alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8669)

Entry No. WH-01445.

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

(Decided October 10, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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 Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above, with the exception of five cases of Bicycle Horns marked 902/906 and six cases of Rubber Snakes marked 696/701, 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 whole sale 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 non-dutiable so-called (E. O. B.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage.

> 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 Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe 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, except the five cases of bicycle horns marked 902/906 and six cases of rubber snakes marked 696/701, and that such values were the appraised values, less the addition made to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases covering nondutiable so-called (f. o. b.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling, and lighterage.

Insofar as the appeal relates to the five cases of bicycle horns marked 902/906 and six cases of rubber snakes marked 696/701, it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

April 22, 1954

No. 58029.

protest 129450-K (Minneapolis).

#### M. A. Hoenecke *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the appraisement of the merchandise and the liquidation of the entry were made in the same manner, under facts and circumstances the same in all material respects, as the appraisement *466and liquidation in *The Gruen Watch Company*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 101, C. D. 1216). In accordance with stipulation and following the tited .authority, it was held that a legal liquidation should be had which would form the basis for a protest in which, should he so desire, the importer may litigate any question presented by such action under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/23/2023 1

Substituting Minor-Party Presidential Candidates 

Barr v. Galvin 

(Nathaniel M. Gorton, D. Mass. 1:08-cv-11340) 

A minor party filed a federal complaint seeking an order allowing it 

to substitute its nominees for President and Vice President for the 

names used to gather ballot-application signatures before the party’s nominating convention. The judge ruled in favor of the party 

because it was not clear whether statutory provisions on substitution of candidates applied to minor parties’ presidential candidates. 

After the election, the court of appeals determined that the statutory vagueness should be resolved by state court interpretation. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

matters for state courts. 

The Libertarian Party filed a federal complaint in the District of Massachusetts on August 6, 2008, seeking an order allowing it to substitute its nominees for President and Vice President for the names used to gather ballotapplication signatures before the party’s May 22–26 nominating convention.1

On August 15, the party filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.2

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton heard the motion on September 12.3 On September 22, Judge Gorton granted the party a preliminary injunction, because 

it was not clear whether Massachusetts’s statutory provisions on substitution 

of candidates applied to minor parties’ presidential candidates.4 In September 2009, Judge Gorton awarded the party summary judgment on the same 

grounds.5

On November 16, 2010, the court of appeals determined that the statutory vagueness should be resolved by state-court interpretation, so the court 

remanded the case for dismissal without prejudice.6

1. Complaint, Barr v. Galvin, No. 1:08-cv-11340 (D. Mass. Aug. 6, 2008), D.E. 1; Barr v. 

Galvin, 626 F.3d 99, 103 (1st Cir. 2010); Barr v. Galvin, 584 F. Supp. 2d 316, 319 (D. Mass. 

2008); Barr v. Galvin, 659 F. Supp. 2d 225, 227 (D. Mass. 2009). 

2. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Barr, No. 1:08-cv-11340 (D. Mass. Aug. 15, 2008), 

D.E. 6; Barr, 584 F. Supp. 2d at 319. 

3. Transcript, Barr, No. 1:08-cv-11340 (D. Mass. Sept. 12, 2008, filed Oct. 23, 2008), D.E. 

25; Barr, 584 F. Supp. 2d at 319. 

4. Preliminary Injunction, Barr, No. 1:08-cv-11340 (D. Mass. Sept. 22, 2008), D.E. 22; 

Barr, 584 F. Supp. 2d at 320–21; Barr, 626 F.3d at 103–04; Barr, 659 F. Supp. 2d at 226–27. 

5. Barr, 659 F. Supp. 2d 225, rev’d, 626 F.3d 99. 

6. Barr, 626 F.3d 99 cert. denied, 565 U.S. 929 (2011).
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P. (the  "Partnership")
for the  period  ended  June 27, 2008 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, Gary Carlin,
Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of the Partnership,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ GARY CARLIN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Gary Carlin *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: August 6, 2008
---------------------

*  Gary Carlin functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No. 2016003 80

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### GARRETT S. MOUNTAIN Corporal (E

- 4 ) , U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ Appea l from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judge: Major Michael D. Zimmerman, USMC

. Convening Authority: Command ing Officer , Headquarters and Support Battalion, Marine Corps Installations

- West, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, C A

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation : Lieutenant C olonel Todd Enge , USMC

. For Appellant: Lieutenant C ommander Ryan C. Mattina , JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

_________________________ Decided 13 April 2017

_________________________ Be fore M ARKS , J ONES , and Pettit , Appellate Military Ju dges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uni form Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         306,354
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  130,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    100,936
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               555,192
<PP&E>                                       8,570,157
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,592,796
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,532,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,894,227
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,184
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,453,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,532,553
<SALES>                                      2,016,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,738,729
<CGS>                                        1,217,105
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,138,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,298
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                522,277
<INCOME-TAX>                                   181,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            341,277
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   341,277
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49


</TABLE>
Case No. 8,431.

#### In re LLOYD.

[25 Pittsb. Leg. J. 123.]

Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

1878.

Bankruptcy — Judgment upon Composition— Review.

The judgment of the district court declaring a composition final, precludes further review by the circuit court. 12th and 13th sections of act of congress of 22d June, 1874 [18 Stat. 178].

