alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8184)

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

Entry No. 49, 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 in 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 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 *515(production or unique tax) as added by tbe importers on entry, plus 1.01 per centum armament tax when not included in tbe appraised value, packed.

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

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Clifton Savings Bancorp,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by
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 Company as of and for the period covered by
                  the Report.


                              /s/ John A. Celentano, Jr.
                              --------------------------------------------------
                              John A. Celentano, Jr.
                              Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


                              /s/ Christine R. Piano
                              --------------------------------------------------
                              Christine R. Piano
                              Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


Date: February 6, 2008
1 

## ... T h is p ro c e e d ing a rise s o u t o f C a u se N o . 2 0 0 7 -C I-0 6 2 9 1 , A m erica n Tec h n o l o g y M a rke t i n g , In c. v. B & D M a n a g e m e n t C o ., In c . d /b /a M c D o n a ld ’s R e sta u ra n t, D id a k , I n c. d/b/ a M c D o n a ld ’s R e sta u ra n t, a n d P ICI M a n a g e m e n t, I nc. d/ b/ a M cDonal d’ s Res t aur ant , and P& M

H os ki ns Ent er

pr i s es , LLC d/

b/ a M cDonal d’ s Res t aur ant , pe nd i ng i n t he 4 0 7 t h Jud i ci al D i st ri ct C o urt , B exar C o unt y , T exas, t he H o no rable P et er Sakai p res i d i ng. 

### i i i i i i



# MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No . 0 4- 09 -0 03 36 -C V IN RE AMERICAN TECHNOL OGY M ARK ETING, INC. Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 

## PER C URIAM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 29, 2009 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED The c ourt has conside red the petition for a wr it of mandamus fi led by relator, Americ an Tec hnology Marke ting, Inc., and the response of the rea l pa rty in inter est and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. SeeT EX 

## . R. A PP 

## . P. 52.8(a) . Ac co rd i n gl y , re lator’s pe tition for a writ of mandamus is denied. R el at o r s h al l p ay

al l co s t s i n cu rr edi nth i s p ro ce ed i n g. The c lerk of this cour

t is directed to tra

nsmit a copy

of this opinion to the attorne y s of re cord, the trial cour

t judge , and the tria l court cle rk. PER C URIAM
No. 57718.

#### Quon Quon Company *v.*United States,

protest 164607-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of trays similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 710), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 21****JEFFERSON-PILOT CORPORATION** **Subsidiary listing as of March 1, 2006** Jefferson-Pilot Corporation (North Carolina corp.)TheGuarantee Life Companies Inc. (Delaware corp.)Jefferson Pilot Financial Insurance Company (Nebraska corp.)(2)Jefferson Pilot LifeAmerica Insurance Company (New Jersey corp.)HARCO Capital Corp. (Delaware corp.)HampshireFunding Inc. (New Hampshire corp.)Jefferson-Pilot Capital Trust A (Delaware business trust)Jefferson-Pilot Capital Trust B (Delaware business trust)Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company (North Carolina corp.)Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of California (North Carolina corp.)Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of Colorado (North Carolina corp.)Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of Florida (North Carolina corp.)Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of Georgia (North Carolina corp.)Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of North Carolina (North Carolina corp.)Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of Virginia (Virginia corp.)Jefferson-Pilot Communications/WBTV, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)Jefferson-Pilot Sports, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)WCSC, Inc. (South Carolina corp.)Tall Tower, Inc. (South Carolina corp.)Jefferson Pilot Investment Advisory Corporation (Tennessee corp.)Jefferson-Pilot Investments, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)Jefferson Pilot Variable Corporation (North Carolina corp.)Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)Jefferson Pilot Securities Corporation (New Hampshire corp.)Allied Professional Advisors, Inc. (New Hampshire corp.)JPSC Insurance Services, Inc.Polaris Advisory Services, Inc. (Connecticut corp.)Polaris Financial Services, Inc. (Connecticut corp.)TSC Reassurance (Bermuda) Ltd. (Bermuda corp.) Notes:(1) Each indentation reflects another tier of ownership. (2) The immediate parent owns 100% of the voting securities of eachentity, except that Jefferson-Pilot Corporation directly owns 80% ofJefferson Pilot Financial Insurance Company. (3) All entities more than 50% owned are listed, except that varioussubsidiaries that in the aggregate are insignificant have beenomitted.E-6
No. 66849.

