alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
December 24, 1942

No. 47844.

Suit 4392.

#### United *States*v. *Abercrombie & Fitch Co.*

C. D. 541 reversed. C. A. D. 217.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE JOURNAL EMPLOYEES' STOCK TRUST AS OF AND
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              100
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,010,263
<CGS>                                                0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             25,010,263
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         25,010,263
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                25,010,263
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.20
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              May-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Nov-30-2000
<CASH>                                         23,065
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  62,967
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               86,032
<PP&E>                                         104,207
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 190,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          198,813
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1
<COMMON>                                       1,378
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,952)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   190,239
<SALES>                                        205,195
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               205,195
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  867,949
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (662,754)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (662,754)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (662,754)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.05)


</TABLE>
----

Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Autoservice Fermans Exclusive v Commission

(Case T-215/99) (1)

(2006/C 261/57)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

----

(1)OJ C 6, 8.1.2000.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the December
31, 1996 Financial Statements included in the Company's Form 10-K and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            3215
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    83384
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3069
<INVENTORY>                                     129146
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                225961
<PP&E>                                          271095
<DEPRECIATION>                                  165598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  360078
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            60908
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         69674
<OTHER-SE>                                      183182
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    360078
<SALES>                                         447772
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                447772
<CGS>                                           292858
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   292858
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  2707
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3367
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  36622
<INCOME-TAX>                                     13257
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              23365
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     23365
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .87


</TABLE>
Case No. 13,147.

#### SNOW v. TAPLEY.

[3 Ban. & A. 228; 1 13 O. G. 548.]

Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

Feb. 4, 1878.

Patents —Novelty.

The invention claimed in letters patent issued to George K. Snow, December 17. 1872, numbered 134,105, for machine for uniting paper and cloth: *Held,*not invalid for want of novelty.

[This was a bill in equity by George K. Snow against George W. Tapley for the infringement of letters patent No. 134,105, granted to complainant December 17,1872.)

Chauncey Smith and Benjamin F. Thurs-ton, for complainant.

Charles F. Blake, Edmund Wetmore, and William A. Jenner, for defendant.

SHEPLEY, Circuit Judge.

In this case, upon a review of the evidence, I find:

First That the letters patent issued to complainant, December 17, 1872, numbered 134,-105, are not void by reason of any anticipation of the invention therein described by the description in the English letters patent to Eugene Corliss, or by any use proved in the case of the Corliss machine.

Second. That the Gibson machine, set up in the answer of the defendant, was not an abandoned experiment or an abandoned machine. the disuse of the machine for a time, proved in the case, being satisfactorily accounted for by proof of circumstances connected with demand and supply of the product and independent of the efficiency of the mechanism, and, therefore, that the use of the Gibson machine was, and is, open to the defendant.

Third. That a material and essential step in the process of continuously uniting paper and cloth taken from separate rolls or packages. described in the patent of the complainant and in the first claim of the letters patent issued to him. is the process of applying paste or other adhesive material to the cloth alone, by passing the cloth through or past the paste in the manner and by the instru-*734mentalities described in the specifications and drawings of said patent.

Fourth. I do not find in any contrivance proved to exist prior to Snow’s invention, or in any process proved to have been practised prior to the invention of his process or art, any anticipation of Snow’s process as a whole, treating his mode of applying the paste to the cloth, as I have in the third clause, as an essential element in his process.

Fifth. I allow the defendant to amend his answer (motion for leave so to do having been made before final argument), to allege that the patentee has forfeited his right to *a*patent, by allowing the invention to be in public use and on sale in this country for more than two years before the application for the patent was made.

Sixth, An interlocutory decree will be drawn up and submitted to the court in accordance with these findings; the case, after the amended answer is filed, will be opened for the taking of testimony by either party for the space of sixty days thereafter, on the issue solely of prior public use and sale, and no other issue: such amended answer to be filed within ten days.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of New Bastion Development, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Elliot Bellen, Principal Financial Officer of our Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

1.

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 result of operations of our Company.



Date:  November 30, 2011



/s/ Elliot BellenElliot BellenPrincipal Financial Officer
Before the First Division,

June 24, 1942

No. 47320.

#### Protest 47996-K of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

A sample of the merchandise in the condition as sold At retail was admitted in evidence as collective exhibit 1. It consists of a cardboard box containing a cotton velvet bag, the so-called hand warmer, printed instr.uct.ions.Tela,ting.to.the.use and operation of .the same, and.a metal filling cup. 'The hand warmer is nickel plated, concededly composed in chief value of copper, and not plated or colored with gold lacquer. It is approximately *3%*inches long, *'2%*inches wide, and *%*of 1 inch thick, has rounded corners, a perforated removable ■cap, and in shape and size resembles an ordinary cigarette case. It is fitted with a burner that is removable to permit loading with fuel which is essential for its operation. The body of the warmer is filled with loosely packed cotton which becomes saturated with the fuel. The metal filling cup is used to pour the fuel into the hand warmer.

It was established by the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses that the articles in ■question are chiefly used by persons to warm their hands; and that when so used they are either carried in-the-pocket or in the.hands. The court found that these hand warmers are articles “designed to be worn on apparel or carried on or about or attached to the person,” and when customarily so used are incidental articles ■of personal comfort and convenience, and accordingly held them to be properly *366dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 1527. *Gallagher & Ascher*v. *United States*(6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 105, T. D. 35343) cited and followed.

