alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 9,097.

#### MOITEZ v. The SOUTH CAROLINA.

[Bee, *422.]*
      *1*

Admiralty Court, Pennsylvania.

1781.

Seamen — Wages*—Government Vessel — Libel.

Mariners enlisting on board a ship of war or vessel belonging to a sovereign independent state, cannot libel against the ship for wages due.

[Cited in Briggs v. Light Boat, 93 Mass. (11 Allen) 180.1

[This was a libel by Pierre de Moitez against the. South Carolina.]

[Reported by Hon. Thomas Bee, District Judge.]

On a plea to the jurisdiction, it was adjudged, that mariners enlisting on board a ship of war, or vessel belonging to a sovereign independent state, cannot libel against a ship for wages due.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: SHIRLEY A. HOAK : MISCELLANEOUS

:

: NO. 02-173

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of 2002, the respondent

having been ordered on July 8, 2002 to show cause within thirty (30) days why she should not be

disbarred from the practice of law in this court, and the respondent not having answered or

requested a hearing, it is hereby

ORDERED that respondent is disbarred from the practice of law in this court, 

pending further action by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

BY THE COURT:

 

JAMES T. GILES

Chief Judge

Case 2:02-mc-00173-UJ Document 3 Filed 08/21/2002 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 on Form 10-K of Waste Industries USA, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ D. Stephen GrissomChief Financial OfficerMarch 30, 2004
# C_2015089EN.01004102.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/41

---

Action brought on 23 January 2015 — Telecom Castilla-La Mancha v Commission

(Case T-38/15)

(2015/C 089/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, SA (Toledo, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, A. Balcells Cartagena and M. Bolsa Ferruz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and, in particular, Article 1 thereof, in so far as it declares the existence of State aid which is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, in particular, Article 1 thereof, in so far as it declares the existence of State aid which is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | annul, consequently, the recovery orders contained in Articles 3 and 4 of the contested decision, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, consequently, the recovery orders contained in Articles 3 and 4 of the contested decision, and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and principal arguments are those put forward in Case T-36/15 HISPASAT v Commission.

HISPASAT

Commission

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-30531 Conference Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VICTOR MANUEL GARCIA, also known as James Garcia, also known as Alberto Molano Martinez, also known as Harold Ozorio, also known as James Gonzales, Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-86-A

---------------------- October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). In this criminal proceeding, the defendant has filed a notice of appeal from the district court's order overruling his objections to the Government’s motion for issuance of aNo. 96-30531 -2- preliminary order of forfeiture. Federal appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals only from (1) final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) interlocutory orders that fall into specific classes, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); (3) orders that are deemed final due to jurisprudential exception; or (4) orders that have been properly certified as final pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), or that have been properly certified for appeal by the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., Inc. , 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988); Save the Bay, Inc. v. United States Army , 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir. 1981). A decision is final when it "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay , 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978) (internal quotations and citation omitted). The district court’s order is not a final or otherwise appealable order, and we can discern no basis for appellate jurisdiction. Thus, Garcia’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, for transcripts, and for extension of time to file his brief are DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
No. 52864.

#### John Alban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 102938-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain cheese is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269, it was held that an allowance of 2)4 percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese by the collector in computing the duty thereon to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings on the outside of the cheese. It was further stipulated that the Sardo cheese involved is the same as that the subject of Abstract 48853. *234It was therefore held that 25 cases of Sardo cheese out of lot marked 5151/200 are properly dutiable at 5 cents per pound, but not less than 25 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 710, as modified by the trade agreement with Argentina (T. D. 50504).
How to Use Your Armed

Forces EZpay Card.

1. Insert your card

(chip side first)

2. Approve your purchase.

3. Wait for your new balance.

4. Listen for the tone or check the display for

your balance, then remove your card.

Cashier will enter the amount of your purchase.

The following Agreement regards the Armed Forces

EZpay Smart Card ("Card") you have been issued. In

this Agreement, the words "you", "your", and

"yours" refer to the person who has been issued or is

using the Card. The words "we", "us" and "ours"

refer to the U.S. Treasury. 

Use of Card. This Card may be used on or before the 

expiration date of the card (which is the last day of

your graduation month) to purchase goods or 

services at any merchant or vending machine 

displaying the Smart Card logo. Each time you use

the Card, the purchase price will be deducted from

the balance of the Card. You may use the Card until

the balance is zero or until the expiration date,

whichever occurs first. 

Un-used Value. Any value remaining on your Card

after the expiration date will be refunded to your

account of record.

Armed Forces EZpay Smart

Card Agreement

Use your EZpay Card at participating merchant

locations at the base.
Expiration Date. Make every effort to spend all the

funds on the Card before graduation or cash it out

before it expires. Your Card will not be accepted, and

may not be used, for purchases after the expiration

date.

Merchant Refunds. The policies and requirements of

the merchant or vendor for refunds or credits apply to

any purchases you make with the Card. If a refund or

credit is permitted by the merchant or vendor, it will

not be added back to the value on the Card. You must

make other arrangements with the merchant or vendor

for a refund or credit in cash or merchandise. 

Lost, Stolen, or Damaged Cards. Please treat this Card

like cash. If your card is lost, stolen or damaged, report

it immediately to your instructor to find where to go to

have the card cancelled. If the card is lost or stolen and

used, we are not liable. If the Card is damaged and 

cannot be read by a Smart Card reader/terminal, you

will be required to surrender the Card for further 

processing before a refund is made.
No. 52886.

#### Clutsom Machines, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 143499-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawbence-, J.

The uncontradicted evidence showed that the involved articles are parts of machines, which machines are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Clutsom Machines, Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 30, C. D. 1122). Although plaintiff failed to make any claim for relief as to the parts of machines involved in the cited case, appropriate claim was made in the instant case. Following the cited authority, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
April 21, 1959

No. 62989.

