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

March 12, 1947

No. 51607.

#### Protest 71904-K of American Straw Goods Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

At the trial it was established that the hats are the same as those involved in *Caradine Hat Co.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith and following the authority cited the hats imported and withdrawn for consumption prior to the effective date of T. D. 48075 were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), and those imported or withdrawn for consumption subsequent to that date were held dutiable at *12%*percent under said paragraph.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DANIEL PAUL CHRISTMAN

v.

JAMES L. GRACE, et al.

: CIVIL ACTION 

:

: NO. 04-4541

:

:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of June, 2005, upon careful and independent consideration of

the pleadings and the record herein, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of

United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice, and having received no objections thereto, it is

ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is

DENIED with prejudice.

3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.

4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

S/Bruce W. Kauffman 

BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.

Case 2:04-cv-04541-BWK Document 15 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VICTORIA BAILEY :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4231

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-04231-CMR Document 7 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

June 10, 1963

No. 67805.

#### Western Geophysical Co. of America *v.*United States,

protests 62/15814 and 62/9490 (Los Angeles).

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These two protests relate to certain magnetic tapes that were assessed with duty either at 15 per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 1542 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 51802, and amended by Public Law 693 (68 Stat. 913), for phonographs, gramophones, graphophones, and similar articles, and parts thereof, not specially provided for, or at 17 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 31(a) (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 54108, as articles in chief value of cellulose acetate, not specially provided for.

At the time of hearing, counsel for the respective parties stipulated that the articles in question consist of magnetic tapes of United States manufacture, upon which seismographic information has been recorded for use in ascertaining the composition of earth strata in oil prospecting; that the said magnetic tapes were returned to the United States for study and use by the importer, and not for sale; and that they were not advanced in value or improved in condition by the recording thereon “of this specific information for this particular purpose and use.” (R. 3.)

The agreed set of facts entitle the merchandise in question to be free of duty under the provision in paragraph 1615(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (96 Treas. Dec. 310, T.D. 55464(1), for articles of American manufacture, returned to the United States after having been exported, without having been advanced in value or improved in condition, as claimed by plaintiff, and we so hold.

The protests are sustained, and judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Arthur M. S. Megquier *vs.*James DeWeaver. Harold A. Megquier, an infant who sues this action by Arthur M. S. Mecquier, his father and next friend, *vs.*James DeWeaver.

Aroostook.

Opinion, July 23, 1942.

*96*George B. Barnes,*for the plaintiffs.

*Nathan H. Solman,*

*Archibald & Archibald,*

*Cook, Hutchinson, Pierce & Connell,*for the defendant.

Sitting: Sturgis, C. J., Thaxter, Hudson, Manser, Worster, Murchie, JJ.

Thaxter, J.

There are before us here two actions, one brought by a minor, Harold A. Megquier, through his father as next friend, the other by the father to recover for loss of services of his son and for expenses incurred for medical and surgical treatment, hospitalization and nursing. The declaration in each case charges the defendant with an assault on the boy which resulted in injuries.

The defendant in September, 1940, when the assault is alleged to have taken place, was Superintendent of Schools of Weston and certain nearby towns. The minor child was a pupil in the Webster School situated in Weston. The boy had had some difficulty with his teacher, Mrs. Gillis, and the assault is alleged to have taken place while the boy, Mrs. Gillis, and the defendant were together in a room in the schoolhouse apparently discussing this trouble.

The evidence is sharply conflicting. Particularly is this true of the testimony of the boy on the one hand, and of the defendant and Mrs. Gillis on the other. The boy says that when he did not raise his head when requested to do so, the defendant forcibly forced his head back over a seat causing injury to the muscles of his neck. Both the defendant and Mrs. Gillis deny that any force was used. To sift the truth from contradictory evidence in a case of this kind requires an impartial approach and discriminating judgment on the part *97of a jury. Especially is it important that they should be left free from any suggestion by court or counsel which would lead them to substitute sympathy or prejudice for an impartial consideration of the testimony.

There are before us a number of exceptions, some to rulings on evidence noted during the course of the trial, others to portions of the charge of the presiding justice. The bill calls our attention to some obvious errors. We do not regard it as necessary to discuss these in detail for the cumulative effect of all of them was in our opinion seriously prejudicial to the proper consideration by the jury of the defendant’s side of the case. When it is apparent from á review of all the record that a party has not had that impartial trial to which under the law he is entitled, we have not hesitated to sustain a motion for a new trial. *Pierce*v. *Rodliff,*95 Me., 346, 50 A., *32; State*v. *Wright,*128 Me., 404, 148 A., 141; *Springer*v. *Barnes,*137 Me., 17, 14 A. (2d), 503. See also *Ritchie*v. *Perry,*129 Me., 440, 444, 152 A., 621.

*Motions sustained.*

*New trials granted.*
No. 53968.

#### Liberty Lace & Netting Works et al. *v.*United States,

protests 111995-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Reap. Dec. 10966.

