alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8151)

#### H. B. Thomas & Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 4809, etc.

(Decided July 25, 1952)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGibbon,*special attorney), for the defendant.

OdiveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been sub*458mitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated, by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court:

> 1) That the merchandise marked “A” on the invoices and initialed TLW by Customs Examiner T. L. Walton, involved in the appeals listed in the attached schedule, consists of merchandise exported from France, and appraised at values which included the so-called production or unique tax (also known as the French Fiscal Reform Law tax) in the amounts as shown by the invoices and accompanying certificates of pending reappraisement.

> 2) That merchandise such or similar to the imported merchandise, marked “A” in paragraph I, when sold or offered for sale at the time of exportation, in France for home consumption, or for exportation to countries other than the United States, in the ordinary course of trade to all purchasers, and in the usual wholesale quantities, was sold or offered for sale at the appraised values herein, less the French Fiscal Reform Tax (Production or Unique tax) as referred to above in paragraph 1 and as added by the importer on entry, plus 1.01 percent Armament tax when not included in the appraised value, packed, and that the export value was no higher.

> 3) That all other claims of the plaintiffs, as raised by these appeals, are hereby abandoned, and that upon this stipulation these cases are submitted.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise represented on the invoices by the items marked *“A”*and initialed TLW by Customs Examiner T. L. Walton, and that such values were the appraised values, less the French fiscal reform tax (production or unique tax) as added by the importers on entry, plus 1.01 per centum armament tax when not included in the appraised value, packed.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# ‘'

i_j ORIGINAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23-0315
ON SIXTH AVENUE, LLC,

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. CLAYTON WAYNE RAMSEY,

Defendant and Appellant. 

### JUN 2 0 2023 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Court State of Montana ORDER

Self-represented Appellant Clayton Wayne Ramsey has filed a Petition for an Out-of-Time Appeal, indicating that he improperly filed a timely Notice ofAppeal only with the District Court and that he failed to file the Notice ofAppeal. Ramsey includes copies ofthe September 27, 2022 Findings ofFact and Conclusions ofLaw; Interlocutory Order after the non-jury trial as well as the October 18, 2022 Findings of Fact and Conclusions ofLaw; Final Judgment, following the damages hearing in the Justice Court ofRecord, Civil Division, ofYellowstone County, Montana. M. R. App. P. 4(6) allows this Court to grant an out-of-time appeal "[i]n the infrequent harsh case and under extraordinary circumstances amounting to a gross miscarriage ofjustice[1" At the outset, Ramsey's Petition is not verified; there is no notarial signature or stamp. M. R. App. P. 4(6). Ramsey, however, mentions his confusion about the process and his extraordinary circumstances. Ramsey refers to a Yellowstone County District Court Cause Number (DV-22-1116) in his Petition, but he does not provide a final judgment from the District Court, only the Justice Court. We secured a copy ofthe Register ofActions from the Yellowstone County District Court. On April 3,2023,theDistrict Court issued an OrderDenyingAppeal andAffirming Justice Court Orders. The court also denied Ramsey's motion for rehearing on April 27, 2023. We conclude that Ramsey is entitled to this out-of-time appeal. Therefore, 06/20/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0315IT IS ORDERED that Ramsey's Petition for an Out-of-Time Appeal is GRANTED

and that the Clerk ofthe Supreme Court may file his submitted Notice ofAppeal and other pleadings. The Clerk is also directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel ofrecord and to Clayton Wayne Ramsey personally. DATED this Zi

: ::--"Cl `f-^—, ay ofJune, 2023. 

# .8L

(....../..,.:

/. 1; 441 ,: 

# S 2 4"7.4-14..

1 0

. Justices (C-de

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,248
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                             124
<DEPRECIATION>                                      23
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,333
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           247
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,349
<SALES>                                            532
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   532
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   371
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,217
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,955
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHALRES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O KISSINGER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:04-cv-0878 TLN DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for the 

appointment of counsel. (See Doc. No. 233.) On April 18, 2013, the court found that the 

appointment of counsel was warranted and plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel was 

granted and referred to the Court’s Pro Bono Program. (See Doc. No. 247.) On October 7, 2013, 

attorneys Donald Aquinas Lancaster, Jr. and Jeff Dominic Price were selected from the court’s 

pro bono attorney panel to represent plaintiff, and they have accepted that appointment.

