alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 52956.

#### Van Oppen & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 138280-K (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From an examination of the papers it appeared that the protest was not filed within 60 days of the date of liquidation of the entry. The motion to dismiss was therefore granted.
Case No. 13,164.

#### The SOLIDAD COS.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 94.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

Dec., 1861.

Prize — Enemy Property — Violation of Blockade.

Cargo condemned as enemy property, and also for an attempt to violate the blockade.

In admiralty.

BETTS, District Judge.

This vessel was captured September 11. 1SG1, off Galveston bar, by the United States vessel of war South Carolina, ostensibly bound on a voyage from Vera Cruz xo Matamoras or Key West. The owners of the. cargo resided in Texas or Louisiana, and went out and returned on board the vessel. They sailed with her from Galveston in August previous, owning the outward cargo of cotton she carried. The vessel was in charge of her owner, who acted as mate. He had resided six years in Texas with his family. A sham sale was made by him of the vessel in Tampico, in order, as it appeared, upon the proofs in preparatorio, to put her in the name of a Mexican owner, for the proposed voyage or adventure. No consideration was paid by the purchaser, and he took an engagement from the vendor, that, on the return of the vessel to him at Tampico, his notes for the purchase money should be restored to him. and the vessel be returned to her American owner. All on board the vessel knew that the Gulf ports were blockaded when they left Galveston, and the vessel ran the blockade, in going out, by avoiding the main channel, and making her exit through a different and obscure one. The mate testified, on his examination, that the vessel, at the time of her capture, had received no notice of the war. or of the blockade at that port, and that he had pursued his voyage for Matamoras or Key West, and had not attempted to enter any blockaded port. Another of the ship's company proved that the vessel had passed Matamoras when she was taken, and had not attempted to enter that port, and did not steer for it or Key West, but made a course to enter some of the American Gulf liorts. The vessel, when captured, was found unseaworthy, or so feeble that she could not lie safely sent to a northern port, and her cargo was taken out and transmitted on the United States brig Delta to this port, where it has been libelled.

Upon the facts in proof, this cargo was manifestly enemy property when arrested, and is liable to condemnation as such. It was also intended, by the master of the vessel, to take it into some one of the blockaded ports, and this endeavor must be presumed to have been known and acquiesced in by the owners of it on board, if not directed by them. Upon either ground,' accordingly, that the cargo is enemy property, or that it was intended to carry it into a blockaded port, in violation and fraud of the blockade, the cargo is subject to forfeiture. Jecker v. Montgomery, 18 How. [59 U. S.] 110. The pretence of the actual owner of the vessel that he was ignorant of the blockade at Galveston, because he had not been warned off or had personal notice of the same, or of the existence of the war, is shown by the other proofs, to be deceptive and untrue. Judgment of condemnation of the property seized.
No. 60050.

#### Clack & Bemporad Co. and John F. Kilroy Co. *v.*United States,

protest 198889-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of latchet rug hooks the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract 58068, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

ROBERT ELMER BARBER, No. CIV-S-04-1844 MCE/PAN P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

S. RYAN, Warden, 

Respondent.

 /

On June 9, 2005, petitioner filed a request for

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order filed May 27,

2005, vacating the May 26, 2005, order to close this file and

directing service of the petition placed in this file December 6,

2004. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate

judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court

finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling

was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 17 Filed 07/11/05 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

Insofar as petitioner seeks to substitute Warden S. Ryan as

respondent, the request is granted. See Rules Governing § 2254

Proceedings, Rule 2(a).

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration,

the order of the magistrate judge filed May 27, 2005, is

affirmed.

DATE: July 11, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:04-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 17 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 2
# C_2008010EN.01005801.xml

| 15.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/58

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods’

COM(2007) 368 final — 2007/0128 (COD)

(2008/C 10/16)

On 26 July 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinions CESE 308/2004 and CESE 1571/2006, adopted on 26 February 2004 and 13 December 2006 (1), it decided, at its 438th plenary session of 26 and 27 September 2007, by 163 votes to 1 with 7 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposal and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

1

Brussels, 26 September 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---

(1)  EESC opinions on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nutrition and health claims made on foods — COM(2003) 424 final — 2003/0165 COD (OJ C 110 of 30.4.2004) and on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No .../... on nutrition and health claims made on foods — COM(2006) 607 final — 2006/0195 COD (OJ C 325 of 30.12.2006).

1

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nutrition and health claims made on foods

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No .../... on nutrition and health claims made on foods

---
BOXLIGHT
CORPORATION


1047
Progress Circle


Lawrenceville,
GA


 


October
4, 2016


 


Mr.


 


Dear


 


This
will acknowledge that you are owed the sum of $__________ by Boxlight Corporation. We hereby agree to issue to you a total of
___________ shares of unregistered Class A common stock of Boxlight at a price of $1.00 per share in exchange for your cancellation
of such obligation.


