alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 56937.

#### The Electric Auto-Lite Company *v.*United States,

petition 6814-R (Detroit (Port Huron)).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

According to the record, the petitioning company found itself in short supply of certain automotive products used for service replacement which is customarily manufactured in the United States and requested its *401subsidiary company, the exporter, to furnish them. It appeared that this was the first instance of such a happening and the officials of the exporting and importing companies, as well as of the customs brokerage firm which handled the transaction, conferred several times with the appraiser of merchandise at the port of Port Huron relative to the proper values at which the goods should be entered. The merchandise was entered at the values arrived at as a result of the conferences and was appraised at such values. Reappraisement was subsequently called for by the collector upon the ground that certain expenses and taxes should have been included in the item of general expenses. When the cases were called for trial, they were submitted for decision upon a stipulation of counsel fixing values higher than those at which the merchandise had been entered and appraised. On the record presented it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was-therefore granted.
# C_2018072EN.01002601.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/26

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtschof — Austria) — Peter Valach and Others v Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG and Others

(Case C-649/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Scope - Action for liability in tort against the members of a committee of creditors which rejected a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings))

(2018/C 072/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtschof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Peter Valach, Alena Valachová, SC Europa ZV II a.s., SC Europa LV a.s., VAV Parking a.s., SC Europa BB a.s., Byty A s.r.o

Applicants:

Defendants: Waldviertler Sparkasse Bank AG, Československá obchodná banka a.s., Mesto Banská Bystrica

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to an action for liability in tort brought against the members of a committee of creditors because of their conduct in voting on a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings, and that such an action is therefore excluded from the scope ratione materiae of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

1

---
Before the First Division,

April 9, 1968

No. P68/198.

protests 64/21209 and 64/1545 (Philadelphia).

#### Morris Friedman *&*Co. and F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

WatsoN, ' J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by *the*foregoing protests consists of bulrush baskets similar in all material respects to the rush baskets the subject of *Carson M. Simon & Co.*v. *United States (55*Cust. Ct. 103, C.D. 2558), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1083 Engrossed Amendment House (EAH)]

<DOC>
                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 25, 2017.
    Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1083) entitled ``An Act 
to amend section 1214 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for 
stays during a period that the Merit Systems Protection Board lacks a 
quorum.'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            In section 1214(b)(1)(B)(ii) of title 5, United States 
      Code, as proposed to be added by section 1(2) of the Senate 
      engrossed bill, strike ``shall'' and insert ``may''.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1083

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
No. 51605.

#### Protests 101825-K, etc., of Fujimoto Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The undisputed facts established that the dried, unsalted fish is the same as that passed upon in Abstract 50242, and that the pickled onions are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Mutual Supply Co.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 136, C. D. 842). In accordance therewith the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
No. 56334.

protests 174620-K, etc. (New York).

#### Jay Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HORACIO and CECILIA SANTOS, :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4272

Plaintiffs, :

:

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-04272-HH Document 9 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      35,408,352
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         955,086
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 72,576,148
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    346,816,352
<ALLOWANCE>                                (2,478,179)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             481,788,707
<DEPOSITS>                                 432,493,378
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,371,145
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,866,410
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    36,171,339
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,386,435
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             481,788,707
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             16,591,298
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,229,907
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                78,330
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            18,899,535
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           5,561,794
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             273,956
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       13,063,785
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                1,110,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             11,352,378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,163,991
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   3,163,991
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,054,991
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.270
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.250
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.10
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,469,514
<LOANS-PAST>                                   134,620
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             1,436,134
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,329,988
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                1,048,713
<RECOVERIES>                                    86,904
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,478,179
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,478,179
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

TODD : 02-3885

WINDING : 02-3894

HEDSTROM, et al. : 02-3908

GONZALEZ, et al. : 02-3915

GOMEZ, et al. : 02-3941

MATUSZAK, et al. : 02-3944

BICK : 02-4109

ROGERS : 02-4122

ALLEN : 02-4124

BREWER : 02-4132

SHAPIRO : 02-4198

FINCH, et al. : 02-4219

WHITESIDE, et al. : 02-4245

TKACH : 02-4248

RITTHALER, et al. : 02-4263

SCHULEIN, et al. : 02-4264

WONG, et al. : 02-4278

DENTS, et al. : 02-4303

DURAN, et al. : 02-4314

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04303-WY Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

