alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 57159.

protests 793646-G, etc. (New York).

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y. and China Man Way Fur Corpn. et al. *v.*United States,

*382Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to' those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
(Reap. Dec. 10949)

#### Ciba Pharmaceutical Co., Div. of Ciba Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 790468.

(Decided April 13, 1965)

*Eugene R. Pieforell*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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 Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the item marked “A” and initialed JJO’C by Examiner J. J. O’Connor, Jr., on the invoice covered by the appeal for reappraisement herein and designated on the invoice as Vioform (Iodochlorhydroxyquinoline) was appraised on a price of $12.00 per pound, less 1% packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that American selling price, as that value is defined in Section 402(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended *621by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that the price at which merchandise comparable to and competitive with Yioform (Iodochlorhydroxyquinoline), produced in the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the article in condition packed ready for delivery, and freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the principal market of the United States, in the ordinary course of trade and in the usual wholesale quantities at the time of exportation of the merchandise herein, is $8.90 per pound, net, packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal for reap-praisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402 (e) 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 herein involved and that such value is $8.90 per pound, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 55179.

#### Croton Watch Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 164677-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

MADELINE CRUZ :

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 02-CV-4372

:

PENNRIDGE REGIONAL POLICE :

DEPARTMENT :

Defendant. :

____________________________________:

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff Madeline Cruz in the above named case hereby

appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from the Final Judgment in

favor of Defendant entered in this action on the 8th day of December, 2003.

FELDMAN & PINTO

_______________________________

J. BRADLEY MCDERMOTT, ESQUIRE

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

1604 Locust Street, 2R

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 546-2604

Case 2:02-cv-04372-RK Document 31 Filed 12/23/2003 Page 1 of 1
p. 1 

## AUSTI N POWDE RCOMPANY 4?/ , ^fe )

43 0 POWDE RPLAN T ROA D McARTHUR , OHI O 4565 1 McARTHU RTELEPHON E 740-596-528<& : FA X 740-596-405 0 Ma y 24 , 201 3 Documen t Contro l Offic e (7407M ) Offic e o f Pollutio n Prevention an

d Toxic s U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc

y 120 0 Pennsylvani aAve. , N W Washington , D C 20460-000 1 RE : Applicatio n fo r

Exemption , TSCA 4 Test Rule , 4 0 CF R 799.5087 , CA S #78-11-5 , 3-zptopsnrfiol , 2 , 2-bi s [(nitrooxy ) methyl]- , dinitrate (ester ) "PETN" , EP

A Docke t No . EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-053 1 Dea r Si r o r Madam , Austi n Powde

r Company , 2580

0 Scienc e Park, Cleveland , O H 44122-738 6 submits thi s applicatio n fo r exemptio n fro mal l th

e testin g o f

"PETN" , CAS #78-11- 5 unde r TSC A Section 4 rulin g a s noted above . A s par t o f ou r exemption , we ar

e providin g th

e followin g information : a ) Th e identit y o f th e test rule , th e chemica

l identity , an

d th e CA S No . o f

th e substanc

e whic h i s based . Testing o f certai n hig h productio n volum e chemicals : Secon

d grou p o f chemicals , 40 CF

R 799.5087 , 7 6 F

R106 7 date d Januar y 7 , 2011 , "PE W CAS #78-11-5 . b ) W e ar e requesting a

n exemption fromal l testin g requirements fo r "PETN" , CAS #78-11-5 , unde r 40 CF R799.508 7 becaus

e w e ar e awar e tha t thi s materia

l ha s bee n sponsore

d fo r testin g (pe

r above) b y anothe

r party . c ) Name , Addres s an

d Telephon

e numbe r o f applican t Austi n Powde

r Compan y 2580 0 Scienc e Par k Cleveland , O H 44122-738 6 Phone : 216-464-240

0 d ) Name , addres s an

d telephon

e numbe r o f appropriat

e individua l t

o contac t fo r furthe r information : Keith Mill s Austi n Powde

r Compan y

2580 0 SCIENC E PAR K DRIV E CLEVELAND , OHI O 4412 2 PHONE:2 1 6-464-240 0 FAX:2 1 6-464-4 4 1 8 43 0 Powde

r Plan t Roa d McArthur , O H 4565 1 Phone : 740-596-528 6 

# i 

# iiiiiiiipii l
4.0 1 3000004- 0 

# II

I
CONTAIN S N O CB IP . 2

Iunderstan

d tha t i f thi s applicatio n i s grante d befor e th e reimbursemen

t perio d describe

d i n section 4(c)(3)(B ) o f

TSC A expires , we mus

t pa y afai r an d equitable reimbursemen t to th e entit y who incurre d o r share d i n th e cost o f complyin g wit h th