#### Lewis & Pina et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/2265, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of face brick similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Bunker Hill Brick & Supply, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 95, C.D. 2240), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 60851.

#### Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 276287-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 10.19**

 

**ALLIANT ENERGY RABBI TRUST AGREEMENT**

This Agreement is made and entered into as of December __, 2005, by and between Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc., an Iowa corporation (the “Sponsor”), and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a national banking association, as trustee (the “Trustee”);

**W I T N E S S E T H:**

**WHEREAS**, the Sponsor, Alliant Energy Corporation (“AEC”), Interstate Power and Light Company (“IES”) and Wisconsin Power and Light Company (“WPL”) have adopted or entered into various nonqualified deferred compensation plans and agreements and have incurred or expect to incur liability under the terms of such plans with respect to the individuals participating in such plans; and

**WHEREAS**, on December 1, 2000, the Sponsor, IES and WPL authorized the Sponsor to, and it did, merge various trusts into a trust agreement with Marshall & Ilsley Trust Company (the “Existing Trust”); and

**WHEREAS**, on December 1, 2000, AEC established a trust pursuant to a trust agreement with Marshall & Ilsley Trust Company (the “AEC Trust”) to fund the Alliant Energy Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors (the “Directors’ Plan”); and

**WHEREAS**, the Sponsor wishes to continue a trust arrangement and to contribute to such trust assets that shall be held therein, subject to the claims of creditors in the event of Insolvency, as herein defined, until paid to plan participants and their beneficiaries in such manner and at such times as specified in the plans; and

**WHEREAS**, the Sponsor and AEC wish to merge the AEC Trust into the Existing Trust; and

**WHEREAS**, the Sponsor enters into this Agreement for the purpose of restating the Existing Trust and the AEC Trust, merging the AEC Trust into the Existing Trust, and designating the Trustee as the successor trustee thereunder (the ongoing trust hereinafter the “Trust”); and

**WHEREAS**, the Trust shall be for the benefit of the participants and beneficiaries of the nonqualified deferred compensation plans and agreements listed in Appendix A of this Agreement (referred to herein as the “Plans,” or, in reference to each, as a “Plan”); and

**WHEREAS,** the plan sponsor of each Plan as indicated in Appendix A shall have responsibilities with respect to such Plan hereunder (the sponsor of each Plan being the “Company” with respect to such Plan); and 

 

----
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 July 31, 2010 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
13th day of September, 2010.


/s/ Jacqueline Winwood
---------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               0                  21,913
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  11,331
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                  82,454
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                 120,205
<PP&E>                                               0                  28,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                  16,210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                 194,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                  21,594
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                   3,269
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                 163,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                 194,398
<SALES>                                              0                 382,739
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                 351,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                     175
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                     486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                  32,585
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                  13,328
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0                  19,257
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                     .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                     .29


</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

February 28, 1952

No. 56439.

protest 146925-K (Philadelphia).

#### Miles Metal Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of scrap brass rods which were to be used in remanufacture by melting, that they have been used in remanufacture by melting, and that affidavits, which were attached to the stipulation, had been filed in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 869, *supra.*Upon the agreed facts and the affidavits attached to the stipulation, it was held that the scrap brass rods come within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*and are properly entitled to free entry.
No. 57723.

#### Amertrade, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 207997-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 60848.

#### W. R. Grace & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 276152-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
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

STANLEY GREEN, No. 2:04-cv-1835-MCE-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

JAMES YATES, ET AL., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed

counsel and in forma pauperis, brings this Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern

District of California local rules.

On April 7, 2006, the magistrate judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on Petitioner and which

contained notice to Petitioner that any Objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within ten (10)

days. 

