alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
890868 v.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH MARINO : 

: CIVIL ACTION 

v. : 

: NO. 02-cv-4488 

KENT LINE INTERNATIONAL d/b/a : 

VOYAGEUR SHIPPING LTD. : 

and : 

SLS, INC. d/b/a HOLT OVERSIGHT AND : 

LOGISTICAL TECHNOLOGIES : 

and : 

INCHCAPE SHIPPING : 

DEFENDANT INCHCAPE SHIPPING’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 For the reasons set forth in co-defendants’ Responses in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Reconsideration, Inchcape Shipping joins in their arguments in opposition to plaintiff’s 

motion. 

 WHEREFORE, Inchcape Shipping requests that plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 

be denied. 

 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP 

By:______________________________ 

Ann-Michele G. Higgins, Esquire 

The Widener Bldg., 16th Floor 

One S. Penn Square 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

(215) 575-4200 

Attorney for Defendant, 

Inchcape Shipping 

DATED: October 28, 2003

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 72 Filed 10/28/2003 Page 1 of 3
890868 v.1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of defendant Inchcape Shipping’s 

Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, was sent via telefax to all 

counsel and/or parties of record: 

Thomas More Holland, Esquire 

Law Offices of Thomas More Holland 

1522 Locust Street 

Grace Hall 

Philadelphia, PA 19102 

Attorney for Plaintiff

A. Robert Degen, Esquire 

Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel 

2000 Market Street, Tenth Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-3291 

Faustino Mattioni, Esquire 

Mattioni, Ltd. 

399 Market Street, 2nd floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19106-2138 

RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP

By:_______________________________ 

Anne A. Cave 

The Widener Building 

One South Penn Square 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

(2l5) 575-4200 

DATED: October 28, 2003

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 72 Filed 10/28/2003 Page 2 of 3
890868 v.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH MARINO : 

: CIVIL ACTION 

v. : 

: NO. 02-cv-4488 

KENT LINE INTERNATIONAL d/b/a : 

VOYAGEUR SHIPPING LTD. : 

and : 

SLS, INC. d/b/a HOLT OVERSIGHT AND : 

LOGISTICAL TECHNOLOGIES : 

and : 

INCHCAPE SHIPPING : 

ORDER

AND NOW, TO WIT, this day of , 2003, it is 

hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

__________________________________ 

 J. 

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 72 Filed 10/28/2003 Page 3 of 3
No. 50898.

#### Protest 87684-K of B. R. Anderson & Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

At the trial a sample of the merchandise was admitted in evidence as exhibit 1. Prom the testimony of plaintiff’s witness it appeared that the imported merchandise is a hand saw; that it is of tubular construction in the frame, is adjustable to any length of hacksaw blade, has an excellently designed handle for a mechanic and a wonderful balance; that in this case there was a complete assemblage, less the blade; and that by a complete assemblage he meant the frame, the handle, and the adjusting bolts with which the blade is held. Upon the evidence it was held that the imported merchandise is nothing more than hacksaw frames, i. e., parts of hacksaws. Since neither paragraph 340 nor T. D. 47785 makes any provision for parts of saws of any kind, all claims of the plaintiff were overruled.
Exhibit 32 **CERTIFICATION    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002    (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,    Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of    the undersigned officers of The Interpublic Group of Companies,    Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such    officer’s knowledge, that:     The annual report on    Form 10-K    for the year ended December 31, 2007 of the Company fully    complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information    contained in the annual report on    Form 10-K    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial    condition and results of operations of the Company.     Dated: February 29, 2008 /s/  Michael    I. Roth    Michael I. Roth    Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer     Dated: February 29, 2008 /s/  Frank    Mergenthaler    Frank Mergenthaler    Executive Vice President and    Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CAROLE CREIGHTON . * CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-86

VERSUS * MDL NO. 02-20137

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS * HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III

CORPORATION, ET AL.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL

NOWNOW INOW INTONOW INTO NOW INTO COURT,NOW INTO COURT, NOW INTO COURT, th

CorporationCorporation Corporation (hereinaCorporation (hereinafter sometimes referred to as SmithKline ), Cor

SmithKlineSmithKline desires to substitute Charles M. Steen with the law firm of Steen, McShane Smith

WilWilliamson,Williamson, L.L.C., in place of Stephanie G. McShane, as counsel of record for SmithKWi

Beecham Corporation. 

