alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Third Division,

February 15, 1946

No. 50893.

#### Petition 6503-R of Freedman & Slater, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

From the testimony it appeared that an entry clerk employed by the customs broker, in preparing the entry, erroneously deducted certain nondutiable charges appearing on the invoice from the net values instead of from the gross values. The court held that the entry of the sheepskins at a less value than that found on final appraisement was due to negligence or carelessness and that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to defraud the United States or to deceive Government officials. The petition was therefore granted.
# C_2016296EN.01001701.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/17

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Giovanni Pesce and Others (C-78/16), Cesare Serinelli and Others (C-79/16) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (C-79/16) Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Commissario Delegato Per Fronteggiare il Rischio Fitosanitario Connesso alla Diffusione della Xylella nel Territorio della Regione Puglia, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Puglia

(Joined Cases C-78/16 and C-79/16) (1)

1

((Preliminary ruling - Protection of plant health - Directive 2000/29/EC - Protection against the introduction into and the spread within the Union of organisms harmful to plants or plant products - Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 - Measures designed to avoid the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells and Raju) - Article 6(2)(a) - Obligation to carry out the immediate removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the infected plants - Validity - Article 16(3) of Directive 2000/29 - Principle of proportionality - Precautionary principle - Obligation to state reasons - Right to compensation))

(2016/C 296/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Giovanni Pesce and Others (C-78/16), Cesare Serinelli and Others (C-79/16)

Applicants:

Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (C-79/16) Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Commissario Delegato Per Fronteggiare il Rischio Fitosanitario Connesso alla Diffusione della Xylella nel Territorio della Regione Puglia, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Regione Puglia

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the questions referred has disclosed no factor such as to affect the validity of Article 6(2)(a) of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.), in the light of Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community, as amended by Council Directive 2002/89/EC of 28 November 2002, read in the light of the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality and in the light of the obligation to state reasons provided for in Article 296 TFEU and in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32

          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 amended annual report of Alnilam
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10 KSB for the year ended September
30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), the undersigned principal executive officer and principal
financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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 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.

Date: 18, 2007



/s/ Eric Bronk

Eric Bronk, President and Treasurer
(Principal Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         205,785
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,105,557
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,311,342
<PP&E>                                       3,187,131
<DEPRECIATION>                                 171,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,519,009
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,343
<BONDS>                                        361,628
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        698
<COMMON>                                        29,049
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,784,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,519,009
<SALES>                                      1,311,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,311,835
<CGS>                                          973,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  973,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               180,882
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                148,479
<INCOME-TAX>                                    48,998
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             99,481
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    99,481
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
*No.*67788.

#### Maher & Company *v.*United States,

protest 61/22556-16434 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 2:04-cv-04862-RBS Document 164 Filed 05/26/09 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017095EN.01000202.xml

| 27.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/2

---

Appeal brought on 4 July 2016 by L'Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2016 in Case T-144/15: L'Oréal v EUIPO — THERALAB (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA)

(Case C-371/16 P)

(2017/C 095/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: L'Oréal SA (represented by: J. P. Mioludo, advogado)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 8 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
# C_2016260EN.01002701.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG v Bundeskartellanwalt

(Case C-248/16)

(2016/C 260/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundeskartellanwalt

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the Merger Regulation’) be interpreted to mean that a move from sole control to joint control of an existing undertaking, in circumstances where the undertaking previously having sole control becomes an undertaking exercising joint control, constitutes a concentration only where the controlled undertaking has on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous entity?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VIRGINIA BYRON :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4108

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 GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

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-04108-RBS Document 7 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit31.2**

 

I, Michael D. Milligan, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10–Q of National Equipment Services, Inc.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officersand I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a–14 and15d–14) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented within this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officersand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlsover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)  all significant deficiencies in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial informatin and have identified for theregistrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)  any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.

 
| Date: April 8, 2004     |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
| /s/ MICHAEL D. MILLIGAN |   |
|                    |
| Michael D. Milligan     |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

21

----
No. 59977.