Case 2:04-cv-01835-MCE -CMK Document 30 Filed 05/24/06 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

Petitioner has not filed Objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the Findings and

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge's analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 7, 2006, 

are adopted in full;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted;

3. This Petition is dismissed; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter Judgment 

and close this file.

DATE: May 24, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01835-MCE -CMK Document 30 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB   Document 120    Filed 07/01/05   Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB   Document 120    Filed 07/01/05   Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB   Document 120    Filed 07/01/05   Page 3 of 3

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-20T19:51:24-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Order entered July 5, 2016 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00632-CV 

MELANIE E. GRIMES, Appellant 

V. 

MYCHELE R. LORD, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-15142 

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Bridges and Lang 

 We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to issue the mandate forthwith. 

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG 

 JUSTICE
(Reap. Dec. 10416)

#### Western Dairy Products, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 29574; 34151.

(Decided January 8, 1963)

*Glad & Tuttle (Edward N. Glad*of counsel) for tlie plaintiff.

*Joseph JD. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Morris Braverman,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

When these appeals for reappraisement were called for trial, they were consolidated and submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> Me. Glad: I offer to stipulate that the merchandise involved in this case consists of Colby cheese exported from Australia during the month of November in 1960.

> And I further offer to stipulate that during the period in question there was no foreign value or export value, as defined by the statute, for such or similar merchandise, and that the freely offered United States value for such merchandise or similar merchandise was 27.7 cents per pound, net packed.

> Me. Beaverman : From information obtained from Examiner Max Ringell, at the Port of Los Angeles, the Government so stipulates.

On the agreed facts, I find that United States value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein and that such value is 27.7 cents per pound, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
CASE DIGEST: U.S. Dep’t of the Army, Ariz. Dep’t of Emergency & Mil. Affs., 

Ariz. Army Nat’l Guard & Ass’n of Civilian Technicians, 

Chapter 61, 73 FLRA 809 (2024)

The Union filed a motion for reconsideration of the Authority’s decision in U.S. 

Department of the Army, Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, 

Arizona Army National Guard, 73 FLRA 617 (2023) (Arizona Army National Guard). 

The Authority found the motion did not establish extraordinary circumstances warranting 

reconsideration, because it merely attempted to relitigate the Authority’s conclusions in 

Arizona Army National Guard and raised arguments that the Union could have made, but 

did not make, in the underlying case. Therefore, the Authority denied the motion.

This case digest is a summary of a decision issued by the Federal Labor Relations 

Authority, with a short description of the issues and facts of the case. Descriptions 

contained in this case digest are for informational purposes only, do not constitute legal 

precedent, and are not intended to be a substitute for the opinion of the Authority.
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

MICHAEL WINDER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1944 DFL KJM P

vs.

R.W. SANDHAM, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve an opposition to

defendants’ October 7, 2005 motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 17, 2005 motion for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve an opposition to defendants’ October 7, 2005 motion for summary judgment. Defendants’

reply, if any, shall be filed seven days thereafter.

DATED: December 2, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp wind1944.36

Case 2:04-cv-01944-DFL -KJM Document 19 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 1
PROTEJASE + PROTEJA A SU PAREJA

¿CÓMO PUEDO REDUCIR EL RIESGO D E CONTRAER GONORREA? • La manera más segura de evitar la gonorrea es la 

abstinencia sexual, o tener relaciones sexuales con alguien que no esté infectado y que sólo tenga relaciones sexuales con usted. 

• Los condones pueden reducir el riesgo de contraer 

gonorrea si se usan adecuadamente cada vez que tenga relaciones sexuales. 

• Lavarse los genitales, orinar o darse duchas vaginales 

después de tener relaciones sexuales no evitará ninguna 

enfermedad transmitida sexualmente. 

¿Cómo se contrae la gonorrea? 

Usted puede contraer gonorrea al tener relaciones sexuales con alguien que esté infectado. “Tener relaciones sexuales quiere decir contacto anal, oral o vaginal. Si usted está embarazada y tiene gonorrea, puede contagiar a su bebé.
No. 56444.

protests 169430-K, etc. (New York).

#### Gat Cheung Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited .in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.