e requiremen

t t o submi t dat aan d upo n whose dat

ath e grantin g o f m y applicatio n wa

s based . W e submit thi s information ; howeve r i f yo u hav e an y questions , comment

s or requir e additiona

l information , please d

o not hesitat e t o contac t me .

Keith Mill s Directo r o f Manufacturin g Austi n Powde

r Compan y 43 0 Powde

r Plan t Roa d McArthur , O H 4565 1 Phone : 740^596-528 6 Email : keith.mills@austinpowder.co m Than k You ,ID < z x r o i

—o — to toaccm -z- n
= S I

£ 2

C O C - J
£= 3



### 8 | 

### o a

~ a . 

# I J S 

### s O o Q o c <

O < D O 

### • S < 

### o $
. 2 < N S 

# I B « ) g C Q c 0* © o < N 

## • a o t u

> - 

### z 

# 2

u£ * tol S £ t « . 2 9 m3
- CC
o 2
No. 55825.

protests 147164-K, etc. (New York).

#### Charles R. Allen, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ )

CUMIS INSURANCE SOCIETY, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 05

- 1277 (PLF)

)

REGINALD CLARK, et al

., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc. (“CUMIS”) and defendant Reginald

Clark advised the court they had reached an agreed resolution in the joint status report they filed

on July 25, 2019 [Dkt. No. 181]. Since then, the Court has stayed the matter, based on

representations in the parties’ periodic joint status reports that the preparation of the Settlement

Agreement is ongoing. Based on the representation in the November 19, 2019 joint status report

[Dkt. No. 187] that CUMIS and Mr. Clark are still working on the terms of the Settlement

Agreement, the matter will be stayed until December 13, 2019. If CUMIS and Mr. Clark are not

able to reach a settlement by that date, they are instructed to file a joint status report on or before

December 13, 2019.

I n the November 19, 2019 joint status report , the parties also ask the Court to stay

the litigation related to Tonia Shuler’s m otion to v acate the default judgment entered against her.

See November 19, 2019 Joint Status Report [Dk. No. 187] at 1

. While the report indicates that

Ms. Shuler’s motion is “related to the pending Settlement,” Tonia Shuler is not a signatory to the

November 19, 2019 Joint Status Report , nor was she served with a copy of the November 19,2 2019 Joint Status Report, according to the certificate of service. See November 19, 2019 Joint

Sta tus Report [Dkt. No. 187] at 1

- 2

. If the parties wish th e litigation related to Ms. Shuler’s

motion to vacate the default judgment entered against her to be stayed along with the rest of the

case, they are instructed to file a motion to stay that complies with Local Civil Rule 7 (m) , so the

Court knows that (1) Ms. Shuler has been apprised of the ongoing settlement negotiations that

the November 19, 2019 Joint Status Report says now include her, and (2) either concurs or does

not object to her matter being stayed. See L. C IV

. R. 7(m) (requiring parties to confer with

opposing counsel, including parties appearing pro se , and include in the motion a “statement that

the required discussion occurred, and a statement as to whether the motion is opposed”).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the matter as to CUMIS and Mr. Clark is STAYED until

December 13, 2019; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties are not able to reach a settlement by that

date, they are instructed to file a joint status repor t on or before December 13, 2019; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that after conferring with Tonia Shuler, the parties will

file a motion that complies with Local Civil Rule 7(m), requesting that Ms. Shuler’s matter also

be stayed

.

SO ORDERED.

_______________________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: November 21, 2019
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**
I, Thomas W. Rabaut, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United DefenseIndustries, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses 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 information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: May 3, 2004 /s/ Thomas W. Rabaut