WHEREFORE,WHEREFORE, SmithKline BWHEREFORE, SmithKline BeechaWHEREFORE, Smith

anan Order substituting Charles M. Steenan Order substituting Charles M. Steen with the law firm of Steen, McSha

in place of Stephanie G. McShane as counsel of record for SmithKline Beecham Corporation.

Case 2:02-cv-20137-HB Document 2 Filed 07/29/2002 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Respectfully submitted, 

STEEN, McSHANE & WILLIAMSON, L.L.C.

/s/ Marie Rudd Posey 

CHARLES M. STEEN, T.A. (#12420)

MARIE RUDD POSEY (#22534)

1250 Energy Centre

1100 Poydras Street

New Orleans, Louisiana 70163-1250

Telephone: (504) 599-8440

COUNSEL FOR SMITHKLINE

BEECHAM CORPORATION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

II do hereby certify that I have on this 25th day of day of July, 2002, served a day of July, 2002, served a co

pleading,pleading, by mailing the same by United States Mail, properly addpleading, by mailing the same by U

prepaid,prepaid, or by hand delivery on counsel forprepaid, or by hand delivery on counsel for all parties orprepa

/s/ Marie Rudd Posey 

Case 2:02-cv-20137-HB Document 2 Filed 07/29/2002 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CAROLE CREIGHTON . * CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-86

VERSUS * MDL NO. 02-20137

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS * HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III

CORPORATION, ET AL.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING Motion to Substitute Counsel; 

ITIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Charles M. Steen withIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Charles M. Ste

Williamson,Williamson, L.L.C., be, and is hereby, enrolled as counsel of record for SmithKline Beecham

Corporation,Corporation, anCorporation, and SCorporation, and Stephanie G. McShane is deleted as counsel of 

Corporation,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania this of ______________, 2002.

____________________________________

J U D G E

Case 2:02-cv-20137-HB Document 2 Filed 07/29/2002 Page 3 of 3
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 9, 2021

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00005-CR

JASON DEWAYNE HEARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 21st District Court

Washington County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18,419

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Jason Dewayne Heard appeals his conviction for failure to comply 

with the sex offender registration requirements. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 61.102. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the 

record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
2

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of his right to inspect the appellate record and file a pro se response to the brief. See 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more 

than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the 

record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief when 

we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 

178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
#### Gerry C. DUBOSE, Appellant, v. John D. KELLY, individually and as an agent of Hanft, Fride, O’Brien, Harries, Swelbar & Burns, P.A.; Jennifer L. Carey, formerly known as Jennifer L. Cook, individually and as an agent of Hanft, Fride, O’Brien, Harries, Swelbar & Burns, P.A.; Hanft, Fride, O’Brien, Harries, Swelbar & Burns, P.A., Appellees.

No. 00-2979MN.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 1, 2001.

Decided June 12, 2001.

Before BOWMAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Gerry C. DuBose appeals various unfavorable rulings following a jury trial on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against attorneys John Kelly and Jennifer Carey and their law firm. For reversal, DuBose challenges the District Court’s1 denial of his motion for a change of venue, the exclusion of certain evidence, the grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Carey, and the entry of judgment upon the jury verdict in favor of Kelly and the firm. The District Court granted DuBose’s request for limited portions of the transcript at government expense.

