alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 7,893.

#### In re KNOTT et al.

[1 Wkly. Notes Cas. 52.]

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 28, 1874.

Bankruptcy — Practice—Private Sale —Negligence by Assignee in not Securing Full Value.

[The court will authorize a private sale of land by assignees in bankruptcy, and assure the title to the purchaser, but: at the same time, will hold the assignees responsible for any negligence in not obtaining the'best value.]

In the matter of Knott, Roney, and Dibest, sur individual estate of S. C. Roney. Petition of assignees for leave to sell undivided interest in lands at private sale.

G. L. Crawford, for petition.

THE COURT

authorized assignees to make the sale as prayed, so far as the authorization may be required to assure the title to the purchaser, but not s'o as to exempt them from responsibility to creditors, for negligence. if any, in obtaining the best value for the property which is the subject of this petition.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4239 

To require the head of each agency to submit to Congress and make publicly 

available information relating to the implementation of Executive Order 

14019. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Mr. HAGERTY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the head of each agency to submit to Congress 

and make publicly available information relating to the 

implementation of Executive Order 14019. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AGENCY INFORMATION. 

4 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

5 (1) AGENCY.—The term ‘‘agency’’— 

6 (A) has the meaning given the term in sec7 tion 3502 of title 44, United States Code; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4239 IS

1 (B) does not include an independent regu2 latory agency (as defined in section 3502 of 

3 title 44, United States Code). 

4 (2) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—The term ‘‘im5 plementation plan’’ means— 

6 (A) a strategic plan of an agency required 

7 under section 3(b) of Executive Order 14019 

8 (86 Fed. Reg. 13623; relating to promoting ac9 cess to voting); and 

10 (B) any other plan of an agency for imple11 menting Executive Order 14019 (86 Fed. Reg. 

12 13623; relating to promoting access to voting). 

13 (b) AGENCY REQUIREMENT.—Not later than 30 days 

14 after the date of enactment of this Act, the head of each 

15 agency shall submit to Congress and make publicly avail16 able a report that includes— 

17 (1) a copy of each implementation plan of the 

18 agency; 

19 (2) a status update and timeline on the imple20 mentation of each implementation plan of the agen21 cy; and 

22 (3) the date on which the head of the agency 

23 expects to substantially complete the implementation 

24 of each implementation plan of the agency. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 47351.

#### Protest 77272-K of Western States Importing Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

At the trial it was agreed that the dolls are not composed in any part of any article or material specified in paragraph 1529 (a), that they have no movable parts or members, and that they are- chiefly used for the amusement of children. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as-to certain of the items.
No. 6672.

#### METAIRIE RIDGE NURSERY CO., LTD., vs. ARMOUR & CO., LTD.

Syllabus.

Involves only issues of fact.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “C,” No. 111,136. Honorable E. K. Skinner, Judge. ' .

W. W. Wall, for plaintiff and appellee.

Merrick, G-ensler & Schwarz, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

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

This case involves only a question of fact. Plaintiff claims the value of sundry lots of flower-bulbs (valley pips) placed in cold storage with defendant and found damaged when withdrawn.

The evidence is conflicting. Plaintiff’s witnesses state that the bulbs were received from Europe in good condition, were properly prepared for storing by being mois- • tened, and when withdrawn had sprouted and been refrozen; that an attempt to grow them failed.

*374Opinion and decree May 8th, 1916,

Defendant’s witnesses state that the bulbs were not injured at all, had not sprouted in cold storage and when planted developed perfectly; and, rather inconsistently, that they had not been properly moistened for cold storage. That the temperature of their cold storage plant never arose above freezing.

It is shown, however, that the bulbs were removed from the room in which they were first stored to another room in which they were afterwards kept, and that the occasion of this removal was that extensive repairs were be: ing made at defendant’s plant.

We'find, as the District Judge found, that as a fact the bulbs whilst in cold storage did germinate and sprout, and we need go no further in seeking the cause than the fact that the repairs were made in August and September, that is to say at the height of the Summer heat. So' that when the need for refrigerating was greatest, the plant was least able to supply it.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
(Reap. Dec. 10427)

#### Plywood and Door Manufacturers Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 8100, etc.

(Decided January 14, 1963)

*Richard Van Steenburgh*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto, consists of birch plywood, exported from Finland in the years 1952, 1953,1954, and 1955.

Counsel for the parties have stipulated and agreed that the merchandise and issues involved in the said appeals are the same in all material respects as those in the case of *United States*v. *Plywood & Door Manufacturers*Corporation, 46 Cust. Ct. 797, A.R.D. 133, decided on remand in *Plywood & Door Manufacturers Corporation*v. *United*States, 48 Cust. Ct. 526, Reap. Dec. 10151, and that the record in that case be incorporated as part of the record herein.

