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

June 20, 1963

No. 67837.

#### J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/23741-11030 (Chicago).

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This ease involves certain plastic eases permanently fitted with manicure sets, consisting of a pair of scissors, two cuticle pushers, a nail file, and tweezers. The collector assessed duty on the merchandise on the basis that the cases, and the articles comprising the sets, were separate entities.

The protest was the subject of our decision in *J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*45 Cust. Ct. 375, Abstract 64902, wherein we sustained plaintiff’s claim for classification of the merchandise as an entirety, and held the entity— eases with manicure sets — to be properly classifiable, by similitude to fitted leather cases, under paragraph 1531 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, and paragraph 1559(a), as amended.

The case is before us at this time pursuant to defendant’s motion for rehearing which was granted. *J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*46 Cust. Ct. 321, Abstract 65098.

On the record, as originally made, supplemented by the stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties at the trial on rehearing, it is clearly established that the eases, together with the manicure sets contained therein, are *338entireties, which are “composed in cMef value of steel, not plated with, platinum, gold, silver, or colored with gold lacquer.” (R. 6.) Accordingly, we hold the present merchandise to be properly dutiable at the rate of 20 per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 54108, for articles, not specially provided for, composed wholly or in chief value of steel, but not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer, as claimed by plaintiff, through valid amendment to the protest.

The protest is sustained and judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 62492.

#### Ebrahimoff Djemmshidoff *v.*United States,

protest 324051-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
(Reap. Dec. 8144)

#### The H. C. Capwell Company et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 8897, 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.

Oliveb, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted 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.

*451On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, or 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.
No. 60042.

#### F. E. Macartney *v.*United States,

protests 146277-K, etc. (Duluth).

*481Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the Western white spruce lumber the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(31 Cust. Ct. 13, C. D. 1538), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said items.
CERTIFICATION
OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS
  
 I,
Steven J. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of Z Trim Holdings, Inc., an Illinois
corporation (the "Registrant"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
the Report on Form 10-Q for the period of the Registrant from January 1, 2009
through March 31, 2009 (the "Report") which this statement accompanies
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  
 
 Dated:  May
20, 2009
 By                 /s/ Steven J.
Cohen
 Steven J. Cohen
 President and Director
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 55127.

#### Textile Looms, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 990013-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          34,235
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,684
<ALLOWANCES>                                       590
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,280
<PP&E>                                           3,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,665
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,393
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           131
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,413
<SALES>                                         19,995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,995
<CGS>                                           13,476
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,921
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   598
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,705
<INCOME-TAX>                                       794
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       911
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Brian R.Ervine, certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Evolving Systems, Inc.;

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation 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) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: August 14, 2006                                                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                     |
| /s/ BRIAN R. ERVINE                                                      |   |
| Brian R. Ervine                                                          |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and  Administrative Officer |

 

----
No. 55883.

protests 148560-K, etc. (New York).

#### Alster Jewelry Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ELMER E. CAMPBELL, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent,

AND

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Intervenor.

______________________ 

2013-3166

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF0752100331-M-1.

______________________ 

O R D E R

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Mr. Elmer E. Campbell has taken an appeal from the 

decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). 

Campbell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., Appeal No. 13-3166 (Oct. 
2 CAMPBELL v. MSPB

9, 2013), ECF No. 12. Mr. Campbell’s brief states that his 

union “filed a grievance on the identical issues raised 

before the MSPB on November 12, 2009,” and that “USPS 

settled these issues, and issued a Regular Regional Pre-

[A]rbitration Settlement with back pay for the period 

November 12, 2009 to March 2, 2012.” Pet’r Br. at 2.

The Board in its brief states that this settlement “may 

provide full relief to Mr. Campbell as it relates to this 

matter[.]” Resp’t Br. at 10 n.2. The United States Postal 

Service (“USPS”), as Intervenor, provides a copy of the 

settlement agreement.

No party has moved for or otherwise requested, dismissal of this appeal. However, “A case becomes moot—

and therefore no longer a “Case or Controversy” for purposes of Article III—when the issues presented are no 

longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 

721, 726–27 (2013) (citations omitted). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

Mr. Campbell is directed to show cause, within 14

days of the date of receipt of this order, why this petition 

should not be dismissed as moot. The Board and USPS 

are also directed to respond within that time.

 FOR THE COURT

 November 20, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court

 

cc: Nicholas Jabbour

Lindsey Schreckengost
No. 55220.

#### Emil Buschoff & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 165960-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 64832.

#### Walter Hatches, Inc., and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N.Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/32207 and 59/32432 (New York).

*359Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Mottahedeh Creations, Ltd., et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 9, C.D. 2095), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

October 31, 1957

No. 61310.

protests 124029-K, etc. (New York).

#### Jas. M. McCunn & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*480Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. *D.*351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
EXHIBIT 23.1





            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
registration statements of IBP, inc. on Form S-3 (File No.
33-64459) and on Form S-8 (File No. 33-19441) of our report
dated January 22, 1996, on our audit of the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of IBP,
inc. as of December 30, 1995 and for the year then ended, which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.





COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Omaha, Nebraska
March 28, 1996







EXHIBIT 23.2







                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-19441 and 1-6085)
relating to the IBP 1987 and 1993 Stock Option Plans of our
report dated February 3, 1995 appearing on page 23 of the 1994
Annual Report to Stockholders which is incorporated in this
annual report on Form 10-K.  We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report on the financial
statements, which appears on page 12 of this Form 10-K.





PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 27, 1996
No. 57245.

protests 885546-G, etc. (New York).

#### Anglo American Fur Merchants Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion 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.*
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 19, 

2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00551-CV

IN RE PRESTON CROFT, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Trial Court Cause No. 09-DCV-170256

434th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On June 15, 2012, relator Preston Croft filed a petition for writ of mandamus in 

this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, 

relator asked this court to compel the Honorable James Shoemake, presiding judge of the 

434th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, to rule on his motion for summary 

judgment and grant his motion to disqualify the real party in interest’s counsel.
2

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only if (1) the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party requesting mandamus relief has no 

adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 

(Tex. 2004). Relator has not established that he is entitled to the extraordinary relief of a 

writ of mandamus. See In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 

2008, orig. proceeding); In re Am. Media Consol., 121 S.W.3d 70, 72-73 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding) (citing Zalta v. Tennant, 789 S.W.2d 432, 433 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding)).

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Brown.
No.51391.

#### Protests 63265-K, etc., of Bachrach Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, j.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Arthur T.
Taylor, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (3) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date:
November 10, 2003



| | Arthur T. Taylor
Chief Financial Officer
| | ----------------------------------------
#### Robert Carlyle BERRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Grace Inez ELMO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-2282.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 2001.

Decided May 1, 2001.

Robert Carlyle Berrett, pro se.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Carlyle Berrett appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and agree that there is no subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Berrett v. Elmo,*No. CA-98-1428-DKC (D.Md. Sept. 14, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately *137presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
# sf133_schp--OUTPUT

&L&"Arial"&10&B&L&"Arial"&10&B&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2022-10	&"Arial,Bold"&9V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&B&R&"Arial"&10&B&R&"Arial"&10&BMarch 2022