Without a complete trial transcript, however, we cannot review the District Court’s evidentiary rulings, the grant of judgment, or the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(2) (discussing appellant’s duty to order transcript); *Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners,*827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (appellant’s failure to provide complete transcript makes it impossible to review evidence presented at trial), *cert. denied,*484 U.S. 1071, 108 S.Ct. 1041, 98 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1988); see also *DuBose v. Kelly,*187 F.3d 999, 1003-04 (8th Cir.1999) (noting that whether Dubose’s evidence — i.e., his eyewitness account of ex parte contact and alleged agreement that malpractice trial would end in verdict for defendant — was to be believed was matter for jury). In addition, assuming DuBose renewed his change-of-venue motion during voir dire, the absence of a transcript of the jury-selection process makes it impossible to review the necessity of a change of venue. See *United States v. Faul,*748 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir.1984) (holding appellate court has duty to examine independently voir dire testimony to determine whether impartial jury was selected, thus obviating necessity for change of venue), *cert. de**429*nied,*472 U.S. 1027, 105 S.Ct. 3500, 87 L.Ed.2d 632 (1985).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 17, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50094

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SAUL ANTONIO CRUZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-605-1

--------------------

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Saul Antonio Cruz

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior

conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
October 31, 1957

No. 61315.

protest 258461-K.

#### Judson Sheldon Division, National Carloading Corp. *v.*United States,

Protest abandoned October 9, 1957. (Not published.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
## Meeting Minutes Memorandum

1

TO: EPA Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0895

FROM: Beth Friedman, EC/R Incorporated

DATE: May 1 , 2012

SUBJECT: Call with University of Cincinnati Researchers on April 23, 2012

I. Introduction:

A conference call was held on April 23, 2012 to discuss recent and ongoing research related to health impacts of manganese emissions in southern Ohio being conducted by the University of Cincinnati researchers

. This memo provides an overview of the issues
discussed.

II. Participants :

University of Cincinnati : Amit Bhat tacharya

, Kim Dietrich, Erin Haynes, Paul Succopi Earthjustice : Emma Cheuse EPA/OAQPS : Conrad Chin

, Chuck French , I nes Pagan

, , Ted Palma , Kelly Rimer,

Da rcie Smith
EPA/OGC : Jonathan Averback
EPA/ORD : William Boyes , S tan Durkee

, George Woodall EPA/Region 5 : Don Bruce

, Carl Nash

, Rae Trine

, Margaret Sieffert EC/R Incorporated (Contractor for EPA) : Beth Friedman

III. Summary of Discussion:

The purpose of the call was to obtain information on the status and results of Dr. Haynes and her team’s research regarding health impacts of manganese emissions on children

.

Currently, t he team is recruiting children ages 7 to 9, who have lived their entire life in the study area (including in utero). The Ohio study area includes Washington County (home to EMI), a nd Guernse y County and Wood County in West Virginia

. They expect to have their sample group of approximately 400 children complete by the end of the summer

. This study will collect samples for metals in blood and manganese in hair

. They are also looking at manganese concentrations using a layer ablation technique from naturally shed teeth from the participants

. The team will also train community members to collect composite
inter ior dust and exterior soil samples and water samples from the home.

## Meeting Minutes Memorandum

2 They have conducted personal air sampling over two spring seasons ( 38 children)

. A s noted in the public comment letter 1 submitted by Dr. Haynes, the findings of this study suggest the time

- weighted average distance from the ferromanganese facility may be a suitable surrogate of personal exposure to airborne manganese

. This paper was just submitted for publication

. The team has also evaluated n euromotor performance assessed using postural balance (sway) of several children (91 according to the comment letter)

. They report draf

t results of seeing health effects at less than 0. 0 5 μ g/m 3

. An abstract from a recent presentation is available, but the actual report must still undergo peer review.

1 Dr. Erin Haynes, University of Cincin n ati to Conrad Chin, USEPA. January 31. 2012. Publ ic comment on proposed Ferroalloys Production rule.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
ERGOWERX INTERNATION AL LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

MAXELL CORPORATION OF AMERI CA, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2014

- 1641

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 1:13

- cv

- 05633

- PAE, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J AY P. N ELKIN , Nelkin & Nelkin, P.C., Houston, TX, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

H ILARY L. P RESTON , Vinson & Elkins LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by A JEET P. P AI , Austin, TX; N ICKOU O SKOUI , Dallas, TX.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK , T ARANTO , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