William H. Yohn, Jr., Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04303-WY Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
Payment Collection RIA SIA Zero Dollar Total

December 2016 32,074 78,201 3,160 103 - 113,538

January 2017 24,959 73,607 3,533 187 - 102,286

February 2017 25,820 76,077 3,454 102 - 105,453

Totals 82,853 227,885 10,147 392 - 321,277

 -

 50,000

 100,000

 150,000

 200,000

 250,000

 300,000

 350,000

# of transactions

Transaction Type

IPAC Transaction Count

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

Totals
# The professional mapping drone Technical specifications

# Technical specifications

Weight (inc. supplied camera) Wingspan

Material Propulsion Battery Camera (supplied) Cameras (optional) Carry case dimensions 

### Hardware

Operation Approx. 0.69 kg (1.52 lbs) 96 cm (38 in) EPP foam, carbon structure & composite parts Electric pusher propeller, 160 W brushless DC motor 11.1 V, 2150 mAh WX (18.2 MP) S110 RGB, thermoMAP 55 x 45 x 25 cm (21.6 x 17.7 x 9.8 in)

50 minutes 40-90 km/h (11-25 m/s or 25-56 mph) Up to 3 km (1.86 miles) 12 km 2 / 4.6 mi 2 (at 974 m / 3,195 ft altitude AGL) Up to 45 km/h (12m/s or 28 mph) Down to 1.5 cm (0.6 in) per pixel 1-3x GSD Down to 3 cm (1.2 in) / 5 cm (2 in) 1-5 m (3.3-16.4 ft) Yes (inc. mid-air collision avoidance) Yes Approx. 5 m (16.4 ft) Maximum flight time Nominal cruise speed Radio link range Maximum coverage (single flight) Wind resistance Ground Sampling Distance (GSD) Relative orthomosaic/3D model accuracy Absolute horizontal/vertical accuracy (w/GCPs) Absolute horizontal/vertical accuracy (no GCPs) Multi-drone operation Automatic 3D flight planning Linear landing accuracy 

# Package contents

• eBee foam body (inc. all electronics & built-in autopilot)

• Pair of detachable wings

• WX still camera (inc. 16 GB SD card, battery, USB cable & charger)

• 2.4 GHz USB radio modem for data link (inc. USB cable)

• Two Lithium-Polymer battery packs & charger

• Spare propeller

• Carry case with foam protection

• Remote control & accessories (for safety pilots)

• User manual

• Software included: eMotion (flight planning & control) & Postflight Terra 3D (professional photogrammetry)



### For eBee updates subscribe to our newsletter at 

### www.sensefly.com
# C_2016111EN.01001001.xml

| 29.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 8 January 2016 — Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’

(Case C-13/16)

(2016/C 111/13)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde

Appellant:

Respondent: Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the phrase ‘is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the ... third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed’, in Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, be interpreted as meaning that the National Police must disclose to Rīgas satiksme the personal data sought by the latter which are necessary in order for civil proceedings to be initiated? Is the fact that, as the documents in the case file indicate, the taxi passenger whose data is sought by the Rīgas satiksme was a minor at the time of the accident relevant to the answer to that question?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 9
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              0
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      8,615,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                18,697,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     18,697,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       18,697,000
<LOANS>                                   100,407,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                   655,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            161,328,000
<DEPOSITS>                                140,657,000
<SHORT-TERM>                               14,018,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           926,000
<LONG-TERM>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       25,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  5,656,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>            161,328,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             5,571,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                             770,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            6,341,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          3,211,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          3,941,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       2,400,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                 185,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             2,193,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             2,483,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  2,483,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                1,591,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.70
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.49
<LOANS-NON>                                   938,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              470,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       0
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             655,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       655,000
           

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 10316)

Entry No. 860733, etc.