[NOTE. The case was again heard upon the question of the allowance of counsel fees, 7 Fed. 45y, upon the confirming of the assignee’s sale of certain real estate, 11 Fed. 586, upon the proof *718of partnership debts against the bankrupt. 22 Fed. SS. and upon the tender of proof of a bankrupt partnership of winch the bankrupt was a member, claiming debts against the estate of the bankrupt. Id. t»0.]

*717[In review of the action of the district court for the Western district of Pennsylvania.]

On December 13th, 1877, the district court made a decree that a legal quorum of petitioning creditors [of William M. Lloyd] had joined in the proceeding. See [Case No. 8.430]. On the 14th of December, 1S77, the debtor filed a petition for review of this decision, in the circuit court, alleging that the district court had erred in respect to the number and amount of creditors who had joined in the supplementary petitions. The creditors, through their counsel, filed pleas to the bill of review, one of which pleas was to the effect that the supervisory powers of the circuit court did not extend to a decision of the district court upon the question of the quorum under the 12th and 13th sections of the amendatory act of 22d June, 1874. The case came up for argument upon the plea denying the right of review in such a case before the circuit court on the 26th of February last, and the court intimating that they were of the opinion that the bill of review would not be sustained; the counsel for the debtor alleged they were not prepared to argue this question: Whereupon the court adjourned the further hearing until the 15th of March, 1878, when, upon further hearing the counsel for the debtor, the court dismissed the petition.

Geo. M. Reade and Geo. Shiras, Jr., for creditors.

S. S. Blair and John M. Kennedy, for debt- or.

McKENNAN, Circuit Judge,

filed no written opinion, but announced that he was of opinion that the words in the 12th and 13th sections of the act of congress, approved 22d June, 1874, declaring that the judgment of the district court should be final, precluded all further inquiry upon this subject, and dismissed the petition on review.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Agricultural Research Service 

# AGENCY:

Agricultural Research Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of intent. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Accent Engineering, Inc. of Lubbock, Texas, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 5,539,637, “Biologically-Identified Optimal Temperature Interactive Console (BIOTIC) for Managing Irrigation,” issued on July 23, 1996. 

# DATES:

                        Comments must be received within thirty (30) days of the date of publication of this Notice in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Accent Engineering, Inc. of Lubbock, Texas has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. 

Richard J. Brenner, 

Assistant Administrator.

 [FR Doc. E7-3934 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
EXHIBIT
32.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer





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





(i)  the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 (the
“Report”) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (subject to the Company's position
prevailing in regard to the remaining unresolved SEC comment, as more fully
described in the Report); and





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








Dated:
August 7, 2008





BY:/s/ Thomas J.
Stirnweis


(Signature)


THOMAS J.
STIRNWEIS


Vice
President, Treasurer and


Chief
Financial Officer








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





The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is
not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
No. 6717.

#### PETER SCHAFF vs. E. A. QUINETTE *&*SON.

Syllabus.

Involves only issues of fact.

Appeal from the 28th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, No. 2010. Honorable P. E. Edrington, Judge.

. P. B. Preeland, H. W. Robinson, for plaintiff and appellant.

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

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

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

This is a suit for the balance of the purchase price of an .automobile-, with a reconventional demand for the amount paid on account.

It involves only a question of the credit to be given to the testimony of the witnesses.

Plaintiff contends that the automobile was sold without warranty as to its condition, but was in fact delivered in good running order,- and defendants contend that the vendor agreed to put same in good running order, but *455failed to do so; and that whilst attempting to do so, the machine was wrecked by the parties charged with repairing it.

Opinion and decree, June 12th, 1916.

Rehearing refused, June 26th, 1916.

The testimony of plaintiff and his witness was taken ont of Court, and is conflicting and unsatisfactory. The proposition that a man who had never run an automobile before, should agree to purchase a second-hand machine without even having it examined (as plaintiff would have us believe) is not one which commends itself to us as likely.

And the testimony of a witness, does not impress us, who nonchalently admits (as he does) that whilst the machine was in his father’s establishment and in his own care for repairs, it was taken out for trial by his brother and smashed, and yet neither offer nor effort to repair or replace it was made or even thought of.

On the other hand, the testimony of defendant was taken before the trial Judge who evidently believed them.

Their testimony is direct, consistent and plausible, to-wit: that the machine was bought on condition that it be put in good order; that it was not in good order at any time; that the only attempt to deliver it was when by a painful effort a mechanic sent by plaintiff was able to get it as far as their place, where he left it saying he would return in a few days to put it in proper condition. That' upon request he did return for it a few days later, and after tinkering with it for a while, managed to get off with it, which was the last they saw of it.

We think the trial Judge correctly decided the case.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS OF
AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          21,477
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  114,507
<ALLOWANCES>                                       963
<INVENTORY>                                    174,045
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               312,981
<PP&E>                                         174,466
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,416
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 454,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          132,344
<BONDS>                                        290,336
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,927
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   454,882
<SALES>                                      1,023,565
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,023,565
<CGS>                                          742,826
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  742,826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               150,915
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,817
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,880
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,055)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       501
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,556)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,556)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 54048.

#### J. B. Blood Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 801646-G, etc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.