 


You
acknowledge that you are an accredited investor as defined under Rule 144 as promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933 as amended
and can afford to lose the total amount of your investment in shares of Boxlight common stock.


 


We
will issue to you a stock certificate containing an appropriate restricted legend as such shares have not been registered for
resale under the Securities Act. However, we will register your shares for resale in our pending registration statement.


 


	Please
    confirm your agreement with the foregoing.	 
	 	 
	Boxlight
    Corporation	 
	 	 	 
	By:
    	                	 
	 	 	 
	ACCEPTED
    AND AGREED:
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

George Johnson,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2255 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

Joseph Sherman, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner suing prison officials in a

civil rights action. 

Plaintiff claims defendants in 2004 violated his right to

freely exercise his Rastafarian religion by placing him in

administrative segregation and forcing him to submit to

tuberculosis (TB) mantoux skin tests, even though plaintiff was

willing to take other tests such as a chest x-ray or sputa smear. 

Plaintiff seeks damages and a declaration there is a religious

exemption to mandatory TB skin tests for prisoners.

Case 2:04-cv-02255-LKK -EFB Document 8 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 3
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

April 13, 2005, the court approved service on defendants

Sherman, Lea and Flint and dismissed claims against Stratton,

O’Brian, Woodford, Grannis and Knowles with leave to amend. The

court forwarded to plaintiff materials for service of Sherman,

Lea and Flint.

Plaintiff moved March 7, 2005, and April 25, 2005, for

temporary restraining orders, stating he soon will be subjected

to further forced TB skin tests and seeking an order prohibiting

this. The motions lack proofs of service and it does not appear

they were served.

This court may grant a temporary restraining order without

written or oral notice to the opposing party or the opposing

party’s attorney “only if (1) it clearly appears from specific

facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that the

applicant will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or

damage before defendant can be heard in opposition, and (2) the

applicant submits a written certification of the efforts, if any,

he has made to give notice and the reasons supporting his claim

that notice should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 

Plaintiff has not submitted a written certification of his

efforts, if any, he has made to notify defendants of his request

or his reasons in support of a claim notice should not be

required.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that plaintiff shall,

within 10 days, comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Otherwise his

Case 2:04-cv-02255-LKK -EFB Document 8 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

motions for temporary restraining orders will be denied without

prejudice. 

Dated: May 10, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02255-LKK -EFB Document 8 Filed 05/11/05 Page 3 of 3
(Reap. Dec. 9490)

#### Penson & Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 954983.

*478(Decided August 12, 1959)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for tlie plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between tbe respective parties hereto, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, that tbe merchandise covered by tbe Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above consists of wool yarns which were entered on tbe basis of the C.I.E. price to which the importer voluntarily added the so-called 1.01% appraisement tax applicable in Erance.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise was appraised as entered, i.e., on the basis of the C.I.F. price at $4.20 per pound net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the proper dutiable value for said merchandise is the export value as defined in Section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and that said export value is the entered value less items shown on the invoice for “United States duty ad valorem,” “United States duty specific” and charges for “transport freight” relating to ocean freight, “customs brokerage” and “Consular fees”. Consular invoice No. 3720 certified at Paris on August 18, 1953 embodies these deductions and was filed with the entry prior to appraisement and inadvertently overlooked.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the home market value as defined in Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 was no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the value of the involved merchandise, and that such value is the entered value, less items shown on the invoice for “United States duty ad valorem,” “United States duty specific” and charges for “transport freight” relating to ocean freight, “customs brokerage,” and “Consular fees.”

J udgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 66817.

#### Murbas Trading & Co. and John Sexton & Co.,

protests 60/7011 and 60/5099 (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that involved in *Dalton Cooper, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 271, C.D. 2051), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

Donlon, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in her dissenting opinion in C.D. 2051, *supra.*
(Reap. Dec. 10066)

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

Entry No. 5780.

*441(Decided August 22,1961)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for tide plaintiff.

*William B. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for tlie defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement is before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by tbe undersigned, subject to tbe approval of tbe court, that tbe merchandise consisting of easbmere outerwear, involved in tbe above-entitled reappraisement appeal is sucb or similar, and tbe issues are in all material respects tbe same as tbe merchandise and issues in *Charles Stockheimer, et al.*v. *United States, etc.*44 CCPA 92, C.A.D. 642, and that tbe record therein may be incorporated herein.

> That there was no foreign value, export value, or United States value, as defined in Section 402 (c), (d), and (e) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, for tbe involved merchandise at tbe time of exportation thereof.

> That tbe cost of production, as defined in Section 402(f) of said Act, is tbe proper basis for appraisement of the involved merchandise, and that sucb cost of production for each of the item numbers or other description shown on tbe invoices involved in tbe above-entitled appeal is as stated in Schedule “A” attached hereto and made a part of this stipulation, for tbe merchandise exported during tbe specified periods.