#### Plywood & Door Manufacturers Corporation *v.*United States

(Decided August 7, 1962)

*Richard, Van Bteenburgh*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule “A” consists of birch plywood, exported from Finland in the years 1954 and 1955. The appeals have been submitted for decision upon written stipulation of counsel, on the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the correct basis for the determination of the value of said plywood, and that such values were those set forth in column “4” of said schedule “A,” packed, less the prorated amounts of the nondutiable charges set forth directly after the description of the merchandise in each said reap-praisement case set forth in schedule “A.”

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

March 8, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-17-00935-CV

IN RE JACOBS FIELD SERVICES NORTH AMERICA, INC., JACOBS 

ENGINEERING GROUP INC., JACOBS ENGINEERING, INC., AND 

NORWEST HYDRAULIC & PNEUMATIC, INC., Relators 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

61st District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-27771 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On December 1, 2017, relators Jacobs Field Services North America, Inc., 

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., Jacobs Engineering, Inc., and NorWest Hydraulic & 

Pneumatic, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t 
2

Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, 

relators ask this Court to compel the Honorable Fredericka Phillips, presiding judge 

of the 61st District Court of Harris County, to set aside her December 1, 2017 orders 

(1) granting real parties in interest’s motion to exclude relators’ witnesses; and (2) 

denying relators’ motion for continuance.

Relators filed an unopposed motion to dismiss their petition because the 

parties have settled the case. The requested relief is now moot. Therefore, the 

motion is GRANTED. 

Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed. 

Relators’ motion for temporary relief is denied as moot. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 936 

Expressing support for designation of June 19, 2018, as ‘‘Juneteenth Independence Day’’ in recognition of June 19, 1865, the date on which 

slavery legally came to an end in the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 13, 2018 

Mr. WEBER of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of June 19, 2018, as 

‘‘Juneteenth Independence Day’’ in recognition of June 

19, 1865, the date on which slavery legally came to 

an end in the United States. 

Whereas news of the end of slavery did not reach the frontier 

areas of the United States, in particular the State of 

Texas and the other Southwestern States, until months 

after the conclusion of the Civil War, more than 21⁄2

years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863; 

Whereas, on June 19, 1865, Union soldiers, led by Major 

General Gordon Granger, arrived in Galveston, Texas, 

with news that the Civil War had ended and that the 

enslaved were free; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 936 IH 

Whereas African Americans who had been slaves in the 

Southwest celebrated June 19, commonly known as 

‘‘Juneteenth Independence Day’’, as inspiration and encouragement for future generations; 

Whereas African Americans from the Southwest have continued the tradition of observing Juneteenth Independence 

Day for over 150 years; 

Whereas 45 States and the District of Columbia have designated Juneteenth Independence Day as a special day of 

observance in recognition of the emancipation of all 

slaves in the United States; 

Whereas Juneteenth Independence Day celebrations have 

been held to honor African-American freedom while encouraging self-development and respect for all cultures; 

Whereas the faith and strength of character demonstrated by 

former slaves and the descendants of former slaves remain an example for all people of the United States, regardless of background, religion, or race; 

Whereas slavery was not officially abolished until the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the 

United States in December 1865; and 

Whereas, over the course of its history, the United States has 

grown into a symbol of democracy and freedom around 

the world: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘Juneteenth 

3 Independence Day’’; 

4 (2) recognizes the historical significance of 

5 Juneteenth Independence Day to the United States; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 936 IH 

1 (3) supports the continued nationwide celebra2 tion of Juneteenth Independence Day to provide an 

3 opportunity for the people of the United States to 

4 learn more about the past and to better understand 

5 the experiences that have shaped the United States; 

6 and 

7 (4) recognizes that the observance of the end of 

8 slavery is part of the history and heritage of the 

9 United States. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
No. 65413.

#### Levatino Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/20710 and 60/20711 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protests were filed more than 60 days after liquidation, they were dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 04-532

:

v. :

:

SHAWN BROWN : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-4183

ORDER

AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2011, for the

reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby

ORDERED that:

(1) the motion of defendant Shawn Brown to vacate, set

aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED; 

(2) the motion of the government to dismiss the

petition of Brown under § 2255 is GRANTED; and

(3) no certificate of appealability is issued.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Harvey Bartle III 

J.