alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 47377.

#### Protests 976463-G, etc., of C. J. Tower & Sons (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported, and that no addition should have been made for the planing, tonguing, and grooving. Protests sustained to this extent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          23,693
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,823
<ALLOWANCES>                                       666
<INVENTORY>                                      6,706
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,923
<PP&E>                                         373,087
<DEPRECIATION>                                 106,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 404,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,890
<BONDS>                                        186,544
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,792
<COMMON>                                         4,230
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   404,691
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               228,861
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  175,046
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,420
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,574
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,581
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,024
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,024
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
        

</TABLE>
602°

5g 0000

69°45'E

5G 000

69°30°E

5 "i inom

10 KILOMETERS

z

LE ,.
P 7

Mie

—;

a

EXPLANATION

ee aa ee es ee eee ee

44 a
44 1 0000
44 go
4ygtoee
49 go000

44 guns
44 Fad
44 49000
44 gins)

37°N

37°30'N
37°15'N

5 MILES

Image quadrant or tile

Peak

&

L_ |

O City, town, or village
—-— Province boundary

“=< Stream, mostly intermittant

— Road
Before the Second Division,

June 7. 1962

No. 66835.

#### Gross Plumbing & Rubber Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/26134, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawbence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of aerators in chief value of brass, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65882, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

September 14, 1949

No. 53546.

protest 138065-K (New York).

#### R. G. LeTourneau, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

When the case was called for trial counsel for the Government moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that “it is not specific and does not set forth a proper claim and does not meet the requirements of Section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930.” Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that the motion was well taken. The motion to dismiss was therefore granted.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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, 2006 (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 10, 2005


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. Section 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             887
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      963
<ALLOWANCES>                                       236
<INVENTORY>                                        300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,196
<PP&E>                                          12,404
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,974
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,491
<SALES>                                         19,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,803
<CGS>                                           11,579
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,229
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 414
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,005)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (670)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,335)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,335)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.37)
        

</TABLE>
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

TERRENCE BROWNLEE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1330 DFL PAN P

vs.

J. BURLESON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis . He is suing under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged civil rights violations. On September 8, 2006, plaintiff filed his fourth

request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's previous requests were filed on December 23,

2005, January 23, 2006 and May 1, 2006. All requests were denied. 

The court has reviewed the file and finds no grounds for granting the renewed request. 

For the reasons already stated in the earlier orders it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s September 8,

2006, request for appointment of counsel is denied. 

DATED: September 25, 2006.

/mp

brow1330.dny counsel

Case 2:04-cv-01330-DFL-EFB Document 61 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 1
# C_2008044EN.01004901.xml

| 16.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/49

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/54/EC as regards the application of certain provisions to Estonia’

COM(2007) 411 final — 2007/0141 (COD)

(2008/C 44/12)

On 17 September 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 47(2), 55 and 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 439th plenary session of 24 and 25 October 2007 (meeting of 24 October 2007) by 150 votes to 2 and 8 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 24 October 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
No. 64859.

#### The Borregaard Co., Inc., and F. L. Kraemer & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 58/12371, 58/19029, and 58/13346 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, facts, and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 267, C.D. 1834), the collector was directed to reliquidate the entries, assessing duty upon the basis of the unit appraised value per conditioned pound or kilo, multiplied by the total number of conditioned pounds or kilos, as set forth in the invoices.
**Exhibit 21**

 

**KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIESSUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

As of June 30, 2010, the subsidiaries of theRegistrant were as follows:

|   | Jurisdiction of Incorporation     
Percent of     Voting Stock Owned     By the     Registrant     Kimball International Marketing, Inc.Indiana 100% Kimball Furniture Group, Inc.Indiana 100% Kimball Electronics, Inc.Indiana 100% Kimball International Transit, Inc.Indiana 100% Kimball Electronics - Mexico, S.A. de C.V.Mexico 100% Kimball Electronics (Thailand) LimitedThailand 100% Kimball Electronics Poland Sp. z o.o.Poland 100% Kimball Hospitality, Inc.Indiana 100% Kimball Electronics (Wales) LimitedUnited Kingdom 100% Kimball Electronics (Nanjing) Co., Ltd.China 100% Kimball Electronics Tampa, Inc.Florida 100% National Office Furniture, Inc.Delaware 100% Kimball Electronics Netherlands B.V.Netherlands 100%  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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

CAROL ROYE,

Plaintiff, CIV S-04-2192 DFL KJM PS

v.

FAIR ISAAC AND COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Defendant

opposes plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff’s request to dismiss without prejudice is made under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). In considering plaintiff’s request, the court has

considered defendant’s effort and expense in preparing for trial, any delay and lack of diligence

in prosecuting this action, and whether plaintiff’s explanation for seeking dismissal at this

juncture is insufficient. See Williams v. Peralta Cmty. College Dist., 227 F.R.D. 538, 540 (N.D.

Cal. 2005). At this point, defendant Providian has not yet been put to the expense of preparing

for trial, although it has incurred the costs of answering the complaint and moving for judgment

on the pleadings. Although plaintiff has not prosecuted this action with complete diligence, it

appears that plaintiff’s legitimate medical problems often have interfered with plaintiff’s ability

to appropriately pursue this action. Moreover, plaintiff’s reply sets forth sufficient explanation

Case 2:04-cv-02192-DFL -KJM Document 51 Filed 08/31/06 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

for why plaintiff seeks dismissal at this time. Plaintiff also has submitted evidence in connection

with the reply that may be sufficient to support some cause of action against defendant Providian

if amendment of the complaint were allowed. Under these circumstances, plaintiff's request to

dismiss shall be honored. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). An award to defendant

for costs and attorney’s fees is not warranted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without

prejudice. 

