alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10435)

#### RCA Victor Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. *v.*United States

Entry No. 12430-H, etc.

(Decided January 22, 1963)

*377*Bhwrretts, Paley <& Carter*few: the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliweR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED hy and 'between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise which is the subject of the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule B, hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of phonograph records exported from Mexico after January 1, 1960.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that phonograph records are not on the list of articles published in T.D. 54521 and are subject to appraisement under the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927 — 84th Congress 2nd Session).

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the prices shown on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the phonograph records in question is statutory export value and hold that such value therefor is the prices shown on schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

VIRGINIA EVELYN JONES, RICHARD GLEN MYERS, JR.,

and BONNIE TILLEY
, Appellant s ,

v.

LEISURE VILLAGE
, INC. OF STUART
, a for

- profit corporation, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 3201

[ February 1 5

, 2023 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; Jennifer Waters , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2021CC000677

.

George C. Gaskell III, Stuart, for appellants.

Leif J. Grazi of Grazi & Gianino, LLP, Stuart, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).

G ROSS
, D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Lisa Brady, Appellant, v R & W. Paving, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 663]

—Mikoll, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed November 8, 1993, as amended by decision filed January 11, 1995.

Robert Brady (hereinafter decedent) was killed on August 17, 1990 as the result of multiple injuries sustained in an accident occurring during the course of his employment as a laborer for an asphalt company. At the time of his death, decedent was 20 years old. Claimant, his widow, filed a timely claim for workers’ compensation death benefits. Accident, notice and causal relation were established for decedent’s death. Following various proceedings, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge ultimately issued a decision in favor of claimant filed on May 25, 1993, which found that decedent had an average weekly wage of $510 based on wage expectancy. An appeal of this decision by the State Insurance Fund (hereinafter the carrier) was served on June 24, 1993. The Workers’ Compensation Board issued a decision ruling that decedent’s average weekly wage should be $338.46. In a decision filed January 11, 1995, the Board amended this decision to state that, although the carrier’s appeal was untimely, it was accepted in the interest of justice. This appeal by claimant ensued.

Initially, we find no reason on this record to disturb the Board’s determination accepting the carrier’s appeal which was filed only one day late *(see, Matter of Gulitz v International Bus. Machs. Corp.,*130 AD2d 874, 875). The Board has broad discretion in deciding whether to entertain an untimely appeal *(cf., Matter of Venezia v Vigliarolo,*191 AD2d 797, 798). Turning to the merits, it is our view that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination as to decedent’s average weekly wage. Notably, the fact that decedent was under the age of 25 at the time of his death was *732taken into account in determining decedent’s wage rate of $11 per hour (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 [5]; *see also, Matter of Lamiano v Sousa & Sons,*158 AD2d 818), despite the fact that he was actually earning only $7 per hour as a nonunion seasonal laborer at the time of the accident. The lack of promotional opportunities for someone in decedent’s position were attested to at length by his employer and this testimony, as well as other proof, provided substantial evidence for the Board’s decision.

Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
# Platform Specifications

**Lancaster Mk. III, Rev. 4 Aircraft overview parameters:**  **Ty pe:**  Single Electric Motor, Fixed Wing **Power source:** Lithium
- Polymer Battery (3900 mAhr) **Survey altitude**  : 30m

– 300m | 98ft

– 984ft **Cruise speed:** 12m/s | 27MPH | 43km/h | 23kn **Flight Time:** Up to 45 minutes (dependent on environmental conditions) **Max Takeoff weight:** 5.5lbs | 2.5kg **Operating temperature:** 14F

