alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 52290.

protest 110409-K (Galveston).

#### Le Sage Co. *v.*United States,

Johnson, Judge:

Claim is here made for refund of all duties taken by the 'collector upon distilled spirits entered for warehouse at the port of Houston, Tex., wherein the customs inspector noted breakage at the time of examination at the warehouse.

There was no testimony adduced at the trial. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted the case upon such evidence as appears in the entry papers, including the appraiser’s report, and an affidavit of shortage filed by the importer. The latter was admitted in evidence for the purpose of showing attempted compliance with the statute only.

The collector in his report states that “Dut}’’ and internal revenue tax was allowed for all shortages reported by the customs officer in the liquidation.” He further states, however, that no allowance in duty was made for the liquor lost from bottles which were broken in transit for the reason that the importer’s affidavit was not filed within the period prescribed by law.

The Government contends that the importer’s affidavit was 2 days late. At the trial, counsel for the plaintiff contended that the time for filing of affidavit begins to run from the date of examination by the examiner.

The affidavit in question was received in the customhouse on January 28, 1944. The inspector’s report of breakage and shortage of bottles in the imported cases *309was dated at the Le Sage warehouse on January 11, 1944, 17 days before the affidavit of the importer was filed. One case had been sent to the appraiser’s stores and the date of examination is noted as January 13, 1944. This case, however, was not one included in the inspector’s list of bad order cases.

Section 15.9 *(a),*Customs Regulations of 1943, provides that where gauging is delayed until after the merchandise has been deposited in a bonded warehouse, the date of delivery shall be construed to be the date of the completion of the gauging. The date of the warehouse storekeeper-gauger’s report has been accepted by the Gourts as the date of delivery. See *Schenley Import Corp.*v. *United States,*4 Cust. Ct. 154, C. D. 310, and *Dixie Bottle & Beverage Co.*v. *United States,*Abstract 51505.

The affidavit required by the statute to be filed within 15 days after delivery of the merchandise is unquestionably not in proper time. Inasmuch as paragraph 813, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, specifically prohibits an allowance for breakage, leakage, or damage on wines, liquors, cordials, or distilled spirits, except when the gauger’s return is verified by an affidavit by the importer to be filed within 15 days after the delivery of the merchandise, the filing of the required affidavit within the prescribed time is a condition precedent to recovery. The affidavit in question having been filed too late, the importer is not entitled to recover even though the breakage at issue was within the terms of the statute.

Judgment will therefore be entered in favor of the Government.
Evidence Table G1. Articles/arms for class RETINOID (TOPICAL)/ANTI-BACTERIAL (TOPICAL).

CompTrial Treatment Dose, route, frequency Comments, ancillary treatment

TARGET COMPARATOR Outcome

Table(s)

HEADING

Treatment Dose, route, frequency Comments, ancillary treatment

G.01.01 238 Tretinoin 0.05 % topical qhs. Purpose® soap. Purpose® soap. Discrete (M)

Erythromycin 2 % topical bid. 

Vehicle No dose information. 

Calibrated pump. Small 

initial doses. 

G.02.01 45 Clindamycin 1.2 % topical qd. Continuous

phosphate

Tretinoin 0.025 % topical qd. 

Clindamycin No dose information. 

phosphate

Calibrated pump. Small 

initial doses. 

46 Clindamycin 1.2 % topical qd. Continuous

phosphate

Tretinoin 0.025 % topical qd. 

Clindamycin No dose information. 

phosphate

Calibrated pump. Small 

initial doses. 

47 Clindamycin 1.2 % topical qd. Continuous

phosphate

Tretinoin 0.025 % topical qd. 

Clindamycin 1.2 % topical qd. 

Tretinoin applied nightly 

and clinda applied in 

morning. Purpose® soap 

with medication 

application..

Purpose soap with 

medicate application. 

283 Continuous

Discrete

Clindamycin 1 % topical qd. 

Tretinoin 0.025 % topical qd. 

Clindamycin 1 % topical bid. 

phosphate

Clibrated pump. Small 

initial doses. 

Different gel from 

Velac®. 

G.02.02 42 Clindamycin 1.2 % topical qd. Continuous

phosphate

Tretinoin 0.025 % topical qd. 

Tretinoin 0.025 % topical qd. 

Calibrated pump. Small 

initial doses. 

Different gel from 

Velac®. 

43 Clindamycin 1.2 % topical qd. Continuous

Tretinoin 0.025 % topical qd. 

Tretinoin 0.025 % topical qd. 

Clibrated pump. Small 

until doses. 

44 Clindamycin 1.2 % topical qd. Velac® gel. Continuous

phosphate

Tretinoin 0.025 % topical qd. 

Tretinoin 0.025 % topical qd. 

"(M)" indicates that data are found on the Multi-Arm tables. Evidence Table G HEADING: Page 1 of 1
No. 49655.

