alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8676)

Entry Nos. W-17995; W-18350.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided October 10, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran*Douh, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated above at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised value less the addition made to meet the advances by the Appraiser in similar cases covering nondutiable F. O. B. charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage, etc.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and *533that such values were the appraised values, less the additions made to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases covering non-dutiable f. o. b. charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling, and lighterage, etc.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 4.4.(a).95
 
 The State of Israel
 Ministry of Communications
  General License for Partner Communications Ltd. for the Provision of
 Mobile Radio Telephone (MRT) Services using the Cellular Method
 
 Amendment No. 79
 
 By virtue of the authority of the Minister of Communications under Article 4 (e) of the Communications Law (Telecommunications and Broadcasts), 5742-1982, that have been delegated to us, by all our other powers under any law and after having considered the arguments of Partner Communications Company Ltd. (hereinafter: “Partner”), we hereby amend the General License for the provision of mobile radio telephone (MRT) services using the cellular method granted to Partner on 7 April 1998,  as follows:
 
 Amendment

of Article 65B
1.
Instead of sub-section 65B.6(c), shall come:"
(c)
By providing a response to subscriber inquiries to choose the necessary specifications on his handset; for cellular handset models that were not marketed by the License, the License will make a reasonable effort to give its subscribers an answer;"
  (December 1, 2014)
 
 (sgd)
 ________________
 Avi Berger
 Director General
No. 6528.

#### LEO STEINEL vs. FRANK E. FAGOT.

Syllabus.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the price of an article of merchandise is chargeable to the persons to whom it is delivered and by whom it is used.

Appeal from the 28th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson. Honorable John E. Fleury, Judge.

E. A. Parsons, for plaintiff .and appellant.

L. H. Marrero, Jr., for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, EMILE GODCITAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:.

This is a suit by plaintiff, who conducts a bakery In New Orleans, for the balance due for bread which he claims to have sold on open account to defendant, who operates a grocery store in Jefferson Parish. The bread was delivered in two ways, part directly to defendant at or near his grocery store, and a part to defendant’s son, who called for it at plaintiff’s bakery shop in New Orleans. Defendant admits liability for the part delivered to him but denies owing or being in any way responsible *202for that delivered to his son. The trial Court sustained this contention of defendant and plaintiff appeals.

Not only was the bread delivered in the manner above described, but it is further shown without contradiction that defendant’s son, apart from his father conducted a separate and distinct business, publicly in his own name, and that in connection with said business he resold the bread which he daily called for and received at plaintiff’s shop in New Orleans as aforesaid. And it is conceded that plaintiff kept separate tallies of the bread delivered to the father and to the son respectively, though he maintains that all the bread was charged to the father’s account on his books.

Outside of these uncontradicted or conceded facts which weigh against plaintiff (since, in the absence of other evidence, the price of an article is presumably chargeable to the person to whom it is delivered and by whom it is used), the .record is in hopeless conflict, the plaintiff, his books and his driver disclosing one state of facts, and the defendant, his books and his son another wholly inconsistent therewith.

The trial Court evidently placed reliance upon the former, and we think properly, for not only does the testimony of defendant and his witnesses strike us as more frank, consistent and convincing than that of plaintiff, but plaintiff’s account book upon which he greatly relies exhibits features which justify its being eliminated from consideration.

Moreover, plaintiff does not claim specific authority from defendant to charge to him the son’s account, but bases his right to do so upon an alleged course of dealing established by his predecessor in business, the existence of which is denied by defendant and bis son on the *203one hand, and on the other is supported by plaintiff through hearsay evidence alone.

Opinion and decree, January 17th, 1916.

We find no reason to disturb the trial Court’s conclusions, and its judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 11



STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION

OF PER
SHARE EARNINGS



|                                            |  |                            |  |   |           |  |           |  |   |               |  | 
|------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------- |  | - | --------- |  | --------- |  | - | ------------- |  | 
|                                            |  |                            |  |   |           |  |           |  |   | SHARES       
|Basic Shares outstanding at June 30, 2005   |  |                            |  |   |           |  | 1,762,973
|                                            |  |                            |  |   |           |  |           |  |   |               |  | 
|                                            |  | Net income after tax       |  | $ | 169,590   |  | =         |  | $ | .10 per share |  | 
|                                            |  |                            |  |   |           |  |           |  |   |               |  | 
|                                            |  | Basic Shares outstanding   |  |   | 1,762,973 |  |           |  |   |               |  | 
|                                            |  |                            | 
|Diluted Shares outstanding at June 30, 2005 |  |                            |  |   |           |  | 1,783,305
|                                            |  |                            |  |   |           |  |           |  |   |               |  | 
|                                            |  | Net income after tax       |  | $ | 169,590   |  | =         |  | $ | .10 per share |  | 
|                                            |  |                            |  |   |           |  |           |  |   |               |  | 
|                                            |  | Diluted Shares outstanding |  |   | 1,783,305 |  |           |  |   |               |  | 



