alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

TESSEL : 02-3865

FILIPPO : 02-3871

JONES, et al. : 02-3909

HOLMAN, et al. : 02-3918

LAMB : 02-3947

JONES : 02-3956

LARSON : 02-3981

DRENTLAW : 02-4142

DURHAM : 02-4160

SIEGEL, et al. : 02-4178

NELSON, et al. : 02-4202

FOSTER, et al. : 02-4222

SIMINUK, et al. : 02-4251

NITZKO, et al. : 02-4270

MICHALIK, et al. : 02-4888

:

:

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.

[ 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..

Case 2:02-cv-04288-PBT Document 2 Filed 07/12/2002 Page 1 of 2
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:

________________________________________

Petrese B. Tucker, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04288-PBT Document 2 Filed 07/12/2002 Page 2 of 2
No. 58459.

petition 7130-R (New York).

#### Cosmos Products Co. *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

This is a petition, filed under authority of section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1930, seeking remission of additional duties assessed because of the fact that the final appraised value of certain ostrich feathers exceeded the value declared on entry.

At the trial, it was established that the importer, owner of the petitioner, who testified on his own behalf, has been importing similar merchandise for millinery purposes for about 10 years. Prior to entry, said importer always submits the invoices to the appraiser for information as to the proper value at which to make entry. In the instant case, that course was pursued, as usual, and the importer was informed by the customs officials that the goods had been appraised at a higher value than that at which they were entered, and it was suggested that the entry be amended. The importer, because of the small amount involved, $3.80, decided not to amend and requested liquidation, without amendment. It further appears from the testimony that the importer, although notified of the appraisement, filed no appeal for reappraisement. His explanation for his failure to appeal was “I figured that is taken care of automatically.” He testified that although he had had dozens of invoices of Uruguayan merchandise, this is the first time that a situation such as this had arisen. He further testified that he did not conceal any material fact from the customs official and had no intention to defraud the revenue.

From the facts as presented, it is apparent that the importer decided that because of the small amount involved it would not pay him to amend his entry, and that he was ignorant of the provisions of the statute requiring that additional duty was assessable under the circumstances of this case. While this may seem like a case of hardship, it has been decided by this court and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals that ignorance of the law cannot be accepted as meeting the meaning of satisfactory evidence in remission cases. We quote from the case of *United States*v. *W. J.*Westerfield, 40 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 115, 125, C. A. D. 507, as follows:

> Another long established rule which has been consistently followed by this court is that a lack of knowledge of the law governing dutiable values, importations, and entries, or, in other words, ignorance of customs law and of the processes of its administration, no matter how fully proven and believed, can not be accepted as meeting the meaning of satisfactory evidence. To obtain the benefit of the remission statute a petitioner must show more than lack of knowledge.

Upon the facts as presented and under authority of the *Westerfield*case, *supra,*the petition for remission is denied.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-8001
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY BENJAMIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-01-62-JFM; CA-04-2799-JFM) Submitted: September 19, 2005 Decided: October 5, 2005 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Benjamin, Appellant Pro Se. Kwame Jangha Manley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Gregory Benjamin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Benjamin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
(see attached scope of accreditation for field(s) of inspection, including type, range, methods or procedures)

Print Date: 04/12/2011 

This is to signify that

CERTIFICATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LLC 

4145 NORTH CLAREY STREET 

EUGENE, OREGON 97402 

Product Certification Agency PCA-114 

Third-party Certification Body 

has met the requirements of the IAS Accreditation Criteria for Product Certification Agencies (AC370) and has compliance with ISO/IEC Guide 65 (1996), General requirements for bodies operating product certification sys

Services International, LLC has been accredited, commencing March 1, 2011, to provide third-party product cer

listed in the approved scope of accreditation.  Patrick V. McCullen C. P. Rama Vice President Presiden
Certification Services International, LLC PCA-114 

Third-party Certification Body 

 March 1, 2011  Commencement Date C. P. Ramani, P.E President Print Date: 04/12/2011 

Certification Services International, LLC 4145 North Clarey St. Eugene, OR 97402 

CATEGORIES of CERTIFICATION 

Formaldenhyde Emissions from Wood Products 

Certification under California Air Resources Board (ARB) ANSI and ANSI/HPVA Standards
Before the First Division,

June 18, 1943

No. 48399.

