alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8697)

Entry No. 16-Y.

#### United States *v.*O. F. Jones

(Decided October 31, 1956)

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*trial attorney), for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Ford, Judge:

The appeal listed above involves the proper dutiable value of certain merchandise entered as “Eleven Beattie Wild Oats Cleaners with Hopper” and “One Beattie Wild Oats cleaner with screen attachments” at a total value of $1,476, which was appraised as entered. The plaintiff herein claims a value for the wild oat cleaners with hopper of $165 each, and, for the wild oat cleaner with screen attachments, plaintiff claims a value of $235, all f. o. b. Brandon, Manitoba.

When the appeal was called for hearing, there was no appearance by the defendant, either in person or by attorney. The evidence establishes that the price at which merchandise such as or similar to that here involved was sold or offered for sale in the principal market of Canada for home consumption and for exportation to the United States, in the ordinary course of trade and in the usual wholesale quantities, was, for the wild oat cleaners with hopper, $165 each and, for the wild oat cleaner with screen attachments, $235, Canadian currency, all f. o. b. Brandon, Manitoba. I, therefore, find such values to be the proper dutiable values of said merchandise. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. R68/7.

reappraisement R61/11143 (New York).

#### Shalom & Co. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues and relevant facts are the same in all material respects as those in *Shalom*Baby-Wear, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 526, Reap. Dec. 10905), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of value for the various articles of cotton wearing apparel (including T shirts and parkas) in issue and that such value is the appraised unit value, net packed, less the buying commission paid to Esses & Co. of Hong Kong, as stated on the invoices.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4632 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4632

  To establish an earlier application processing cycle for the FAFSA.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 8, 2024

  Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To establish an earlier application processing cycle for the FAFSA.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``FAFSA Deadline Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. FAFSA SUBMISSION DATE.

