alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10402)

Entry No. 3607.

#### Geo. Wm. Rueff, Inc. *v.*United States

*491(Decided December 18, 1962)

*Sharretts, Paley é Garter*for tbe plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Gnilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

LawebNCE, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement involves the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain steel tubing and casing.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact wherein it has been agreed as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for tbe parties hereto that tbe merchandise consists of seamless steel tubing and seamless steel easing, exported from Italy, and that tbe facts and tbe law are similar in all material respects to tbe merchandise tbe subject of *United States*v. *Dalminter, Inc., R. W. Smith,*47 Cust. Ct. 577, A.R.D. 135.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in A.R.D. 135 be incorporated with tbe record in this ease.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that tbe prices at which such or similar imported merchandise was freely offered for sale for consumption in tbe United States, packed ready for delivery, in tbe principal market of tbe United States to all purchasers, at tbe time of exportation of tbe imported merchandise, in tbe usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, were the prices shown on Schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof less 2 per cent cash discount less 7.60 per cent for general expenses and 7.15 per cent for profit, less ocean freight of $13.50 per metric ton less inland freight of $6.00 per metric ton less duty of 7% per cent plus 4 per cent on casing or 12% per cent plus 4 per cent on tubing.

Upon the agreed facts before the court and following the cited authority, I find and hold that United States value, as that value is defined in section 402(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C., § 1402(e)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis of value for the steel tubing and casing in issue and that said value is represented by the prices shown on schedule A, attached to and made a part of this decision, less 2 per centum cash discount, less 7.60 per centum for general expenses and 7.15 per centum for profit, less ocean freight of $13.50 per metric ton, less inland freight of $6 per metric ton, less duty of 7% per centum, plus 4 per centum on casing or *12y2*per centum, plus 4 per centum on tubing.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

 

 

**INTERLINE BRANDS, INC.**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Interline Brands, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 1, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas J.Tossavainen, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| /s/ Thomas J. Tossavainen                  |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Thomas J. Tossavainen                      |   |   |   |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |   |
| May 16, 2005                               |   |   |   |

 

----
No. 53552.

protest 145757-K (St. Louis).

#### Burkart Shoe Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In' accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of mats composed wholly of sisal fibers, which sisal fibers are similar in all material respects to those contained in the handbags which were the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0616 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ANTHONY THOMAS DISHON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 14, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 6 2022

10/06/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0616
Caro No. 6,733.

#### HOURQUIBEE v. GERARD.

[2 Wash. C. C. 164.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

April Term, 1808.

Continuance — New Testimony.

The court continued the cause, upon the application of the defendant, he being an administrator, and having a few days before discovered among the intestate’s papers, material testimony.

[The case was subsequently heard on the evidence and on the charge to the jury by the court, with a verdict for plaintiff. Case No-6,732.]

[This was an action of assumpsit by Hour-quibee & Bros, against Stephen Gerard, administrator of John Gerard, deceased, to recover 26,961 francs due on account stated between plaintiffs and defendant’s intestate at Bordeaux, for one-half of the proceeds of 100 casks of wine shipped on board J. G.’s vessel, and sold by him, and for money advanced for board and education of J. G.’s children.]

Motion by defendant, to continue the cause: First, because it appears, by a commission returned in the cause, that the plaintiff had dispensed with an answer being made to one of his own interrogatories, which the defend-fendant alleged was very material to his de-fence. The cases of Ketland v. Bissett [Case No. 7,742] and Winthrop v. Union Ins. Co. [Id. 17,901] were cited to prove, that if all the interrogatories are not answered, it is fatal to the whole commission. In answer to this it was said, that the defendant should not rely on the plaintiff’s depositions, and therefore the objection could not bear upon the motion to continue. But further, that this commission had been returned for twelve months, and that the cause had been continued at the last term, on the motion of the defendant, for another reason, but this was not mentioned. The second ground for a continuance was, that the defendant had, within a few days past, looked at a letter of his testator, in his possession, by which it appeared, that the sentence of a foreign court of admiralty would be important and essential to his de-fence.

1

 [Originally published.from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

THE COURT

agreed to the continuance,, for the second ground assigned, particularly, considering the defendant as an administrator.
Rosa Lee Rodriguez, as next /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 12, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00049

- CV

MORNINGSIDE MINISTRIES d/b/a Morningside Ministries at the Manor and the Morningside Ministries Foundation, Inc., Appellant

v.

Rosa Lee RODRIGUEZ , as next friend of Flora Mendez, Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 07530 Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The parties have filed an agreed motion to stay the appellate deadlines in this appeal pending mediation. The motion is GRANTED, and the appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court

. Appellants are ORDERED to file a status report regarding the outcome of the mediation no later than April 15, 2015.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of March, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41468

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JESUS PADILLA-GOMEZ, also known as, Armando Martinez-Vasquez

also known as, Jesus Padilla

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:05-CR-00409-ALL

SCOTUS No. 06-7871 

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This case is on remand from the United States Supreme Court, which

vacated our judgment, see United States v. Padilla-Gomez, 203 F. App’x 597 (5th

Cir. 2006), and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of

Lopez v. Gonzales, 127 S. Ct. 625 (2006). See Ochoa-Perez v. United States, 127

S. Ct. 1263 (2007).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 25, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 05-41468

1 Padilla-Gomez was convicted of three state felony drug offenses, first on August 23,

1994, second on August 9, 2000, and third on October 3, 2002. PSR, ¶¶ 21, 28, 30.