Since the hand warmers in question were valued at less than $5 per dozen pieces, they were not dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 1527 (c) (2) as amended by the French Trade Agreement (T. D. 48316), but were subject to the rates of duty provided for in paragraph 1527 (c) (2) as originally enacted.

The protest was overruled and the classification of the collector affirmed.
Order filed January 24, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 01088

- CV

____________ In the Interest of A.D.M., a child

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 04361J

ORDER This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue. Appellant’s brief was due January 22, 2019 . No brief has been filed. Appeals in parental termination cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is
filed. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). This accelerated schedule requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines.

Therefore
, we order appellant’s appointed counsel
, Donald Crane , to file appellant’s brief no later than February 4, 2019. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. In addition, the court may require appointment of new counsel due to the failure to timely file appellant’s brief.

PER CURI AM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

STEVEN BLAINE SNYDER,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 21 MAP 2017

Appeal from the Order of the Superior 

Court dated July 22, 2016, 

reconsideration denied October 3, 2016, 

at No. 1399 MDA 2015 Affirming the 

Judgment of Sentence of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Lancaster County, 

Criminal Division, at Nos. CP-36-CR0001610-2014 & CP-36-CR-0005397-

2014 dated May 11, 2015.

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: October 16, 2017

AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2017, the Joint Application for Summary 

Disposition Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 123 is GRANTED. 

Based upon the agreement of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Order of the Superior Court issued on July 22, 2016, at 1399 MDA 

2015, is VACATED;

2. The judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster 

County is VACATED in its entirety; and 

3. The matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster 

County for resentencing. At resentencing, both Driving Under Suspension

charges (75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(b)(1.1)) shall be treated as first offenses, with

summary grading and a maximum penalty of 90 (ninety) days

incarceration. Resentencing shall take place within fifteen (15) days of the 
[21 MAP 2017] - 2

date of this order, regardless of whether the certified record has been 

returned to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County.

This relief is conferred based upon the consent of the parties, who have agreed 

that Appellant is entitled to be resentenced. This order is not to be construed as an 

expression on the merits by this Court. 

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
No. 76-5081.

#### Sisk *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 52970.

#### Atlantic Metal Hose Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 54523-K, etc. (New York).

*273Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects- as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York naarket.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 23(a)
                                                                        

                           ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP






           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As   independent   public  accountants,  we  hereby   consent   to   the
incorporation  of  our  report included  in  this  Form  10-K  into  IES
Industries Inc.'s (the "Company") previously filed Form S-8 Registration
Statement (File No. 33-57088) for the Company's Employee Stock  Purchase
Plan,  Form  S-8  Registration Statement (File  No.  33-32468)  for  the
Company's  Employee  Savings  Plan and Form S-3  Registration  Statement
(File  No.  33-56981) for the Company's Dividend Reinvestment and  Stock
Purchase Plan.






                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Chicago, Illinois
March 14, 1997
-77.2 -77.0 -76.8 -76.6 -76.4 -76.2 -76.0

 39.2

 39.4

 39.6

 39.8

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/22

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 22 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
EXHIBIT
32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Getty Realty Corp.(the “Company”) hereby
certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)  the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (subject to the Company's
position prevailing in regard to the remaining unresolved SEC comment, as more
fully described in the Report); and





(ii)  the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated: May
12, 2008





BY:/s/ Thomas J.
Stirnweis


(Signature)


THOMAS J.
STIRNWEIS


Vice
President, Treasurer and


Chief
Financial Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Getty Realty Corp. and will be retained by Getty Realty Corp. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
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

* The caption has been amended pursuant to the

Stipulation and Order filed November 8, 2005, which dismissed the

action by Plaintiff Paul Krow against Defendants and this Order

which dismisses Plaintiff Corrine Christopher. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN BULLOCK, JACQUELINE NIELSON, )

and LORETTA LAWRENCE )

) 2:04-cv-0542-GEB-PAN

Plaintiffs,* )

) ORDER

v. )

)

WYETH, INC., a Delaware )

Corporation, WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS,)

INC., a Delaware Corporation and )

WYETH-AYERST INTERNATIONAL, INC., )

a New York Corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Three documents have been filed in this action to dismiss

Plaintiff Corrine Christopher’s claims against Defendants Wyeth, Wyeth

Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Wyeth-Ayerst International, Inc.

(“Defendants”). The first document, a “Notice of Dismissal,” was

filed on September 9, 2005, but on October 4, 2005, a document was

filed withdrawing the Notice of Dismissal and clarifying that the

Notice of Dismissal was intended to dismiss only the claims of

Plaintiff Corrine Christopher against Defendants. The second

document, a “Stipulation of Dismissal,” was filed October 4, 2005. 

Case 2:04-cv-00542-GEB-EFB Document 21 Filed 11/17/05 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

The third document, an “Amended Stipulation of Dismissal and

[Proposed] Order,” was filed November 2, 2005. 

Therefore, Plaintiff Corrine Christopher’s claims against

Defendants are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The dismissal shall apply only to the

action by Plaintiff Corrine Christopher against Defendants, and will

have no effect on the actions brought by Plaintiffs Susan Bullock,

Jacqueline Nielsen, and Loretta Lawrence. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 16, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00542-GEB-EFB Document 21 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE VIZCAINO, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0665 GEB KJM PS

vs.

STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled

action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On May 11, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and

which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

Case 2:04-cv-00665-GEB -KJM Document 21 Filed 06/21/05 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

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 11,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See

Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Dated: June 20, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00665-GEB -KJM Document 21 Filed 06/21/05 Page 2 of 2