#### F. C. Mackay et al. *v.*United States,

protests 151167-K, etc. (Pembina).

*456Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2017014EN.01001601.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Krzystof Marek Poltorak

(Case C-452/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘judicial decision’ - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - European arrest warrant issued by the Rikspolisstyrelsen (National Police Board, Sweden) with a view to executing a custodial sentence))

(2017/C 014/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Krzystof Marek Poltorak

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, is an autonomous concept of EU law and that provision must be interpreted as meaning that a police service, such as the Rikspolisstyrelsen (National Police Board, Sweden), is not covered by the term ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of the same Article 6(1), meaning that the European arrest warrant issued by that police service with a view to executing a judgment imposing a custodial sentence cannot be regarded as a ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.

---
Parraguirre Cherry



### Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349-50, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969), when it determined the reasonableness of SDK's attorney fees. No other aspect of the previous order of affirmance was disturbed in the order granting rehearing. On remand, the district court considered the 

### Brunzell factors, adjudicated the lien, and entered judgment in favor of SDK for $37,439.84. Garmong again appealed.

We have considered the parties' arguments and the record in this appeal and conclude that on remand the district court properly followed this court's mandate and did not abuse its discretion when it considered the 

### Brunzell factors and entered judgment in SDK's favor. 

### Argentena Consol. Mining Co. v. Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Standish, 125 Nev. 527, 531, 216 P.3d 779, 782 (2009) ("[The district court's] attorney fees award is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard."). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

1 -Garmong's August 20, 2013, motion for leave to file a reply to SDK's response to the notice of supplemental authorities is granted. The clerk of this court shall detach and file the reply attached to Garmong's motion. We have considered Garmong's other arguments and conclude that they do not warrant reversal.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2cc: Hon. Michael P. Gibbons, District Judge David Wasick, Settlement Judge Carl M. Hebert Woodburn & Wedge Les W. Bradshaw Silverman, Decaria & Kattelman, Chtd. Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg Douglas County Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 3
# March 2015

# April 2015

# May 2015

# June 2015

# July 2015

# August 2015

# September 2015

# October 2015

# November 2015
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-51144

Summary Calendar

_____________________

LAURA ALIABADI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS A.S.O. CORPORATION; R. M. PERSONNEL,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(EP-98-CV-460-H)

_________________________________________________________________

May 31, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In challenging the adverse summary judgment on her employment

discrimination claims against Texas A.S.O. Corporation and R. M.

Personnel, Laura Aliabadi contends there are genuine issues of

material fact on her hostile work environment, constructive

discharge, failure to promote, and Equal Pay Act claims.
2

Having reviewed the summary judgment record de novo, viewing

the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to

Aliabadi, we conclude that summary judgment was proper, essentially

for the reasons stated by the district court. Aliabadi v. Texas

A.S.O. Corp., et al., No. EP-98-CA-460-H (W.D. Tex. 8 Nov. 1999).

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                    5
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                      JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                            216
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     13,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      68
<INVENTORY>                                                       11,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  25,785
<PP&E>                                                            203,894
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    27,072
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    209,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             10,765
<BONDS>                                                           137,111
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                                        61,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      209,095
<SALES>                                                           54,008
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  54,008
<CGS>                                                             50,201
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     1,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                7,077
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   (4,338)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               (4,338)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      (4,338)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     0


</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 10319)

Entry No. 21056, etc.

#### John A. Steer Co. et al. *v.*United States

(Decided August 29, 1962)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

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

*370Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule for decision upon stipulation, reading as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise involved in the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A” annexed consists of rubber goods exported from Japan during 1959 and 1960 manufactured by Kohkoku Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.

> 2. That the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., For Account Uni Importing Co. et al*v. *United States,*R.D. 10260, and that the record in the cited ease may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 3. That the involved merchandise was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption after February 27,1958, and is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521).

> 4. On or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for exportation to the United States, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, such prices including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values.

On the agreed facts and following the decision in the cited case, I find export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the values of the articles involved and that such values were the invoice unit values.

Judgment will issue accordingly.