In light of the recent appointment of counsel, the court will relieve defendants of the 

obligation filing a pretrial statement in accordance with the court’s September 17, 2013, order. 

(See Doc. No. 261.) In due course, the court will issue a new scheduling order for the filing of 

pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and jury trial before the assigned district judge.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 263 Filed 10/17/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Donald Aquinas Lancaster, Jr. and Jeff Dominic Price are appointed as counsel in the 

above entitled matter.

2. Appointed counsel shall notify Sujean Park at (916) 930-4278, or via email at 

spark@caed.uscourts.gov if they have any questions related to their appointment.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order upon Donald Aquinas 

Lancaster, Jr., The Lancaster Law Group, 21900 Burbank Blvd., 3rd Floor, Woodland Hills, CA 

91637 and upon Jeff Dominic Price, Law Office of Jeff Price, 1512 16th Street, Suite 2, Santa 

Monica, CA 90404.

4. Defendants are relieved of the obligation of filing a pretrial statement in accordance 

with the court’s September 17, 2013, order. In due course, the court will issue a new scheduling 

order for the filing of pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and jury trial before the assigned 

district judge.

Dated: October 16, 2013

DAD:9

davi0878.appointment

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 263 Filed 10/17/13 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
     EXTRACTED FROM SERVICEMASTER'S QUARTERLY REPORT TO SHAREHOLDERS
     FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
     ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1998    MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         32,860         43,182
<SECURITIES>                                   64,459         42,670
<RECEIVABLES>                                  347,342        313,381
<ALLOWANCES>                                   31,971         25,835
<INVENTORY>                                    57,364         53,099
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               662,262        558,639
<PP&E>                                         419,845        337,369
<DEPRECIATION>                                 237,076        185,295
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,698,231      2,185,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          627,132        508,556
<BONDS>                                        1,379,936      572,863
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0              0
<PREFERRED>                                    0              0
<COMMON>                                       1,872          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     546,995        972,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,698,231      2,185,624
<SALES>                                        0              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               981,788        817,136
<CGS>                                          0              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  794,797        657,145
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               117,218        101,391
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             24,095         10,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                49,113         48,627
<INCOME-TAX>                                   19,843         19,645
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            29,270         28,982
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0              0
<CHANGES>                                      0              0
<NET-INCOME>                                   29,270         28,982
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .16            .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .15            .13
        


</TABLE>
No. 48477.

#### Protests 798064-G, etc., of Lekas & Drivas et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS R. ELLINGTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0666 DFL KJM P

vs.

E.S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

By an order filed April 13, 2006, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and

return to the court, within thirty days, the USM-285 form and copy of his December 13, 2004

amended complaint, which are required to effect service on the defendants. On April 20, 2006,

plaintiff submitted the USM-285 form but failed to submit the December 13, 2004 amended

complaint. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days, plaintiff shall

submit to the court the copy of the December 13, 2004 amended complaint required to effect

service. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 87 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Failure to return the copy within the specified time period will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: May 16, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp

elli0666.8f

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 87 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.1







CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT
TO




SECTION
1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE




I, Andrew
Stewart, the President, Chief Executive Officer and principal executive officer
of Man Investments (USA) Corp., the general partner of Man-AHL Diversified I
L.P. (the “Partnership”), certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the
Partnership on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 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 such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.








Date: August 14,
      2009
            /s/ Andrew StewartAndrew
      StewartPresident and
      Chief Executive Officer
No. 55225.

#### Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 154658-K and 155690-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of gynergen substance and cedilanid substance the same in all material respects as the commodity passed upon in *Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 115, C. D. 1273), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

February 6, 1951

No. 55221.

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

protest 38660-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 57685.

#### Hurricane Import Co. and Perryman, Mojonier Company *v.*United States,

protests 199260-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the two classes of merchandise are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Calif-Asia Co., Ltd.*v. *343
      *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 133, C. A. D. 475). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited decision, the claim made in protest 199262-K for duty at 40 percent ad valorem under paragraph 412 as to the merchandise entered for consumption prior to January 1, 1948, was sustained; the items marked “A” in said protest 199262-K and in the remaining protests were held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 412, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802); and the items marked “B” were held dutiable at 12)4 percent under said paragraph, as modified by said T. D. 51802.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each of the undersigned officers of Oglebay Norton Company (the Company), does hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her
knowledge:



Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form
10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 (as amended, the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



The information contained in the Annual Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Annual Report.