> That the above-entitled appeal is abandoned as to all merchandise on tbe invoices involved for which no value is shown in Schedule “A.”

On tbe agreed facts and following tbe cited authority on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is cost of production, as defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is as set forth in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof.

As to all other merchandise on the invoices involved herein for wñich no value is shown on said schedule “A,” the appeal for reap-praisement is dismissed. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

All the foregoing prices are stated in British sterling (shillings & pence) net per piece, parcel post packing included, cases extra as invoiced.
(Reap. Dec. 10722)

#### James Loudon & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 26828, etc.

(Decided April 15, 1964)

*Glad & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part thereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court as follows:

> 1. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth on Schedule “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof are limited to automobiles described as Goggo-mobile Model T-700 or Sedans, Goggomobile Coupes, and Goggomobile Sunroofs, exported from West Germany during 1958 and 1959.

> 2. That the involved merchandise was entered or withdrawn from warehouse after the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927, 84th Congress, T.D. 54165), and is identified in the Pinal List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to said Customs Simplification Act (T.D. 54521), and accordingly is subject to appraisement under the provisions of section 402a of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

> 3. That on or about the dates of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered to all purchasers for home consumption in the country of exportation or for exportation to the United States; and on or about said dates of exportation, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered to all purchasers for domestic consumption in the United States.

> 4. The cost of production of the involved merchandise as defined in section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended is equal to the invoice unit prices plus .624%, net packed.

> 5. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in the Schedule “A” attached hereto may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

Upon the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the *517determination of the value of the merchandise covered by said appeals for reappraisement and that such values are equal to the invoice unit prices, plus 0.624 per centum, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

E.E., the father,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-683

[September 12, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Indian River County; Michael J. Linn, Judge; L.T. Case No. 31-2019-

DP00008.

E.E., the father, Vero Beach, pro se.

Andrew Feigenbaum, Appellate Counsel, Children’s Legal Services, 

West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Ex_10-1


		
			Exhibit 10.1
		

		
			 
		

		
			AMENDMENT
		

		
			TO THE 
		

		
			COBIZ FINANCIAL INC. 
		

		
			AMENDED AND RESTATED 2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
		

		
			 
		

		
			This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the CoBiz Financial Inc. Amended and Restated 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is approved and adopted to be effective as of November 1, 2016 (the “Effective Date”).
		

		
			 
		

		
			RECITALS
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 A.
			

			
	
			
			The Plan provides, in Section 15, that the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of CoBiz Financial Inc. (the “Committee”) may amend the Plan at any time, subject to shareholder approval if required under the terms of the Plan, and the Committee has determined that shareholder approval of this Amendment is not required under the terms of the Plan;




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 B.
			

			
	
			
			The Committee now desires to amend the Plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Amendment. 




		
			 
		

		
			AMENDMENT
		

		
			 
		

		
			NOW THEREFORE, effective as of the Effective Date, the Plan is amended as follows:
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			

			
	
			
			Section 14.2 of the Plan hereby is amended to read in its entirety as follows, effective as of the Effective Date: 




		
			 
		

		
			“14.2     Withholding in Shares.  The Company shall have the right, but not the obligation, to deduct from the shares of Stock issuable to a Participant upon the exercise or settlement of an Award, or to accept from the Participant the tender of, a number of whole shares of Stock having a Fair Market Value, as determined by the Company, equal to all or any part of the tax withholding obligations of the Company or a Subsidiary.  The Company, after consideration of applicable accounting standards, has the discretion to either (i) allow Participants to elect, or (ii) otherwise direct as a general rule, to have the Company withhold shares of Stock for taxes in an amount equal to or greater than the applicable minimum statutory withholding amount but not greater than the maximum statutory withholding amount.”
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 2.
			

			
	
			
			Any inconsistent provision of the Plan shall be read consistent with this Amendment.




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 3.
			

			
	
			
			Except as amended by this Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.  




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 4.
			

			
	
			
			This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.




		
			 
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Secretary of CoBiz Financial Inc. certifies that the foregoing sets forth the Amendment to the CoBiz Financial Inc. Amended and Restated 2005 Equity Incentive Plan as duly adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors on October 27, 2016.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			___________________________________
		

		
			Secretary
```

[111th Congress Public Law 310]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 3293]]

Public Law 111-310
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, in Washington, D.C., as the ``Dorothy I. 
      Height Post Office''. <<NOTE: Dec. 15, 2010 -  [H.R. 6118]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 2 USC 2021 note.>> DOROTHY I. HEIGHT POST 
                              OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, in Washington, D.C., shall be 
known and designated as the ``Dorothy I. Height Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dorothy I. 
Height Post Office''.

    Approved December 15, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6118:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            Sept. 28, 29, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 2, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```