#### Protests 961015-G/88086, etc., of Naumes Forwarding Service et al. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On cheese similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstract 42146, an allowance of *268
      *2}í*percent was made to compensate for the weight of foreign substances on the outside, and on Reggiano cheese similar to that involved in *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 id. 270, C. D. 706) an allowance of 1 percent was made.
TSL 3 - Reference

Calculated on 5/31/2013 at 10:33:17 AM

Rebate PC1 PC2

Base Case mkt shr 0.0 0.0

Policy Case mkt shr 11.7 11.9

Increased mkt shr 11.7 11.9

Consumer Tax Credit PC1 PC2

Base Case mkt shr 0.0 0.0

Policy Case mkt shr 0.7 0.7

Increased mkt shr 0.7 0.7

Manufacturer Tax Credit PC1 PC2

Base Case mkt shr 0.0 0.0

Policy Case mkt shr 1.4 1.4

Increased mkt shr 1.4 1.4

Voluntary Efficiency Target PC1 PC2

Base Case mkt shr 0.0 0.0

Policy Case mkt shr 14.6 14.6

Increased mkt shr 14.6 14.6

Early Replacement PC1 PC2

Base Case mkt shr 0.0 0.0

Policy Case mkt shr 20.2 20.2

Increased mkt shr 20.2 20.2

Bulk Govt Purchase PC1 PC2

Base Case mkt shr 0.0 0.0

Policy Case mkt shr 0.1 0.1

Increased mkt shr 0.1 0.1

Summary

PC 1 NES NPV (7%dr) NPV (3%dr)

quad bi $ bi $

Rebate 0.06 0.18 0.39

Consumer Tax Credit 0.02 0.07 0.16

Manufacturer Tax Credit 0.01 0.04 0.09

Voluntary Efficiency Target 0.37 1.31 2.88

Early Replacement 0.02 0.09 0.13

Bulk Govt Purchase 0.01 0.02 0.05

Standards 0.48 1.52 3.36

PC 2 NES NPV (7%dr) NPV (3%dr)

quad bi $ bi $

Rebate 0.00 0.00 0.00

Consumer Tax Credit 0.00 0.00 0.00

Increase in Market Share in 2016 (%)
Manufacturer Tax Credit 0.00 0.00 0.00

Voluntary Efficiency Target 0.00 0.01 0.02

Early Replacement 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bulk Govt Purchase 0.00 0.00 0.00

Standards 0.01 0.02 0.04
Rebate Analysis

B/C ratio without rebate 6.0 3.0

Rebate amount $4.00 $4.00

B/C ratio with rebate 27.2 6.2

Calc Mkt Barrier Curve No Barriers No Barriers

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Rebate 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7

Consumer Tax Credit 0.7 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8

Manufacturer Tax Credit 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Voluntary Efficiency Target 14.6 36.7 43.6 43.6 43.6 47.0 49.0 52.0 55.0 58.0

Early Replacement 20.2 18.1 16.2 13.8 10.7 8.2 6.7 6.1 0.0 0.0

Bulk Govt Purchase 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Projected Increase in Market Share (%)

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042

11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7

2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8

1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2043 2044 2045

11.7 11.7 11.7

2.8 2.8 2.8

1.4 1.4 1.4

58.0 58.0 58.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 1.0
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**





**As
      Adopted Pursuant To**





**Section
      906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





I,
      Gary
      G. Brandt , Chief Executive Officer of Solomon Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





•    
      the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31,
      2007, as amended, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
      date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





•    
      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for
      the periods presented therein.








/s/
                Gary G. Brandt
              Gary
                G. Brandt
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              (principal
                executive officer)
              August
                17, 2007
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The following certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8238. This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes
  of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be incorporated by reference in any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, whether made before or after the
  date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

In
    connection with the Annual Report of J. W. Mays, Inc. (the Company)
    on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 for the period ending July 31, 2008 as filed
    with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we,
    Lloyd J. Shulman and Mark S. Greenblatt, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
    Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
    U.S.C. §1350,
    as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
  that to our knowledge:

|   
|---
|(1)
|   
|(2)

November
    17,
    2008

|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ LLOYDS. SHULMANLloyd J. ShulmanChief Executive Officer    
|/s/ MARKS. GREENBLATTMark S. GreenblattChief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to J.W. Mays, Inc. and will be retained by J. W. Mays, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
  upon request.



---
No. 54041.

#### John Eisenbeiss Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 144781-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
* Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior U.S. Ci rcuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

1 Plaintiff's other arguments on appeal are without merit and warrant no discussion. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

No. 96-7034. Patricia DAVID, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CLINICAL LABORATO RIES, INC., William Thomas, National Assistance Bureau, Inc., a.k.a. Gardenda le Nursing Home, Defendants-Appellees. Aug. 29, 1997. Appeal from the United States Di strict Court for the Northern Di strict of Alabama (No. CV-95-B-6- S), Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, Judge. Before ANDERSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and ALARCON * , Senior Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM: With respect to the summary judgment in favor of SmithKline, we assume arguendo, but need not decide, that an employer may be liabl e under some circumstances in a case involving harassment of an employee, not by the employer or its employees, but by a third person. However, we conclude on this record that SmithKline's response to plaintiff's reports of harassment was reasonable in light of the options available to SmithKline. 1 The judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the judgment affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of all defendants except SmithKline. Although I recognize that Sm ithKline's options were limited because the harasser was a customer and not an employee, a nd although I acknowledge this is a close question, I would conclude that the record discloses a ge nuine issue of fact as to whether SmithKline's response to the harassment was reasonable.
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Jeffrey Marshall,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1657 DFL PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Solano County Sheriff, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoMay 11, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why

claims against defendant Solano County Sheriff should not be

dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for plaintiff’s

failure timely to serve defendant. Plaintiff did not respond. 