#### Manhattan Novelty Co. *v.*United States,

Motion by plaintiff.
Before the Second Division,

April 12, 1961

No. 65444.

#### Bruce Duncan Co., Inc., a/c Standard Commodities Import & Export Corp., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/10228, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of fish netting similar in all material respects to that involved in Abstract 63947, the merchandise was held dutiable at 25 percent under the provision in paragraph 923, as modified, for cotton fishing nets, by similitude. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of synthetic cord or twine similar *420in all material respects to the component material of the fish nets involved in said Abstract 63947, were held dutiable, depending upon the date of entry, at 35 percent under paragraph 912 of the act as synthetic cord or twine, similar in use to cotton cords, or at 33, 31%, or 30 percent under said paragraph, as modified.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAY C. CRESSMAN, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

LINCARE HOLDINGS, INC. : NO. 02-2783

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 29th day of October, 2002, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a

settlement conference in the above captioned matter has been scheduled before the undersigned

on THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2002, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 3041, United States

Courthouse, 601 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19106.

The senior attorney in charge of the matter for each of the parties, AND THE

PARTIES THEMSELVES, or if a corporation, an official of the corporation with settlement

authority are required to attend the conference in person. If a party is more than one hundred

miles from Philadelphia and prior permission is given by the court, the party may participate by

telephone. The parties and counsel must be prepared to discuss settlement or other disposition

of the matter.

Counsel are directed to fax confidential position papers not longer than 2 pages

directly to Chambers (fax. no. 215-580-2163) not later than 2 business days prior to the date of

the conference. The position paper should address the party’s settlement position, as well as any

other issue that counsel believes will be of assistance to the Court in helping the parties resolve

this matter. THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE SHARED WITH OPPOSING

COUNSEL NOR FILED OF RECORD. THIS IS FOR JUDGE HART'S EYES ONLY.

 

 DEBORAH FETTERS

DEPUTY CLERK TO HON. JACOB P. HART

 

 Copies faxed to: Copies mailed to:

 Gerald Williams, Esq.; Charles Bloom, Esq.

Case 2:02-cv-02783 Document 12 Filed 10/29/2002 Page 1 of 1
# SF-133 & P&F 2014

# Footnotes 2014
---

CERTIFICATIONS

The undersigned, Ross J. Tocher, 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 annual report on Form 20-F of Tuscany Minerals Ltd.
      for the year ended December 31, 2009 (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 Tuscany Minerals Ltd.                                                               

Dated: April 29, 2010

| | /s/
      Ross J. Tocher             
| | -------------------------------------
| | Ross J. Tocher                       
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
| | (Principal Executive Officer)        

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Tuscany Minerals
Ltd. and will be retained by Tuscany Minerals Ltd. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Amendment No 1 to Option Transfer Agreement




 Exhibit 4(c).3 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO OPTION TRANSFER AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT, dated as of October 2,
2007 (this “Amendment”), to the Option Transfer Agreement, effective as of July 15, 2005 (the “Option Transfer Agreement”), by and among CDC Corporation (formerly, chinadotcom corporation) located at 33/F
Citicorp Centre, 18 Whitfield Road, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong (the “Company”), Asia Pacific Online Limited located at Room 3302, 33/F, Hopewell Centre, 183 Queen’s Road East, Wanchai, HongKong (“APOL”) and Peter
Yip of c/o APOL, Room 3302, 33/F, Hopewell Centre, 183 Queen’s Road East, Wanchai, Hong Kong (“Mr. Yip”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Option Transfer Agreement.

 Pursuant to the terms of the Option Transfer Agreement and in accordance with Section 5.2 thereof, the parties hereto agree to amend
the Option Transfer Agreement as follows: 
 Section 1 Amendment to Schedule C-2. Schedule C-2 is amended by deleting the
schedule in its entirety and replacing such schedule with the attached Schedule C-2. 
 Section 2 Full Force and Effect.
Except as expressly amended hereby the Option Transfer Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with the provisions thereof on the date hereof. 
 Section 3 Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed under the law of Hong Kong and each of the Parties hereby irrevocably agrees for the exclusive benefit of the Company that
the Courts of Hong Kong are to have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any disputes which may arise out of or in connection with this Agreement. 
 Section 4 Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed and delivered (including by facsimile transmission) in one or more counterparts, and by the different parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when
executed shall be deemed to be an original but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 








 IN WITNESS whereof this Amendment No. 1 to the Option Transfer Agreement has been signed by or on
behalf of the Parties hereto and is effective as of the Effective Date. 
  