– 140F |
- 10C
- 60C **Telemetry**

**data link:** 433MHz Europe or 915MHz North / South America **Emerge ncy** 

**override control frequency :**  2.4GHz 

### Aircraft technical parameters: **Endurance:** 45 min Survey Area per flight (100m | 328ft alt, visual camera, 70% image overlap): Approximately 300 acres **Weight (no pay load):**  1.9kg | 4.1lb **Max Pay load:**  700g | 24.7oz **Win gspan:**  1.5m | 4.9ft **Length:** 1.3m | 4.3ft **Operational Sound Intensity at A** **ltitude** : Approx. 40dB **Linear Flight Range** : 30km (15km roundtrip) | 18.6mi (9.3mi roundtrip) **Communications range (line of site):** 2km | 1.2mi **Computation:** 720 MHz Dual
- Core Linux CPU **Embedded Processing:** 1 CPUs **Interfacing:** Bluetooth, digital/analog IO, serial, USB, Wi
- Fi, Ethernet, IIC **Speed (Cruise):** 12
- 16m/s | 43.2
- 57.6km/h | 26.8
- 35.8mph **Speed (Max):** 25m/s | 90km/h | 55.9mph **Max Wind:** 12.5m/s | 45km/h | 27.9mph **Tested Temp Range:**
- 10C to 60C | 14F to 140F **Maximum operating altitude MSL** : 13,123ft (4,000m) **Sy stem Diagnostic sample rate:**  25Hz 

### Operational tempo: **Takeoff Distance** : **Hand Launch** : 0m | 0ft run, 40m | 131ft climb out (distance to 40m | 131ft alt) **Water Launch** : 10m | 32.8f t run, 40m | 131ft climb out **Landing Distance** : **Min A pproach Distance**  : 200m | 656ft **Landing rollout (distance to stop from touchdown):** 2m | 6.6ft (land), 3m | 9.8ft (Water), 6m | 19.7ft (snow) 

### Packaging: **Total packed weight (including field case):** 39lbs | 17.7kg **Field case dimensions** : 45” x 16” x 14” | 114.3cm x 40.6cm x 35.6cm In the USA, aircraft shall be registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N
- Number) markings 

### Ground Control Station: The ground control station will inclu de a single computer in communications contact with the vehicle system. This station will primarily act as an information conduit to the operators with little manual control as the nominal vehicle op erations will be fully autonomous. A Futaba
- compatible R C transmitter is used to provide remote control capabilities and manual override for the vehicle 

### Ground Control Station Software: The A ircraft Ground Station Software is the PrecisionHawk Flight Planner and ArduPlane Mission Planner
MULTI-FUNCTION

APPLIANCES

EDWARD POLLOCK

OFFICE OF CODES & STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

EE-DET-94-101 COMMENT 04

,-,. 

'f '. (. 

MULTI~FUNCTION 

APPLIANCE.S 

EDWARD POLLOCK 

OFFICE OF CODES & STANDARDS 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 
PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTORS

s HYDROTECH 2 0 0 0

SEER, HSPF

OPERATING COSTS

ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS

NORDYNE

SEER, HS-PF

COMBINED HEATING PERFORMANCE FACTOR

COMBINED COOLING PERFORMANCE FACTOR

OTHER OPTIONS

ADJUSTED/ EQUIVALENT SEER/HSPF.

ADJUSTED/ EQUIVALENT EF (DIMENSIONLESS)

EE-DET-94-101 COMMENT 04

PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTORS 

.. ~ 

:iHY~DROTECH 2 000 , 

SEER, HSPF 

OPERAT-ING COSTS 

ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS 

NORDYNE 

SEER, HS·PF 

COMBINED HEATING PERFORMANCE FACTOR 

COMBINED COOLING PERFORMANCE FACTOR 

OTHER OPTIONS 

ADJUSTED/EQUIVALENTSEER/HSPF 

ADJUSTED/EQUIVALENT EF (DIMENSIONLESS) 
PRODUCTS

• AIR CONDITIONER/HEAT PUMPS & WATER HEATER

DESUPERHEATER

- FULLY INTEGRATED SYSTEM

• SPACE HEATING & WATER HEATING

- SPACE HEATING PRIMARY LOAD

- WATER HEATING PRIMARY LOAD

EE-DET-94-101 COMMENT 04

,-., f, ... ( PRODUCTS 

· AIR CONDITIONER/HEAT PUMPS & WATER HEATER 

- DESUPERHEATER 

- FULLY· INTEGRATED SYSTEM 

· SPACE HEATING & WATER HEATING 

- SPACE HEATING PRIMARY LOAD· 

- WATER HEATING PRIMARY LOAD 
DOE WAIVERS

.MANUFACTURER CARRIER NORDYNE

COMPRESSOR VARIABLE SPEED SINGLE SPEED

INDOOR FAN VARIABLE SPEED SINGLE SPEED

DEFROST HEAT HOT WATER INDOOR AIR

DEDICATED OUTDOOR COIL INDOOR COIL IN

WATER HEATING COOLING

MODE SEASON

CONTROLS MICRO- CONVENTIONAL

PROCESSOR CONTROLS

EE-DET-94-101 COMMENT 04

,"" 