    Section 483(d)(4) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1090(d)(4)) is amended by striking ``not later than January 1 of the 
applicant's planned year of enrollment, to the maximum extent 
practicable, on or around October 1 prior to the applicant's planned 
year of enrollment'' and inserting ``not later than October 1 prior to 
the applicant's planned year of enrollment''.
                                 <all>
```
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0002226 07-OCT-2014 08:58 AM

SCWC-13-0002226 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. MARTIN YOUNG, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0002226; CR. NO. 12-1-1580) ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)It appearing that the judgment on appeal in the abovereferenced matter not having been filed by the Intermediate Court of Appeals at the time the application for certiorari was filed,

see Hawai ' i Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) (Supp. 2013); see also Hawai ' i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 36(b)(1) (2012), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s application for writ of certiorari, filed September 30, 2014, is dismissed without prejudice to re-filing the application pursuant to HRAP Rule 40.1(a) (2014) (“The application shall be filed within thirty days after the filing of the intermediate court ofappeals’ judgment on appeal or dismissal order, unless the time for filing the application is extended in accordance with this rule.”). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, October 7, 2014. Glenn D. Choy for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
# C_2007086EN.01001801.xml

| 20.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/18

---

LIST OF PORTS WHERE LANDING OR TRANSHIPPING IS ALLOWED OF FROZEN FISH CAUGHT BY THIRD-COUNTRY FISHING VESSELS IN THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC FISHERIES CONVENTION AREA

LIST OF PORTS WHERE LANDING OR TRANSHIPPING IS ALLOWED OF FROZEN FISH CAUGHT BY THIRD-COUNTRY FISHING VESSELS IN THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC FISHERIES CONVENTION AREA

(2007/C 86/06)

The publication of the list (1) is based on Article 50 of Council Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 of 21 December 2006 fixing for 2007 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (2)

1

2

| Member State | Designated Ports |
| --- | --- |
| Denmark | Esbjerg |
| Fredericia |
| Hanstholm |
| Hirtshals |
| København |
| Rønne |
| Skagen |
| Ålborg |
| Århus |
| Germany | Hamburg |
| Cuxhaven |
| Bremerhaven |
| Sassnitz |
| Rostock |
| Kiel |
| Spain | Vigo |
| Marin |
| France | Boulogne sur Mer |
| Brest |
| Douarnenez |
| Concarneau |
| Nantes-St Nazaire |
| La Rochelle |
| Ireland | Killybegs |
| Latvia | Riga |
| Liepaja |
| Ventspils |
| Lithuania | Klaipeda |
| Netherlands | Eemshaven |
| IJmuiden |
| Harlingen |
| Scheveningen |
| Velsen-Noord |
| Vlissingen |
| Poland | Gdańsk |
| Świnoujście |
| Szczecin |
| Portugal | Aveiro |
| Setubal |
| Azores |
| Ponta Delgada |
| Praia da Vitória |
| Horta |
| Sweden | Göteborg |
| United Kingdom | Immingham |
| Grimsby |
| Hull |
| Aberdeen |
| Peterhead |
| Fraserburgh |
| Lerwick |
| Scrabster |
| Kinlochbervie |
| Lochinver |
| Ullapool |

Member State

Designated Ports

Denmark

Esbjerg

Fredericia

Hanstholm

Hirtshals

København

Rønne

Skagen

Ålborg

Århus

Germany

Hamburg

Cuxhaven

Bremerhaven

Sassnitz

Rostock

Kiel

Spain

Vigo

Marin

France

Boulogne sur Mer

Brest

Douarnenez

Concarneau

Nantes-St Nazaire

La Rochelle

Ireland

Killybegs

Latvia

Riga

Liepaja

Ventspils

Lithuania

Klaipeda

Netherlands

Eemshaven

IJmuiden

Harlingen

Scheveningen

Velsen-Noord

Vlissingen

Poland

Gdańsk

Świnoujście

Szczecin

Portugal

Aveiro

Setubal

Azores

Azores

Ponta Delgada

Praia da Vitória

Horta

Sweden

Göteborg

United Kingdom

Immingham

Grimsby

Hull

Aberdeen

Peterhead

Fraserburgh

Lerwick

Scrabster

Kinlochbervie

Lochinver

Ullapool

---

(1)  The list with more detailed information is also available on the websites of the Commission and NEAFC.

1

(2)  OJ L 15, 20.1.2007, p. 1.

2

---
No. 49201.

#### Protests 77782-K, etc., of American D. B. Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400, the court dismissed the protests.
**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6498** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DANIEL AREVALO

- HERNANDEZ , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 7:09

- cr - 00097

- FL

- 2; 7:11

- cv - 00161

- FL )

Submitted : July 26 , 2012 Decided: August 2, 2012

Before MOTZ, D AVIS , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Daniel Arevalo

- Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. William Ellis Boyle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Daniel Arevalo

- Hernandez seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2 253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this stan dard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When th e district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Arevalo

- Hernandez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
No. 58590.

protest 188327-K (Galveston).

#### Phillips Chemical Co. and R. W. Smith *v.*United States,

*464Opinion, by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of a catalyst, composed in chief value of mineral substances, not decorated in any manner, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 44994.

#### Protests 930294-G(A), etc., of A. Cohen & Sons Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of atomizers similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 218(f) was therefore sustained.
2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-17-2005

USA v. Fishman

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 03-3737

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Fishman" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1181.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1181
 The Honorable Jan E. Dubois, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern *

District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Case No: 03-3737

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

DAVID FISHMAN,

 Appellant

 

On appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey

District Judge: The Honorable William G. Bassler

District Court No. 02-cr-00587

 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1

June 16, 2004

Before: ALITO and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and

DUBOIS, District Judge*

(Filed: May 17, 2005 )

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

David Fishman pled guilty on April 15, 2003 to count three of an information

charging him with knowingly distributing pseudoephedrine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(f)(1). The District Court sentenced him on August 28, 2003 to a term of sixty

months. Fishman appeals, challenging only his sentence. He contends that the District

Court erred by refusing to grant a downward departure under United States Sentencing

Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) §§ 5K2.13, 5K2.0, and 5H1.4. According to Fishman, the

District Court mistakenly believed it did not have the authority to depart under these

guidelines.

Fishman’s sentence was imposed prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in United

States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). There, the Supreme Court declared that the

United States Sentencing Guidelines are only advisory. Id. at 757. As a result, 

Fishman’s sentence may have been affected by the District Court’s treatment of the

guidelines as mandatory. Having determined that the sentencing issues Fishman raises

are best determined by the District Court in the first instance, we will vacate Fishman’s

sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with Booker.

______________________________________
J

