated Chapter on loan portfolio/asset sales will be forthcoming

from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Treasury’s

Office of Domestic Finance. In the interim, agencies should consult the

most recent versions of OMB Circular No. A-11, “Preparation,

Submission, and Execution of the Budget” and OMB Circular 

No. A-129 - “Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax

Receivables.” These documents are available at:

 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars
Ex-99.1 a)

                         Independent Auditors Report

To Cendant Mortgage Corporation:

We have examined managements assertion about Cendant Mortgage Corporations
compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage
 Bankers Association of Americas Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003 included in the
accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for Cendant
Mortgage Corporations compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the
entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about Cendant Mortgage Corporation's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on Cendant Mortgage Corporations compliance
with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, managements assertion that Cendant Mortgage Corporation complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2003 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-------------------------
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Parsippany, NJ
February 23, 2004
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000070521-MAY-201308:26 AM
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 8 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 8

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 3, 2017.
    Resolved, That pursuant to the Legislative Pay Act of 1929, as amended, the 
six minority employees authorized therein shall be the following named persons, 
effective January 3, 2017, until otherwise ordered by the House, to-wit: Nadeam 
Elshami, George Kundanis, Diane Dewhirst, Richard Meltzer, Wyndee Parker, and 
Drew Hammill, each to receive gross compensation pursuant to the provisions of 
House Resolution 119, Ninety-fifth Congress, as enacted into permanent law by 
section 115 of Public Law 95-94. In addition, the Minority Leader may appoint 
and set the annual rate of pay for up to 3 further minority employees.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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  ANNUAL REPORT OF NEW MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, INC. ON FORM
10-KSB  FOR  THE  PERIOD  ENDING  JUNE 30, 2005 AS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE  COMMISSION  ON  THE  DATE  HEREOF  (THE  "REPORT"),  I,  ALEXANDER
BOLKER-HAGERTY CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER OF NEW MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, INC. CERTIFY,
PURSUANT  TO  18  U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT  OF  2002,  THAT:

     (1)  THE  REPORT FULLY COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES ACT
     OF  1933,  AS  AMENDED;  AND

     (2)  THE  INFORMATION  CONTAINED  IN  THE  REPORT  FAIRLY  PRESENTS, IN ALL
     MATERIAL RESPECTS, THE FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS OF NEW
     MEDIUM  ENTERPRISES,  INC.



/S/  Alexander Bolker-Haggerty,
CHIEF  OPERATIONS  OFFICER
November 2,  2005
Direct Dial: 435.634.3530 Direct Fax: 435.634.3505 e-mail: temerson@skywest.com March 6, 2014 VIA E-Mail: Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov and U.S. Mail The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Re: FDMS No. FAA-2012-0777 Dear Judge Goodwin: 

# RECEIVED MAR 19 20l'l 

## HEARING DOCKET

FAA attorney JeffHarper has graciously granted Sky West Airlines an extension 

### in which to file its Motion for Decision onthe above-referenced matter. This will adjust the scheduling order as follows: • Sky West Airlines will file its Motion for Decision onMarch 21, 2014 • The FAA will file its Rebuttal BriefonMarch 28, 2014 Please let me know ifyou**h~** or concerns.

TCE/jb cc: JeffHarper Patricia Matthews Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC,43o · Sincerely,

# ~

# c

'-'<:::::::'

# ~-:. Todd C. Emerson Director:... Government and Legal Affairs

444 South River Road // St. George, Utah 84790 ;; Phone 435.634.3000 r; www.skywest.com
# C_2017424EN.01000801.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Murcia — Spain) — Europamur Alimentación SA v Dirección General de Comercio y Protección del Consumidor de la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia,

(Case C-295/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices - Scope of that directive - Sale by a wholesaler to retailers - Jurisdiction of the Court - National legislation laying down a general prohibition on selling at a loss - Exceptions based on criteria not provided for by that directive))

(2017/C 424/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Murcia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Europamur Alimentación SA

Applicant:

Defendants: Dirección General de Comercio y Protección del Consumidor de la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which contains a general prohibition on offering for sale or selling goods at a loss and which lays down grounds of derogation from that prohibition that are based on criteria not appearing in that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6759

BLAKE SANDLAIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BARBARA RICKARD, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at 

Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00072)

Submitted: July 21, 2020 Decided: July 24, 2020

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Blake Sandlain, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Blake Sandlain, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his 

motion for relief from judgment following the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 (2018) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sandlain v. Rickard, 

No. 1:19-cv-00072 (S.D.W. Va. May 14, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARY DOE : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

MATCH.COM, INC., et al. : NO. 04-938

ORDER

AND NOW, this ___ day of July, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Discovery shall be completed by January 31, 2005.