			
	SIGNED by Simon Wong	  	)
	                         Director	  	) /s/ Simon Wong
	on behalf of the CDC Corporation	  	)
	in the presence of	  	)
		
	Tang, Kwok Fung	  	
		
	Date:	  	
		
	SIGNED by Peter Yip	  	)
	                         Director	  	) /s/ Peter Yip
	on behalf of Asia Pacific Online Limited	  	)
	in the presence of	  	)
		
	 /s/ Vanora Chiang
	  	
	Vanora Chiang	  	
		
	Date: October 2, 2007	  	
		
	SIGNED by Peter Yip	  	)
	                         in the presence of	  	) /s/ Peter Yip
		
	 /s/ Vanora Chiang
	  	
	Vanora Chiang	  	

 Date: October 2, 2007
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: LINDA S. RESTREPO AND

CARLOS E. RESTREPO,

 Relators.

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-14-00270-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR

WRIT OF PROHIBITION

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo, have filed a petition for writ of 

prohibition against the Honorable Carlos Villa, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 5 of El 

Paso County, Texas. Relators have also filed a motion to stay the proceedings in the trial court. 

The petition for writ of prohibition and the motion to stay are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

A writ of prohibition operates like an injunction issued by a superior court to control, 

limit, or prevent action in a court of inferior jurisdiction. Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 

767 S.W.2d 680, 682 (Tex. 1989); In re Cap Rock Energy Corporation, 225 S.W.3d 160 

(Tex.App.--El Paso 2005, original proceeding). The purpose of the writ is to enable a superior 

court to protect and enforce its jurisdiction and judgments. Holloway, 767 S.W.2d at 683; 

Caprock, 225 S.W.3d at 160. The writ is typically used to protect the subject matter of an appeal 

or to prohibit an unlawful interference with the enforcement of a superior court’s orders and 

judgments. Holloway, 767 S.W.2d at 683. An appellate court does not have jurisdiction, absent 
- 2 -

actual jurisdiction of a pending proceeding, to issue a writ of prohibition requiring that a trial 

court refrain from performing a future act. See In re Nguyen, 155 S.W.3d 191, 194 (Tex.App.--

Tyler 2003, orig. proceeding); Lesikar v. Anthony, 750 S.W.2d 338 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st 

Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding). The Restrepos have not established that issuance of the writ of 

prohibition is necessary to protect the subject matter of an appeal or to prohibit interference with 

enforcement of an order or judgment of this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition and 

motion for emergency relief for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX.R.APP.P. 52.8(a), 52.10.

October 8, 2014

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge)

(Barajas, C.J., Senior Judge, sitting by assignment, not participating)
No. 57235.

protests 933111-G, etc. (New York).

#### Amchina Fur Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

*406Opinion 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.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 22, 2012

d1015 

# Order

October 22, 2012

145527

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145527

COA: 310064

Berrien CC: 2011

- 003415

- FC

DEANDRAE LEVINCE MILLER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 18, 2012 order

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.
EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

      We  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8  (Registration  No. 333-87973) and Form S-3 (Registration
No.  333-82128)  of our  report  dated  February  11,  2005 on our  audit of the
financial  statements  included in the 2004 annual report on Form 10-KSB of I.D.
Systems, Inc.

      We also consent to the  reference to our firm under the caption  "Experts"
in the Form S-3.


/s/ Eisner LLP


New York, New York
May 12, 2005
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's Committee on Strategy's Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation and Partnerships hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business pursuant to the NSF Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.

# TIME AND DATE:

Tuesday, November 21, 2023, from 3:30-4:30 p.m. Eastern.

# PLACE:

This meeting will be via videoconference through the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.

# STATUS:

Closed

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

The agenda is:

    - Subcommittee Chair's opening remarks regarding the agenda
    - Discussion of Draft TIP Roadmap
    - Discussion of NSF's Regional Innovation Engines 2 Portfolio

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Point of contact for this meeting is: Chris Blair,                         *cblair@nsf.gov,*                         703/292-7000. Meeting information and updates may be found at                         *www.nsf.gov/​nsb.*

Christopher Blair,

Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.

[FR Doc. 2023-25608 Filed 11-15-23; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
No. 60002.

#### Norman G. Jensen, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 171170-K, etc. (Pembina).

*468Opinion 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. 1665), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
April 1, 1958

No. 61780.

Suit 4915.

#### (W. E. Sellers, doing business as John Sellers & Sons (party in interest) *v.*The Cronite Co., Inc.) (The Cronite Co., Inc. *v.*United States (W. E. Sellers, doing business under the name of John Sellers & Sons, party in interest)).

and Suit 4917

—C. D. 1847 affirmed December 13, 1957. C. A. D. 668.
# C_2018123EN.01001601.xml

| 9.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2018 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — bpost (BEPOST)

(Case T-118/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark BEPOST - Earlier EU figurative mark ePost and earlier national word mark POST - Non-registered mark or sign used in the course of trade POST - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No detriment to reputation and no dilution - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court))

(2018/C 123/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and G. Müllejans, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and D. Walicka, acting as Agents,)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: bpost NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by L. Hubert and K. Ongena, and subsequently by H. Dhondt and J. Cassiman, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 (Case R 3107/2014-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Post and bpost

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.

1

---