- S29042

- 16

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

D.W. AND D.W. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA Appellants : v. : : F.T. AND J.T. : : : No. 1892 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered November 5, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County Civil Division

at No(s): 11815 C.D. 2014

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANE LLA , and FITZGERALD, * JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED MAY 6, 201 6
Appellants, D.W. and D.W. (collectively, “Maternal Grandparents”), the
maternal grandparents of two minor, male children, J.T., born in January of
2006, and W.T., born in January of 2008, and a minor, female child, P.T.,
born in May of 2002 (collectivel y, “Children”), appeal from the order dated
and entered on November 5, 2015, that denied Maternal Grandparents’
petition for partial physical custody of Children.
Maternal Grandparents raise five issues arguing the trial court erred in
denying their motion for partial custody. Section 5328(c)(1) of the Child
Custody Act requires a court to consider the following factors when awarding
custody to grandparents:

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S29042

- 16

- 2

- (i) the amount of personal contact between the child and the party prior to the filing of the actio n; (ii) whether the award interferes with any parent

- child relationship; and
(iii) whether the award is in the best interest of the child.
23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(c)(1)(i)

- (iii). Section 5328(a) provides a non

- exhaustive

list of factors that courts must cons ider when determining the best interest

of the child. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)(1)

- (16); K.T. v. L.S. , 118 A.3d
1136, 1154 (Pa. Super. 2015) (noting procedural history in which this Court
vacated and remanded to have trial court consider the Section 5328( a)

factors and the Section 5328(c)(1) factors in addressing the grandparents’
custody petition).

Our review of the record confirms that the trial court did not address
these factors at the conclusion of the custody hearing or in its Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) opin ion. See K.T. , 118 A.3d at 1154. The trial court discussed only
the Section 5328(c)(1) partial custody factors (pertaining to parties who
have standing pursuant to Section 5325(1) or (2), on the finding that
Maternal Grandparents have standing under Sect ion 5325(2)). Accordingly,

we must vacate the trial court’s order and remand this matter for the
preparation of a new order and opinion that discusses the Section 5328(a)
best interest factors and the Section 5328(c)(1) partial custody factors. The

trial court is directed, upon remand, to issue a new order and opinion within
thirty days of the date of this judgment order.J

- S29042

- 16

- 3

-

Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this judgment order. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Enter ed.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 5/6/2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                         <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                     176
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                     176
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                     458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,093                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           682                     682
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,775)                   (224)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                     458
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,551                     423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,551)                   (423)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,551)                   (423)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,551)                   (423)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.002)                  (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.002)                  (.001)





</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.01  CERTIFICATION  Pursuant
to the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350
of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.
§ 1350), Paul L. Berns, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Allos
Therapeutics, Inc., and David C. Clark, the Vice President, Finance of
Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company), each hereby certifies that, to
the best of his knowledge:  1.The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2007, to which this Certification is
attached as Exhibit 32.01 (the Annual Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Exchange Act; and  2.The information contained in the Annual
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.  Dated: February 27,
2008  /s/ Paul L. BernsPaul L. BernsPresident and Chief
  Executive Officer(Principal Executive
  Officer)/s/ David C. ClarkDavid C. ClarkVice President, Finance(Principal Financial
  and Accounting Officer)  A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its Staff upon request. 
This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates,
is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to
be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 13, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11287-11288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4456]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

19 CFR Part 208


Investigations Relating to Commercial Availability Under the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission published a notice in the Federal Register on 
February 27, 2007 (72 FR 8624) amending its rules of practice and

[[Page 11288]]

procedure to add a new part 208. The amendment is an interim rule and 
became effective on the date of publication. The notice published in 
the Federal Register on February 27 inadvertently identified two 
subsections as Sec.  208.7(c). The Commission is amending Sec.  208.7 
by designating the second paragraph (c) as paragraph (d).

DATES: Effective on March 13, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Gearhart, Senior Counsel, 
Office of the General Counsel, 202-205-3091 (e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6116080d0d08000c4f06040013090013152114120815024f060e17"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b0c121717121a16551c1e1a09131a090f3b0e08120f18551c140d">[email protected]</span></a>); or Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the 
Commission, 202-205-2000 (e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f49995869d988d9ada9596969b8080b481879d8097da939b82"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="157874677c796c7b3b7477777a61615560667c61763b727a63">[email protected]</span></a>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 208

    Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, 
Customs duties, Imports, Investigations.


0
Accordingly, 19 CFR part 208 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendment:

PART 208--INVESTIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO COMMERCIAL AVAILABILITY OF 
TEXTILE FABRIC AND YARN IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 208 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 19 U.S.C. 1335; 19 U.S.C. 3721(c).


Sec.  208.7  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  208.7 by designating the second paragraph (c) as 
paragraph (d).

    Issued: March 6, 2007.

    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
 [FR Doc. E7-4456 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 46730.

#### Protest 877303-G of Stern Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of atomizers similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140 the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) was sustained.