The appeals have been submitted for decision on written stipulation, on the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the birch plywood involved, and that *366such values are those set forth in column “4” of said schedule, packed, less the prorated amounts of the nondutiable charges set forth directly after the description *of*the merchandise in each said reappraisement case set forth in schedule “A.”

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 April 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jacqueline Winwood, Chief Financial 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
15th day of June, 2009.


/s/ Jacqueline Winwood
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4065]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,936]


Duro Textiles, LLC, Fall River, MA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 12, 2007 in response to a 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Duro 
Textiles, LLC, Fall River, Massachusetts. The workers at the subject 
facility produce dyed, coated, and finished fabric.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 26th day of February 2007.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-4065 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
POSTFOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

9/24/13 

 Chemical ID: P-13-0060 Reviewer: Flessner 

 

 

The
(Reap. Dec. 8185)

#### Broadway Department Store et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 9258, etc.

(Decided December 11, 1952)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated, by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court:

> 1) That the merchandise marked *“A”*on the invoices and initialed WRK by Customs Examiner W. R. Knoke, involved in the appeals listed in the attached schedule, consists of merchandise exported from France, and appraised at values which included the so-called production or unique tax (also known as the French Fiscal Reform Law tax) in the amounts as shown by the invoices and accompanying certificates of pending reappraisement.

> 2) That merchandise such or similar to the imported merchandise, marked “A” in paragraph I, when sold or offered for sale at the time of exportation, in France for home consumption, or for exportation to countries other than the United States, in the ordinary course of trade to all purchasers, and in the usual wholesale quantities, was sold or offered for sale at the appraised values herein, less the French Fiscal Reform Tax (Production or Unique tax) as referred to above in paragraph 1 and as^ added by the importer on entry, plus 1.01 percent Armament tax when not included in the appraised value, packed, and that the export value was no higher.

> 3) That all other claims of the plaintiffs, as raised by these appeals, are hereby abandoned, and that upon this stipulation these cases are submitted.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, or in said section, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the mer-*516chañáis e represented on the invoices by the items marked “A” and initialed WRK by Customs Examiner W. R. Knoke, and that such values were the appraised values, less the French fiscal reform tax (production or unique tax) as added by the importers on entry, plus 1.01 per centum armament tax when not included in the appraised value, packed.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FLEXSTENT, LLC,

Appellant

v.

ABBOTT VASCULAR, INC., ABBOTT 

LABORATORIES, ABBOTT CARDIOVASCULAR 

SYSTEMS, INC., ABBOTT VASCULAR SOLUTIONS, 

INC.,

Appellees

______________________ 

2021-1246

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-

00882.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

SIMON CARLO FRANZINI, Dovel & Luner, LLP, Santa 

Monica, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

GREGORY S. DOVEL, SEAN LUNER. 

 MICHAEL A. MORIN, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellees. Also represented by 

Case: 21-1246 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 11/08/2021
GABRIEL K. BELL, JONATHAN M. STRANG; SRINIVAS GIRIRAJ 

PATHMANABAN, Menlo Park, CA. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

November 8, 2021 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-1246 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 11/08/2021
No. 44003.

#### Protests 987711-G/88445, etc., of Rev. Christopher Keller (Chicago).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of *Diamond*v. *United States*(T. D. 44651) the missal stand was held free of duty as regalia under paragraph 1773. Abstracts 25680 (T. D. 31624) and 12107 (T. D. 27475) cited. From the evidence it was found that the alms basins are carried in the hand during public exercises and come squarely within the definition of regalia. As to these the claim for free entry under paragraph 1773 was also sustained.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 20, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41254 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE ARGUETA-HERNANDEZ, also known as Jose Saul Hernandez-Argueta, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-346-ALL

-------------------- Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Argueta-Hernandez (Argueta) appeals following his guilty plea to a charge of illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Argueta argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by characterizing his state felony conviction for possession of cocaine as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Argueta’s argument is unavailing in light of circuit precedent. See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez ,No. 05-41254 -2- 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). Argueta argues that this circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with Jerome v. United States , 318 U.S. 101 (1943). Having preceded Hinojosa-Lopez , Jerome is not “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.” See United States v. Short , 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999). Argueta also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b) in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Argueta’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Argueta contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule
Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Argueta properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of
Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.2


FORM OF AMENDMENT TO NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS
UNDER THE CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC AMENDED AND RESTATED 2009 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement, between Charter Communications, Inc. and [•], dated as of [•] (the “Agreement”), granted under the Charter Communications, Inc. Amended and Restated 2009 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is dated as of October 25, 2016 (the “Amendment Effective Date”).