2. All potential expert witnesses will be identified by September 24, 2004.

3. A pretrial conference shall take place on October 5, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. in Room

#17614, United States Courthouse.

4. Any dispositive motion shall be filed not later than February 11, 2005.

5. Any response to a dispositive motion shall be filed not later than February 25,

2005.

6. Any reply brief shall be filed not later than March 4, 2005.

7. On or before April 13, 2005, each party shall file a pretrial memorandum, as

well as proposed points for charge (each charge on a separate page), and memorandum of

law on disputed or unusual legal issues.

8. A final pretrial conference shall be held on April 13, 2005, at 4:00 p.m., in 

Room 17614. 

9. Trial in the above-captioned matter shall commence on May 2, 2005, at

Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 16 Filed 07/22/2004 Page 1 of 2

MARY DOE v. MATCH.COM, INC. et al Doc. 16

Dockets.Justia.com
2

9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 17A.

BY THE COURT:

________________________

JAMES T. GILES C.J.

copies by FAX on

to

Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 16 Filed 07/22/2004 Page 2 of 2
June 16, 1943

No. 48414.

#### Protests 72167-K, etc., of Leonard Gordon Importing Co., Inc., et al.

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
**EXHIBIT 12.1****FORM OF 302 CERTIFICATIONS**I, Boris Nemsic, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Telekom Austria AG;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15 (f)) for the company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditorsand the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 30, 2007         By  /s/ Boris Nemsic  Name:  Boris Nemsic   Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Dollar Amount % of Total Dollar Amount Number of Transactions % of Total Number of Transactions

Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 13,895,751,969,962 99.55% 12,043 12.03%

Buy/Sell 55,568,301,392 0.40% 86,813 86.69%

Benefits (RITS) 6,570,289,159 0.05% 385 0.38%

Check Aftermath (TRACS) 122,132,778 0.00% 895 0.89%

Zero Dollar 0 0.00% 1 0.00%

Grand Total - August 2017 13,958,012,693,291 100.00% 100,137 100.00%

Grand Total - July 2017 15,517,494,698,932 100.00% 99,390 100.00%

July to August Change -1,559,482,005,640 747

Percentage Change -10.050% 0.752%

Grand Total - August 2016 16,361,443,112,854 113,538

August 2016 to August 2017 Change -2,403,430,419,562 -13,401

Percentage Change -14.7% -11.8%

Volume by Transaction Type

IPAC Operational Metrics for December 2017
# C_2015381EN.01005101.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/51

---

Action brought on 17 September 2015 — Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane v OHIM — Audi (NSU)

(Case T-541/15)

(2015/C 381/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane Srl (Reggio Emilia, Italy) (represented by: M. Gurrado, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Audi AG (Ingolstadt, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NSU’ — Application for registration No 9 593 492

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 July 2015 in Case R 2132/2014-2

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and, as a result, the OHIM shall proceed with the registration of the application for CTM; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, as a result, the OHIM shall proceed with the registration of the application for CTM;

| — | order AUDI to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant, also for the proceedings before the OHIM Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order AUDI to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant, also for the proceedings before the OHIM Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Audi failed to demonstrate genuine use of the earlier mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

Audi failed to demonstrate genuine use of the earlier mark;

| — | Existence of a difference between components and finished products; |
| --- | --- |

—

Existence of a difference between components and finished products;

| — | Existence of a difference between bicycles and the goods indicated in the request of limitation dated 16 October 2014. |
| --- | --- |

—

Existence of a difference between bicycles and the goods indicated in the request of limitation dated 16 October 2014.

---
# C_2018166EN.01000801.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2018 — European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission

(Case C-384/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Plant protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 - Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution - Inclusion of active substance ‘copper compounds’ in that list - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures - Individually concerned person))

(2018/C 166/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Union Copper Task Force (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, C. Vila Gisbert, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, abogadas, and by M. Miserendino, abogado)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders European Union Copper Task Force to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders European Union Copper Task Force to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.

1

---