Note: Basic earnings per share are
computed as earnings divided by weighted average basic shares outstanding. Diluted Shares outstanding includes the difference between 41,501 stock options outstanding less 21,169 shares that could be purchased using the option exercise proceeds
should all stock options be exercised. When a loss occurs, Diluted (loss) per share and Basic (loss) per share are the same.



35
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 

Mauricio R. Munoz,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-1658 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

John Marshall, Warden,

Respondent.

-oOoJuly 12, 2005, the court found petitioner’s habeas

application contained exhausted and unexhausted claims and

dismissed the application with leave to amend and to move to hold

these proceedings in abeyance while he pursues available state

remedies for his unexhausted claims. See Calderon v. U.S.

District Court for N.D. Cal. (Taylor), 134 F.3d 981 (9th Cir.

1998). 

Petitioner has filed an amended petition and moves to hold

these proceedings in abeyance. Respondent filed no opposition.

Case 2:04-cv-01658-LKK -EFB Document 24 Filed 11/09/05 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

Before the court can determine whether to grant petitioner’s

request to stay this action while petitioner exhausts available

state remedies, the court must determine whether petitioner had

good cause for his failure to exhaust, whether the unexhausted

claim is potentially meritorious and whether petitioner engaged

in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. Rhines v. Weber,

125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005).

Accordingly, within 30 days from the date this order is

signed, petitioner shall file and serve an explanation of why

this court should stay this action while he exhausts available

state remedies. Respondent has 15 days to file and serve an

opposition or notice of non-opposition. Petitioner’s failure to

comply with this order will result in the court permitting

petitioner to delete the unexhausted claim and to proceed on the

other claims.

Dated: November 8, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01658-LKK -EFB Document 24 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2
# C_2006298EN.01001401.xml

| 8.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/14

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 298/08)

| Aid No | XS 58/05 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Hungary |
| Region | Entire country |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | Partner Credit Programme |
| Legal basis | A Magyar Fejlesztési Bank Rt. Igazgatóságának 14/2005. (I. 17.) számú határozata |
| Annual expenditure planned or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company | Expenditure under the programme (credit to be provided) is HUF 10 billion (EUR 40 million) |
| Maximum aid intensity | Small enterprises 15 %
  Medium-sized enterprises 7,5 % |
| Date of implementation | The Board of Directors of the Hungarian Development Bank adopted the programme on 17 January 2005. |
| Duration of the scheme or individual aid award | Until 31.12.2006 |
| Objective of aid | Provision of low-cost investment loans for investments carried out outside the European Union |
| Economic sectors concerned
  Note: | All sectors |
| No aid under the programme may be provided for agriculture and fisheries or for coalmining. |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Magyar Fejlesztési Bank Rt. |
| Nádor u. 31. |
| H-1051 Budapest |

Aid No

XS 58/05

Member State

Hungary

Region

Entire country

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

Partner Credit Programme

Legal basis

A Magyar Fejlesztési Bank Rt. Igazgatóságának 14/2005. (I. 17.) számú határozata

Annual expenditure planned or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company

Expenditure under the programme (credit to be provided) is HUF 10 billion (EUR 40 million)

Maximum aid intensity

Small enterprises 15 %

Medium-sized enterprises 7,5 %

Date of implementation

The Board of Directors of the Hungarian Development Bank adopted the programme on 17 January 2005.

Duration of the scheme or individual aid award

Until 31.12.2006

Objective of aid

Provision of low-cost investment loans for investments carried out outside the European Union

Economic sectors concerned

Note:

All sectors

No aid under the programme may be provided for agriculture and fisheries or for coalmining.

Name and address of the granting authority

Magyar Fejlesztési Bank Rt.

Nádor u. 31.