DATED: August 29, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

006 

roye.dis

Case 2:04-cv-02192-DFL -KJM Document 51 Filed 08/31/06 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

MICHAEL E. ALLEN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0622 FCD GGH P

vs.

THEO WHITE, Warden,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant 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 July 29, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On September 8, 2005,

plaintiff was granted until September 15, 2005 to file objections. Plaintiff has filed objections to

the findings and recommendations.

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

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00622-FCD-GGH Document 32 Filed 09/23/05 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

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 July 29, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Defendant’s February 24, 2005 motion to dismiss this action as barred by the

statute of limitations is granted and this case is dismissed.

DATED: September 22, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00622-FCD-GGH Document 32 Filed 09/23/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 61861.

#### Trans Atlantic Company *v.*United States,

protest 292648-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of butt hinges, imported with wood screws of steel, being packed 2 hinges and 16 screws to a box (16 screws for each pair of hinges), of the same kind in all material respects as the merchandise the subject of *Trans Atlantic Company*v. *United States*(35 Cust. Ct. 1, G. D. 1712), the claim at 12)4 percent under paragraph 338, as modified, *supra,*w.as sustained as to said screws. It was further held, in accordance with said stipulation, that the value of said screws was 25 cents per gross, United States currency, which value was included in the value of the screws and hinges, as invoiced and appraised.
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

MARK HUNGERFORD, No. CIV S-04-1455-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

HEROUX, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time

(Doc. 36), filed on June 22, 2006. 

On March 21, 2006, the court directed plaintiff to file a first amended complaint

within 30 days. Plaintiff now seeks another 60-day extension of that deadline. Good cause

appearing therefor, the request will be granted. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with

the court’s March 21, 2006, order within the time provided in this order may result in dismissal

of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders and rules. See

Local Rule 11-110. 

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01455-LKK -CMK Document 37 Filed 06/27/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 60 days of the date of

service of this order.

DATED: June 26, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01455-LKK -CMK Document 37 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 2
Order for Dismissal of Claims (Credit Solutions) in Fong v Credit Solutions 

1 

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

Mark F. Anderson (SBN 44787) 

Kan Tung Donohoe (SBN 197785) 

Kemnitzer, Anderson, Barron & Ogilvie LLP 

445 Bush Street, 6th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Ph: (415) 861-2265 

Fax: (415) 861-3151 

mark@kabolaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cendra S Fong and Michael W Fong 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CENDRA S FONG and MICHAEL W FONG, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CREDIT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION; et al, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. C 04 1929 GEB KJM 

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF 

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AS AGAINST 

DEFENDANT CREDIT SOLUTIONS 

CORPORATON AND FOR 

DISMISSAL OF 

COUNTERCLAIMANT CREDIT 

SOLUTIONS CORPORATION’S 

CLAIMS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS 

 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ordered that plaintiffs’ claims against 

defendant Credit Solutions Corporation and counterclaimant Credit Solutions Corporation’s claims 

against plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party. 

DATED: May 5, 2005 

 /s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01929-GEB -KJM Document 33 Filed 05/06/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 54659.

#### Max Schuster *v.*United States,

protests 134437-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the-merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those-the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
Before the First Division,

April 3, 1946

No. 50982.

#### Petition 6412-R of G. J. Kluyskens (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The attorney for the Government moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it did not comply with the requirements of rule 29 of the Customs Court in that it contained no statement of facts showing what petitioner intended to prove. This motion, taken under advisement, was denied, following *United States*v. *Macy*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 245, T. D. 41199) and Abstract 40459. From the record it appeared that the petitioner knew that similar merchandise had a higher market value but did not disclose the information to the appraiser. The petitioner’s position was that the cables and correspondence exchanged between petitioner and the exporter pertaining to this particular shipment did not state that a definite advance would be made on all shipments but simply indicated a possibility. It was held that it is the duty of a petitioner when he makes entry to give to the appraising officer all information which he may possess as to the dutiable value of the goods covered by the entry. *(National Biscuit Co.*v. *United States,*20 C. C. P. A. 395, T. D. 46187, followed.) The petition was therefore denied.
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 Amendment No. 1 to the 2004 Annual Report of
Partner Communications Company Ltd (the "Company") on Form 20-F/A for the period
ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify that to the
best of our knowledge:

        1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

Date: June 13, 2006

                                              /s/ Amikam Cohen
                                              Name: Amikam Cohen
                                              Title: Chief Executive Officer



Date: June 13, 2006

                                              /s/ Alan Gelman
                                              Name: Alan Gelman
                                              Title: Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 21


                                 SUBSIDIARIES



THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF THE COMPANY'S SUBSIDIARIES:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                               Percentage of Voting
                                                Securities Owned By
                                  Organized      Keane, Inc. as of
         Name                   Under Laws of    December 31, 1995
         ----                   -------------  -------------------- 
<S>                             <C>            <C>
Dataskills, Inc.                Massachusetts           100%

Keane Federal Systems, Inc.       Delaware              100%

Keane Canada, Inc.                 Canada               100%

169963 Canada, Inc.                Canada               100%

Keane Securities Corporation    Massachusetts           100%
</TABLE>

                                                                         PAGE 43