-2-

Padilla-Gomez pleaded guilty to the crime of illegally reentering the

United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Padilla-Gomez’s

conviction is AFFIRMED; Padilla-Gomez’s sentence is VACATED and

REMANDED to the district courtfor resentencing in accordance withLopez. We

express no opinion on the issue of whether the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) enhancement was

appropriate because Padilla-Gomez’s 2000 and 2002 possession offenses

qualified as “recidivist possession.”1 See Lopez, 127 S. Ct. at 630 n. 6; United

States v. Sanchez-Villalobos, 412 F.3d 572, 576-77 (5th Cir. 2005).

* * *

THE CLERK IS INSTRUCTED TO ISSUE THE MANDATE

FORTHWITH.
No. 54643.

#### Edward Lembeck et al. *v.*United States,

protests 133102-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. ,
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: 2011-NM-043-AD These comments are in

Directorate ID: FAA-2011-0997 response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
[No. 12027.

Department Two.

June 6, 1914.]

#### C. R. Zener, *Appellant,*v. Hans J. Smith, *as City Clerk, Respondent.**1*

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Chelan county, Pendergast, J., entered April 16, 1914, dismissing an action for an injunction, upon sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.

Affirmed.

*Williams & Corbin,*for appellant.

*Fred Kemp*and *E. L. Baker,*for respondent.

*Whitney & Hughes*and *Sam R. Summer,*for intervener.

1

Reported in 141 Pac. 205.

Pee Curiam.

Our decision in *Pybus v. Smith, ante*p. 65, 141 Pac. 203, is controlling of the question involved in this case. For the reasons there assigned, the judgment in this case is affirmed.
No. 50074.

#### Protest 113525-K of Dufaycolor Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The Government moved to dismiss without prejudice because the company had dissolved and it was impossible to locate the importer. The protest was therefore dismissed.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.55






September 13, 2016




Mr. Fred Newton
Apollo Education Group, Inc.
4025 South Riverpoint Parkway
Phoenix, Arizona 85040


Dear Fred:


As we have discussed, my employment agreement provides for an annual equity award for the 2017 fiscal year to be made in August 2016.


Because of the contemplated transaction involving the Company, I agree that this annual equity award may be granted later during the 2017 fiscal year instead of during August 2016.  If the transaction does not occur, we have agreed that my annual equity award for the 2017 fiscal year will be granted during the 2017 fiscal year at the same time such awards are made to other executive officers of the Company and with the vesting schedule contemplated by my employment agreement (i.e., 50% vesting in August 2017, 25% vesting in August 2018 and 25% vesting in August 2019).






Sincerely,


/s/ Gregory W. Cappelli  


Gregory W. Cappelli


	
			
	Accepted and agreed:
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Apollo Education Group, Inc.


	 

	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Fred Newton
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Its:
	Senior Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Date:
	9/13/2016
No. 61848.

#### Astra Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 315597-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber*& *Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 21

                            WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES

Keithley Instruments International Corporation
28775 Aurora Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44139, U.S.A.

FRANCE:  Keithley Instruments SARL
Immeuble Aristote
Parc des Algorithmes
Saint-Aubin
91194 GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX

GERMANY: Keithley Instruments GmbH
Landsberger Strasse 65
82110 Germering (Munich)

GREAT BRITAIN:  Keithley Instruments Ltd.
Unit 2 Commerce Park, Brunel Road
Theale, Berkshire RG7 4AB

ITALY:  Keithley Instruments SRL
Viale San Gimignano 38
20146 Milano

JAPAN:  Keithley Instruments KK
New Pier Takeshiba North Tower 13F
11-1, Kaigan 1-chome
Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0022

MALAYSIA:  Keithley Instruments Sdn Bhd
Unit 1-05-07, e-Gate
Lebuh Tunku Kudin 2
11700 Gelugor
Penang, Malaysia

NETHERLANDS:  Keithley Instruments BV
Postbus 559
4200 AN Gorinchem (Amsterdam)

SWITZERLAND:  Keithley Instruments S.A.
Postfach 432
8024 Zurich
EXHIBIT 21

                   ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATION
                 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following are deemed to be significant subsidiaries of
Alliant Energy Corporation as of December 31, 2000:

Name of Subsidiary                              State of Incorporation
------------------                              -----------------------

IES Utilities Inc.                              Iowa

Wisconsin Power and Light Company               Wisconsin

Interstate Power Company                        Delaware

Alliant Energy Resources, Inc.                  Wisconsin

     Alliant Energy Investments, Inc.           Iowa



                WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
                 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following is deemed to be a significant subsidiary of
Wisconsin Power and Light Company as of December 31, 2000:

Name of Subsidiary                              State of Incorporation
------------------                              -----------------------

WPL Transco LLC                                 Wisconsin
No. 52599.

protest 64055-K (New York).

#### Czechoslovak Glass Product Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exporta*216tion (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Before the Third Division,

February 28, 1951

No. 55265.

#### Lansen-Naeve Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 163067-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of live birds similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Alfred Mazer*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 1265), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8186)

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

Entry No. 603, etc.

(Decided December 11, 1952)

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

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

*517On 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 merchandise 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PENNSYLVANIA STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION,

Respondent

v.

MARGARET M. STUSKI, A/K/A

MARGARET STUSKI BOND AND CRAIG GEORGE BOND,

Petitioners :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 241 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of November, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
No. 52021.

#### Guerlain, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 72238-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 64881.

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/3280 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

The protest was dismissed.