Accordingly, I hereby recommend claims against Solano County

Sheriff be dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

Case 2:04-cv-01657-AK Document 28 Filed 07/07/05 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

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: July 7, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01657-AK Document 28 Filed 07/07/05 Page 2 of 2
### Occurrence and quality of surface water and ground water within the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Reservation, central Arizona, 1994-98

By: Gregory R. LittinMargot TruiniHerbert A. PierceBrad M. Baum

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wri004144

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report** 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Reservation encompasses about 1,395 acres in central Arizona adjacent to the city of Prescott. From October 1994 to September 1997, the annual average rainfall was 14.9 inches and the total annual streamflow leaving the reservation along Granite Creek was about 430 acre-feet more than the amount of streamflow entering the reservation. The channel-fill and valley-fill sediments within the flood plain of Granite Creek make up the principal aquifer. The only ground-water development is from spring discharge that is being contained for livestock and wildlife use. About 29 acre-feet of ground water leaves the reservation each year after discharging into Granite Creek. Water levels in wells throughout the reservation reflect seasonal variations in rainfall and snowmelt.

Surface water and ground water on the reservation are calcium bicarbonate types. Specific-conductance field measurements ranged from 187 to 724 microsiemens per centimeter for surface water and 381 to 990 microsiemens per centimeter for ground water. Fecal streptococcal bacteria and fecal coliform bacteria in the surface water make the water unsuitable for domestic use. Some volatile and semivolatile organic compounds were detected in samples of surface water, ground water, and streambed sediment. The potential for contamination exists from point and nonpoint sources on and off the reservation.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
BOB WORTHAM

CORY J. H. CRENSHAW CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY PAT KNAUTH

First Assistant Executive Assistant

Jefferson County Courthouse

ASHLEY CHASE 1085 Pearl Street, 3rd Floor KATHLEEN M. KENNEDY

Criminal Chief Beaumont, Texas 77701 Civil Chief

(409) 835-8550 

WAYLN THOMPSON FAX (409) 784-5893 RANDI KING

Appellate Chief 

GARY REAVES 

Public Integrity 

Family Chief 

JAMES ARCENEAUX 

Chief Investigator 

June 2, 2015 

Chris Prine 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

301 Fannin, Suite 245 

Houston, Texas 77002 

 Re: Ronnie Thibodeaux 

 Docket No. 15-21315 / Appeal No. 14-15-00316-CR 

 

To The Honorable Court of Appeals: 

 After having read the complete record, the State waives its right to 

answer the Appellant’s Anders Brief. The State may respond to any 

supplemental or additional briefs filed by Appellant in this appeal. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/ Wayln G. Thompson 

___________________________ 

Wayln G. Thompson 

Assistant Criminal District Attorney 

Jefferson County, Texas 

(thompson@co.jefferson.tx.us) 

WGT/mh 

ACCEPTED

14-15-00316-CR

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

6/2/2015 1:36:48 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/2/2015 1:36:48 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
cc: CM/RRR #7012 1010 0002 1585 3246

Gaylyn Leon Cooper, Attorney at Law, 1104 Orleans Street, 

Beaumont, Texas 77701
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement Nos. 333-89872, 333-37986 and 333-20405 on Form S-8  of our report dated****June 30, 2010, relating to the consolidated financialstatements of Koss Corporation and Subsidiary, which includes an explanatoryparagraph related to the restatement described in Note 2 to the consolidatedfinancial statements and an explanatory paragraph related to legal mattersdescribed in Note 17 to the consolidated financial statements, as of and forthe years ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, appearing in this Annual Report onForm 10-K /A of Koss Corporation and Subsidiary for the year ended June 30,2009.

 
| /s/  BAKER TILLY VIRCHOW KRAUSE, LLP |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |   |
| Milwaukee, Wisconsin                 |   |
| June 30,  2010                  |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 31.1

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Thomas E. Mills, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AMP Productions,
Ltd.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)     presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5.     I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)     all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

6.     I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

November 8, 2010



By   /s/ Thomas Mills
     Thomas E. Mills
     President,  Chief  Executive  Officer,
     Chief  Financial  Officer,  and
     Principal Accounting Officer
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

TIBOR BELA KARSAI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0456 FCD KJM P

vs.

PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, has been civilly committed to a state hospital and is proceeding pro se.

He has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

On May 13, 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 not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

Case 2:04-cv-00456-FCD-KJM Document 14 Filed 06/24/05 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 13, 205, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

DATED:June 23, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00456-FCD-KJM Document 14 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2