DATE: August 5, 2005



|    |  |                                                           
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/    MICHAEL D. LUNDIN                                  
|    |  | Michael D. Lundin President and Chief Executive Officer   
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/    JULIE A. BOLAND                                    
|    |  | Julie A. Boland Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Annual Report or as a separate disclosure document.
No. 60812.

#### Goody Novelty Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 278444-K, etc.

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
Exhibit 10.16


EXHIBIT 10.16




VIDSHADOW, INC

1970 Estelle Lane

Placentia, California 92870







June 18, 2008




Mr. Norman Brodeur

1560 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, 4th Floor

Sunrise, FL 33323




Re: Amendment to the March 14, 2008 Stock Purchase Agreement (“the “Agreement”)




Dear Mr. Brodeur:




Please consider the following addendum to the above referenced Agreement.




This Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Agreement by and between Vidshadow Partners, Inc. (the “Purchaser”) and Vidshadow, Inc. (“Seller”), dated March 14, 2008 (the “SPA”) is entered into effective as of June__, 2008, other than the specific amendments enumerated in the Amendment, all other terms of the SPA shall remain in full force and effect, and shall not be obviated or affected by this Amendment.




Now therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:




Section 1.1 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:




“0.1

Sale of the Shares. Upon execution of this Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions herein set forth, and on the basis of the representations, warranties and agreements herein contained, SELLER agrees to sell to PURCHASER, and PURCHASER agrees to purchase from SELLER up to 9,167,200 shares of the Company’s Common Stock at the Purchase Price (8,000,000 shares on a post-reverse split basis.”

 

Section 1.2 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:




“1.2

Issuance of the Shares. Upon execution of this Agreement, SELLER shall issue certificates representing such number of Shares purchased by  PURCHASER.”




Section 1.3 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:




“1.3

Consideration and Payment for  the Shares. In consideration for the purchase of the  Shares, PURCHASER shall pay a purchase price of $0.3125 per share for a total purchase price of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand dollars ($2,500,000). The Purchase Price may be paid by wire transfer of immediately available funds or check made payable to the Seller, or by the issuance of a secured promissory note issued by the PURCHASER to the Seller.”

















This amendment is agreed to and shall become effective as of the date first written above.













Very truly yours,




VIDSHADOW, INC.







By: /s/ Mark Gaeta

Name:  Mark Gaeta

Title:  President







ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO

AS OF DATE FIRST

ABOVE WRITTEN:




VIDSHADOW PARTNERS, INC.







By: /s/ Norman Brodeur

Name: Norman Brodeur

Title:    Manager































[SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT DATED JUNE 18,2008]
Seventh Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.54(h)  
 SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Seventh Amendment to Employment Agreement is made
and entered into as of October 31, 2007, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“Employer”) and Jose Luis Laparte (“Executive”). 
 Recitals 
  

	 	A)	On June 3, 2004, an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive. 

  

	 	B)	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on six prior occasions; 

  

	 	C)	Employer and Executive now desire to amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow: 

 Agreement 
 1. Section 2.2 of the Agreement which currently provides:

 2.2 Bonus. Executive shall be entitled to receive a bonus for Fiscal Year End 2007, in the amount as set forth in, and in
accordance with the terms of, the FY 2007 Management Bonus Program, as approved by Employer’s Compensation Committee on August 3, 2006. A copy of said FY 2007 Management Bonus Program is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by reference. 
 is hereby amended, to provide as follows: 
 2.2 Bonus. Executive shall be entitled to receive an annual bonus payment in accordance with the terms of the applicable fiscal
year’s Management Bonus Program, as approved by Employer’s Compensation Committee. 
 2. All other terms of the Employment
Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective. 
 Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above. 
  

									
	EXECUTIVE	 		 	EMPLOYER
			
		 		 	PRICESMART, INC.
				
	Jose Luis Laparte	 		 	By:	 	/s/    ROBERT M. GANS
	/s/    JOSE LUIS
LAPARTE        	 		 	Name:	 	Robert M. Gans
		 		 		 	Its:	 	Executive Vice President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6691

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SOLOMON HAMM, a/k/a Soloman Ham, a/k/a Charles

R. Brewer,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CR-90-53-N, CA-96-160-2)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Solomon Hamm, Appellant Pro Se. Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Hamm, Nos. CR-90-53-N; CA-96-160-2

(E.D. Va. Apr. 10, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for review of

the denial of post-judgment motions by the district court. 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