1.Nontransferability.  The text under the heading “Nontransferability” is hereby amended and restated as follows:


The Option shall not be transferable other than (a) by will or by the laws of descent and distribution or (b) to a Permitted Transferee.  Any Permitted Transferee shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement to the same extent as the original Optionee, provided that (x) references to “Permitted Transferees” shall be understood to refer only to Permitted Transferees of the original Optionee and (y) the original Optionee (and not the Permitted Transferee) shall remain subject to all obligations under this Agreement, including without limitation those regarding the provision of services to the Company and its Affiliates and compliance with covenants concerning competition, solicitation, confidentiality, disparagement and similar obligations to the Company and its Affiliates.  The Option shall be subject to forfeiture by the Permitted Transferee to the same extent as it is subject to forfeiture by the original Optionee had it not been transferred.  During the lifetime of the Optionee (or, following transfer, the Permitted Transferee), the Option shall be exercisable only by the Optionee (or, following transfer, the Permitted Transferee).


2.Effective Date.  This Amendment shall become effective as of the Amendment Effective Date.  Except as expressly set forth herein, the Agreements shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with their terms.


[End of Document]
Exhibit No. 16.1


The X-Change Corporation


File No. 002-41703


Form 10 -K


Report date: April 25, 2013








Letterhead of S. W. Hatfield, CPA











April 25, 2013











U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, NE


Washington, DC 20549





Gentlemen:





On April 25, 2013, this Firm received the final draft copy of the Annual Report on Form 10-K to be filed by The X-Change Corporation (SEC File #002-41703, CIK #54424) (Company) reporting an Item 9 - Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.





We have no disagreements with the statements made in the draft Form 10-K,  Item 9 disclosures which we read.





Yours truly,





/s/ S. W. Hatfield, CPA





S. W. Hatfield, CPA


Dallas, Texas
Case No. 5,322.

#### The GENERAL WILLIAM McCANDLESS.

[10 Ben. 453.] 1

(District Court, E. D. New York.

May, 1879.)

Tug and Tow — Negligence.

A tug and tow was lying at the long dock at Piermont on the Hudson river. There was a large cake of ice in the river below, which had been blown over to the east shore, leaving a clear passage for the tug and tow along the west shore. The tug thereupon started from the dock. While she was passing the ice, a corner of it caught on the east shore so that phen the ebb tide made, the cake of ice was turned in the river so as to close in on the tug' and tow, and force her ashore before it was possible to escape. Libels being tiled by each, boat of the tow against the tug, for damages occasioned: *Bdd,*that the master of the tug was not negligent in starting from the dock, and that the tug was not liable for the damage-to the tow.

In admiralty.

T. C. Campbell, for libellants.

A. S. Diossy, for claimants.

BENEDICT, District Judge.

The decision of these cases turns upon the question whether it was negligence on the part of the tug-boat to start out from the long dock at Piermont when she did in view of the then condition of the ice in the river. Upon this, question my opinion is that the master of the tug was not guilty of negligence in this respect. When the tug started from the dock the wind had blown the cake of ice over to the eastern shore of the river and left a clear passage down along the west side abundant for the passage of the tow in safety. The tug would have passed down without accident had it not been for the-fact, that after she started from the dock and when passing the ice to westward, a corner of the ice caught over on the east shore, so that when the ebb tide made, the mass of ice was turned in the river in such a manner as to close in upon the tug and force her ashore before it was possible to escape it. I am unable to say that any one would have reason to expect such a movement on the part of the ice against the wind, or to anticipate that the ice would catch as it did over on the east shore. The case differs in this respect from the case of The U. S. Grant FCase No. 10,804], where it was held to be negligence on the part of a tug to attempt to pass through Hell Gate at the same time with a mass of ice. In that case the danger was obvious when the tug passed Astoria,. *188where she could have waited until the ice had passed the Gate. Here, when the tug left the dock there was no reason to apprehend danger from the ice, and when the ice did turn it was impossible to escape being pushed on the flats.

As to the small damage sustained by one ■of the boats in starting from New York, it is sufficient to say that the evidence does not satisfy mo that it was caused by neglect on the part of the tug.

The libels must be dismissed, with costs.
(Reap. Dec. 9483)

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of Los Angeles *v.*United States

Entry No. WE-5747, etc.

(Decided July 24, 1959)

*William Whynman*and *John I. Dugan*for the plaintiff.

*George Ooolvram, Dowb,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, involve six shipments of para amino salicylic acid, the product of West Germany, entered at the port of Los Angeles in September and October 1958.

These cases have been submitted on the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the respective parties hereto, as follows:

> 1. The American Selling Price, as that term is defined in Section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, of the merchandise involved in the appeals enumerated in Schedule A hereto attached, for the period herein stated, was as follows:

> Item Year American selling price

> Pas Acid- 1954-1958, inclusive-$3.40 per lb. less 1% net packed.

> 2. Each appeal enumerated in Schedule A is limited to the merchandise above described and is abandoned as to all other merchandise, if any, and is hereby submitted for decision.

On the agreed facts, I find that the American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein, described as Pas Acid — 1954-58, inclusive, and that such value is $3.40 per pound, less 1 per centum, net packed.

Insofar as these appeals relate to other merchandise, they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.