#### Protest 76707-K of American Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

*184Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the atomizers m question are composed in chief value of decorated glass, similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140. In accordance therewith the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) was sustained.
# C_2017221EN.01002601.xml

| 10.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/26

---

Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-55/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Career evaluation report - Appraisal year 2009 - Errors of law - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

(2017/C 221/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: G. Nuvoli and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015, De Nicola v EIB (F-45/11, EU:F:2015:167) seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

De Nicola

EIB

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer,
Chief Executive Officer of the managing owner as of October 1, 2004, Preferred Investment Solutions Corp., of World Monitor TrustSeries B (Series B), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Series Bs Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 24, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly
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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Series B.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer                                                                                                                     
|Kenneth A. Shewer Chief Executive Officer ofPreferred Investment Solutions Corp.,the managing owner as of October 1, 2004 November 8, 2004
# C_2018142EN.01000602.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 March 2018 — Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Joined Cases C-412/16 P and C-413/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for registration of EU figurative marks ocean beach club ibiza and ocean ibiza - Earlier national figurative marks OC ocean club and OC ocean club Ibiza - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion))

(2018/C 142/08)

Language of the cases: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero and F. Miazzetto, abogados)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

1

---
April 28, 1959

No. 63012.

Suit 4943.

#### United States *v.*Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.

C.D. 1928 reversed January 9, 1959. C.A.D. 700.
Comments on draft PGP

Dave Scott to: Jack Faulk 01/25/2010 04:55 PM

Jack,

See attached comments from Indiana (pesticide SLA). Thanks for the 

opportunity to participate.

-- 

Dave Scott

Pesticide Administrator

Office of Indiana State Chemist

175 S. University St.

West Lafayette, IN 47907-2063

Phone: (765) 494-1593

Fax: (765) 494-4331

URL: www.isco.purdue.edu
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF
CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE For purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Roger K. Brooks, the Chairman
of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of AmerUs Group Co. (the Company),
hereby certifies that:  (i)
    
    the Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ Roger K. BrooksRoger K. BrooksChairman and Chief Executive OfficerAmerUs Group Co.
 Dated: November 4, 2004
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 45 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:05-md-01675-TJS Document 45 Filed 06/10/2009 Page 2 of 2
# C_2019016EN.01003801.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Mad Dogg Athletics v EUIPO — Aerospinning Master Franchising (SPINNING)

(Case T-718/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark SPINNING - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 16/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: J. Steinberg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aerospinning Master Franchising, s.r.o., formerly Aerospinning Master Franchising, Ltd., s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Labalestra, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 (Case R 2375/2014-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Aerospinning Master Franchising and Mad Dogg Athletics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 July 2016 (Case R 2375/2014-5) in so far as it concerns the goods in Class 28 and the services in Class 41 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 July 2016 (Case R 2375/2014-5) in so far as it concerns the goods in Class 28 and the services in Class 41 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc.;

| 3. | Orders Aerospinning Master Franchising, s.r.o. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Aerospinning Master Franchising, s.r.o. to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KEVIN MITCHELL : CIVIL ACTION

vs. :

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, : NO. 02-4442

INC., ET AL.

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 13th day of November, 2003, it having

been reported that the issues between PLAINTIFF KEVIN MITCHELL and

DEFENDANTS EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., CBA INFORMATION 

SERVICES, BP/CITIBANK SD, CAPITAL ONE BANK, CROSS COUNTRY BANK,

DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES, ORCHARD BANK AND PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL

have been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the

provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of

this Court (effective January 1, 1970), it is

ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice,

pursuant to agreement of counsel, without costs, as to the above

named parties only.

ATTEST: or BY THE COURT:

BY: 

 Rosalind Burton-Hoop JOHN P. FULLAM, Sr. J.

 Deputy Clerk

COPIES BY MAIL ON 11/13/03 TO: Howard R. Maniloff, Esquire

 John Soumilas, Esquire

 John Keim Semler, Esquire

 Joseph F. Riga, Esquire

 Mark D. Mailman, Esquire

 Robert J. Martin, Esquire

 Shweta Gupta, Esquire

Civ 12 (7/95)

Case 2:02-cv-04442-JF Document 36 Filed 11/13/2003 Page 1 of 1
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

 Tuesday, November 14, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on November 16, 2023.

# PLACE:

1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC and virtual (This meeting will be a hybrid meeting.)

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

Financial or commercial information obtained from any person which is privileged or confidential.

Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes and production would disclose investigative techniques.

                        Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a                               ( print page 77320)                            considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.                    

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer.Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Vicktoria J. Allen,

Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2023-24958 Filed 11-7-23; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 108 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 108

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
                            medical devices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 12, 2017

 Mr. Hatch (for himself, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Portman, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. 
   Young, Mr. Casey, Mr. Toomey, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Isakson, and Mr. 
   Franken) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
                            medical devices.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medical Device Access and Innovation 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MEDICAL DEVICE EXCISE TAX.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by striking subchapter E.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Subsection (a) of section 4221 of such Code is amended 
        by striking the last sentence.
            (2) Paragraph (2) of section 6416(b) of such Code is 
        amended by striking the last sentence.
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of subchapters for chapter 32 of 
such Code is amended by striking the item related to subchapter E.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to sales after December 31, 2017.
                                 <all>
```