September 11, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS3716 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
----

----

I Information

European Parliament

----

Conference of Committees for European and Community Affairs of the European Union Parliaments (COSAC)

Contribution adopted by the XXXVth COSAC

Vienna, 22 to 23 May 2006

(2006/C 238/01)

The Future of Europe and the Period of Reflection

The Constitutional Treaty

Subsidiarity and Proportionality

Better regulation

Openness in the Council

The 5th Biannual Report

The Western Balkans

Neighbourhood Policy

----

Commission

----

Euro exchange rates (1)

2 October 2006

(2006/C 238/02)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6934
NICHOLAS WARNER JONES, a/k/a Charles Jones, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICK CONROY, Warden; THOMAS P. CORCORAN, Former Warden; CHARLES H. SMITH, AssistantWarden; SAMUEL HAWKINS, Security Chief; LEHRMAN DOTSON, Assistant Warden; MAURICE VICE, C.O.I.; DAVID BARRELL; COREY BROWN; DARNELL DUNSTON, Each above defendant is sued in their official and individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 00-7182
NICHOLAS WARNER JONES, a/k/a Charles Jones, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICK CONROY, Warden; JOHN JOSEPH CURRAN,JR.; WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN; ANGELO LEE, Lieutenant; LARRY TROY, Captain; SHARON MARTIN, Officer; A. SMITH, Officer, Defendants - Appellees.2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00- 1728-L, CA-00-645-L) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas Warner Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM:Nicholas Warner Jones appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Conroy ,No. CA-00-1728-L (D. Md. June 28, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Joseph Sibbel Studio *v.*United States 1

United States Customs Court, Third Division

(Decided July 25, 1938)

*Myron A. Maged*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph R. Jackson,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGibbon,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Before Coiné, Evans, and Keefe, Judges; Evans, J., not participating

1

. C.D. 19.

Keefe, Judge:

In this case a travertine block of stone, used as a floor of a sanctuary of a church, was imported in a single shipment with *70a marble altar, a predella and credence table. Tbe altar and predella were admitted free of duty as altars under paragraph. 1774, Tariff Act of 1930. Duty was assessed at the appropriate rates upon the credence table and the travertine floor. Plaintiff here protests that the stone floor and credence table are also entitled to free entry as parts of altars. The claim, however, as to the credence table was abandoned at the trial.

The plaintiff sought to prove at the trial that the travertine floor was nothing more than one of the steps of the predella; that the predella, as part of the altar, consisted of two steps instead of one only; and that the floor was merely a wide step, and therefore a part of the altar.

The evidence, however, discloses that the travertine floor covers the entire sanctuary of the church and extends not only under the altar and predella but also under the credence table. The travertine stone floor in fact is the platform or floor of the sanctuary upon which the priests stand or walk before ascending the predella to the altar, and is also used in connection with the credence table and side altars. Such a structure can not be regarded merely as a step used to ascend to the altar. In the ordinary meaning a step is defined in Webster’s New International Dictionary as:

> A rest, or one of a set of rests, for the foot in ascending or descending, as a stair.

On the other hand a floor is defined as:

> The bottom or lower part of any room; the part upon which we stand and upon which the movables in the room are supported; * * * the surface, or the platform, of a structure on which to walk or travel.

Clearly the floor in question comes directly within the latter definition. The altar, without question, might have rested directly upon the wooden floor upon which the travertine floor rests and as thus located would be complete for use as an altar.

This court has held that a marble wainscoting designed so as to be in harmony with an altar and used upon each side thereof was not a part of an altar. See *Angelo Lualdi*v. *United States,*T. D. 46863. Also *Daprato Statuary Co.*v. *United States,*T. D. 49225, where it was held that a reredos when separated from the altar by 26 inches, even though used to contain a “niche” in which the monstrance is placed, does not constitute pieces, fractions, segments, or sections of an altar, such as would entitle it to free entry under the provisions of paragraph 1774.

The travertine floor in question is held to be properly dutiable as assessed by the collector. Judgment will be entered in favor of the defendant.