H-1051 Budapest

---
Exhibit
      32.1





**Certification
      of CEO and CFO Pursuant to**


**18
      U.S.C. Section 1350,**


**as
      Adopted Pursuant to**


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








In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Great Plains Energy
      Incorporated (the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2006
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), Michael J. Chesser, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, and Terry Bassham, as Executive Vice President - Finance
      and Strategic Development and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
      hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his
      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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Michael J. ChesserName:
              Title:
            Michael
                J. Chesser
              Chairman
                of the Board and Chief
              Executive
                OfficerDate:
            February
                27, 2007/s/
                Terry BasshamName:
              Title:
            Terry
                Bassham
              Executive
                Vice President - Finance and Strategic Development and Chief
                Financial OfficerDate:
            February
                27, 2007





This
      certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
      and
      is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
      This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liability under that
      section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
      into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 except to the extent this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically
      incorporated by reference in any such filing.





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 Great Plains Energy Incorporated and will
      be retained by Great Plains Energy Incorporated and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:04-cv-01657-AK   Document 182    Filed 01/22/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-30T11:56:30-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Case No. 15,083.

#### UNITED STATES v. EVANS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 55.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Jan. Term, 1802.

Information—Amendment.

An information may be amended.

The information was amended by filling up the blank of the date of the commission of the offence. The same amendment was also permitted in the cases of U. S. v. Howard, U. S. v. Smith, and U. S. y. Zimmerman [unreported]. Leave was given to the defendants to plead de novo; and a continuance allowed at their request

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT,

also, in this case, gave leave to amend the information, by describing the particular kind of liquor sold.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JACKSON KITCHENS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1206 MCE PAN P

vs.

PAT HOUGE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is an individual serving a term of civil commitment pursuant to

California Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 6600. Plaintiff is presently housed at Coalinga State Hospital

(CSH). On February 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled “Motion for Judicial Review and

Declaratory Injunctive Relief.” There, plaintiff contends that CSH has no law library and

provides no access to any source of federal law through the computerized paging system

presently in place. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days from

the date of this order defendants shall file and serve a response to plaintiff’s February 24, 2006

motion.

DATED: May 30, 2006.

12\004kitc1206.ord to respond

Case 2:04-cv-01206-MCE -EFB Document 55 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wired Associates Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott
Delbeck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of March, 2008.


/s/ Scott Delbeck
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Zuosheng Yu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 results of operations of the
      Company.




Dated:
      November 9, 2010
              By:
              /s/
      Zuosheng YuZuosheng
      YuChief
      Executive Officer
No. 58991.

protests 145378-K, etc. (New York).

#### Gerard J. Danco, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel' that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Order filed October 2, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00574-CV

NO. 14-14-00655-CV

NO. 14-14-00772-CV

____________

CHRISTINE REULE, Appellant

V.

JOHN R. BELUS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-37325

ORDER

On July 15, 2014, appellant filed a notice of accelerated appeal from the trial 

court’s temporary injunction signed July 7, 2014, and the appeal was docketed 

under our case number 14-14-00574-CV. On August 11, 2014, appellant filed a 

notice of interlocutory appeal from the amended temporary injunction signed July 

24, 2014, and a new appeal was docketed under our case number 14-14-00655-CV. 
On August 13, 2014, appellant filed a motion to consolidate the appeals. No 

opposition was filed. Accordingly, we granted the motion and ordered the appeals 

consolidated.

On September 23, 2014, appellant filed a notice of accelerated appeal from 

the trial court’s second amended temporary injunction signed September 18, 2014.

On September 25, 2014, appellant filed a motion to review the second amended 

temporary injunction. We grant the motion.

On our own motion, we order this new appeal docketed under 14-14-00772-

CV CONSOLIDATED with the previously consolidated appeals docketed under 

case number 14-14-00574-CV and 14-14-00655-CV. 

All documents pertaining to these cases should be filed in case number 14-

14-00574-CV. The same clerk’s record, reporter’s record, and briefs will apply to 

all three cases. The filing deadlines in case number 14-14-00574-CV will apply to all 

three cases.

PER CURIAM
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

DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424

Federal Defender

DAVID M. PORTER, Bar #127024

Assistant Federal Defender

801 "I" Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorneys for Petitioner

EDWARD ONTIVERAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ONTIVERAS, )

) No. CIV S-04-1141 GEB CMK

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

) ORDER

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, )

et al., )

 )

Respondents. )

 )

Pursuant to this Motion for Substitution of Counsel and for the

reasons stated therein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Joseph Wiseman shall be

substituted in as counsel for Petitioner in place of the Office of the

Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California. 

DATED: September 25, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01141-GEB-CMK Document 23 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 1