Suit 4955.

#### American Whaling Co., Inc. *v.*United States.

C.D. 1930. (Appeal dismissed March 2, 1959.)
# C_2015398EN.01007001.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/70

---

Action brought on 5 October 2015 — For Tune v OHIM — Gastwerk Hotel Hamburg (fortune)

(Case T-579/15)

(2015/C 398/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: For Tune sp. z o.o. (Warszawa, Poland) (represented by: K. Popławska, 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: Gastwerk Hotel Hamburg GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘fortune’ — Application for registration No 1 1 5 25  491

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2015 in Case R 2808/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

Plea(s) in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2016027EN.01007301.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/73

---

Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Malta Cross Foundation International v OHIM — Malteser Hilfsdienst (Malta Cross International Foundation)

(Case T-672/15)

(2016/C 027/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Malta Cross Foundation International, Inc. (Hallandale Beach, United States) (represented by: J. Pimenta, 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: Malteser Hilfsdienst e.V. (Cologne, 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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Malta Cross International Foundation’ — Application for registration No 7 252 554

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2015 in Case R 863/2011-G

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM and, if the case might be, the intervener to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and, if the case might be, the intervener to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and of the appeal.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
No. 51302.

#### Protest 119484-K of Maryland Distillers Products Co. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Olives, P. J.

It was stipulated that the bottles are the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 50935. In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-14-00707-CV

Style: Marinecorp International, LTD.

v. The Chopper Group, LLC, ET Al.

Date motion filed*: September 15, 2015

Type of motion: Motion to Reinstate

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date: 

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Appellant’s motion is granted. The Court reinstates this appeal on the Court’s active docket. Appellant’s

brief is ordered to be filed within 30 days of this order. Appellee’s brief, if any, is ordered to be filed

within 30 days of the date the appellant’s brief is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

Judge's signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack

 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: October 6, 2015
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 1 of 25

PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, INC. v. TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY Doc. 8

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 2 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 3 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 4 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 5 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 6 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 7 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 8 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 9 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 10 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 11 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 12 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 13 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 14 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 15 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 16 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 17 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 18 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 19 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 20 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 21 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 22 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 23 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 24 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 8 Filed 06/30/2004 Page 25 of 25
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

MARLIN ALAN BROWN, II, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 394 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter. 

Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter. 

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
(Reap. Dec. 10279)

Entry No. 4150, etc.

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided June 25, 1962)

*Barnes, Richardson & GoTburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the items on the invoices covered by the reappraisement appeals listed in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are marked “A” and initialed H.G.W., C.E.S., W.M.R., *339H.D.G., W.C.B., S.C.N., G.W.M., J.W.C. (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiner Henly G. Webster, C. E. Shannon, W. M. Richardson, Henry D. Godfrey, W. C. Bliss, Samuel G. Neiburg, G. W. Masse, J. W. Chugg (Examiner’s Name) consist of vat-lined pulpboard similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *A. N. Deringer, Ine.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9927, and therein held to be dutiable on the basis of export value under Sec. 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956; that the record in said Reap. Dec. 9927 may be incorporated herein; that at the time of exportation said export value was the invoice price; and that the instant appeals may be submitted upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts and following the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value and hold that such statutory value therefor is the invoice price.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 6, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Charles P. Huffman

Charles P. Huffman
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
The Set-Top Boxes and Network Equipment Framework Meeting takes place on Thursday January 26th, 

2012 at 9 A.M in Room 8E-089 at the U.S. Department of Energy Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington DC. A couple logistical notes regarding this meeting:

• If you plan on attending in person, please let Brenda Edwards (Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov, 

202-586-2945) know in advance. When you RSVP, we will add your name to a security list that 

will speed up the security process upon your arrival. If you don't RSVP and are a U.S Citizen, you 

may still show up and attend. Any foreign national wishing to attend needs to notify Brenda 

Edwards as soon as possible to make the proper arrangements, if you have not done so already.

• The room will be organized with a U-shaped table in front and additional seating in the back.

One seat at the table will be reserved for one representation from each organization that 

RSVPs.

• Throughout the course of the meeting, there will be opportunities for those in attendance to ask 

questions and make brief statements. Additionally, there will be time set aside for any 

organization that wishes to make a short 5-minute oral presentation. If you wish to make an 

oral presentation, you must submit an advance copy of your statements and statement of 

interest by January 19, 2011 or make alternative arrangements with me. Please see the public 

participation section of the RFI for more details.

• For those who are not able to attend in person, the meeting will be conducted on a Webinar.

Webinar participants will be able to hear the audio, see the presentation slides, and ask 

questions via chat. An invitation that includes instructions for the webinar are attached.

• For more information regarding this rulemaking, please review the Set-Top Box and Network 

Equipment RFI and the documents posted on the DOE Set-Top Box and Network Equipment 

Rulemaking Website.

Please contact me with any additional questions and I look forward to meeting many of you at the 

meeting.

Best,

Jeremy
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 1, 2016

d0329 

# Order

Clerk April 1, 2016

151430

ALEXANDER FIGURSKI, Minor, by his

Conservator, HOWARD LINDEN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151430

COA: 319086

Livingston CC: 11

- 026468

- NH

TRINITY HEALTH

- MICHIGAN, d/b/a SAINT

JOSEPH MERCY LIVINGSTON HOSPITAL,

WILLIAM BRADFIELD, M.D., and

CATHERINE McAULEY HEALTH

SERVICES CORPORATION, a/k/a SAINT

JOSEPH MEDICINE FACULTY ASSOCIATES,

a/k/a SAINT J OSEPH MERCY PRIMARY

CARE,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.