ff ~. ~_ 

. "MANUFACTURER 

"COMPRESSOR 

INDOOR FAN 

DOE WA"IVERS 

CARRIER " NORDYNE 

VARIABLE SPEED SINGLE SPEED 

VAR"IABLE SPEED SINGLE SPEED 

DEFROST HEAT HOT WATER INDOOR AIR 

DEDICATED OUTDOOR COIL" INDOOR COIL IN 

WATER HEATING COOLING 

MODE ' SEASON 

CONTROLS " MICRO- CONVENTIONAL 

"PROCESSOR CONTROLS 
TESTING OF INTEGRATED SYSTEMS

' TEST OPERATING MODES

SPACE COOLING ONLY

A COMBINED COOL & DHW

B SPACE COOLING ONLY

B COMBINED COOL & DHW

B

C

COMBINED- SUT

SPACE COOLING ONLY

SPACE COOLING ONLY

SPACE HEATING ONLY

SPACE HEATING ONLY

COMBINED HEAT & DHWSPACE HEATING ONLY

SPACE HEATING ONLY

COMBINED HEAT & DHW

OPERATING CONDITION

STEADY-STATE

STEADY-STATE

STEADY-STATE

STEADY-STATE

CYCLIC

STEADY-STATE

CYCLIC

HIGH TEMPERATURE

CYCLIC HEATING

CYCLIC

DEFROST

LOW TEMPERATURE

LOW TEMPERATURE

EE-DET-94-101 COMMENT 04

TESTING OF INTEGRATED SYSTEMS 

..... 

.'fTEST OPERATING MODES OPERATING CONDITION 

,A SPACE COOLING ONLY STEADY-STATE " 

A COMBINED COOL & DHW STEADY-STATE 

B SPACE COOLING ONLY STEADY-STATE 

B COMBINED COOL & DHW STEADY-STATE / 

B COMB INED - SUT CYCLIC 

C SPACE COOLING ONLY STEADY~STATE 

D SPACE COOLING ONLY CYCLIC 

SPACE HEATING ONLY HIGH TEMPERATURE 

SPACE ljEATING ONLY, CYCLIC HEATING 

COMBINED HEAT & DHW CYCLIC . 

SPACE HEATING ONLY DEFROST 

SPACE HEATING Ol\JLY LOW TEMPERATURE 

COMBINED HEAT & DHW. LOW TEMP,ERATURE
No. 66862.

#### Sniafibres Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 61/1970, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon monofilament yarn and is so-called 15-denier monofilament nylon having a slight turn twist, composed of a single filament, weighing less than 150 deniers per length of 450 meters, and valued at more than $1.11% per pound, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
2003 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-10-2003

Lukwago v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 02-1812

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003

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 2003 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

"Lukwago v. Atty Gen USA" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 420.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/420
PRECEDENTIAL

Filed May 16, 2003

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 02-1812

BERNARD LUKWAGO

a/k/a MELVIN HAFT,

Petitioner

v.

JOHN ASHCROFT,

Attorney General of the United States,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(A78-420-780)

Before: SLOVITER, RENDELL, and GREENBERG,

Circuit Judges

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case,

filed May 14, 2003, be amended as follows: 

Page 8, line 14 - “supra p. 5” should be changed to

“supra p. 3.” 

Page 21, line 5 - change the word “class” to “particular

social group.” 

Page 35, line 14 - change the word “class” to “particular

social group.” 
By the Court,

/s/ Dolores K. Sloviter

Circuit Judge

DATED: May 16, 2003

A True Copy:

Teste:

Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2
No. 6598.

#### STATE, EX REL., OLIVIER WEBRE, vs. DEMOCRATIC PARISH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, ET ALS.

Appeal from the 28th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. John the Baptist, No. 489. Honorable John F. Fleury, Judge.

*276Opinion and decree, December 22nd, 1915.

P. E. Edrington, Jr., L. M. Reynaud, for defendant and appellee.

Guión, Lambremont and Chenet, for plaintiff and appellant.

Per Curiam.

This case presents the same question involved in the matter of State, ex rel., Elfer vs. Parish Democratic Executive Committee, et als., No. 6590 of our docket, this day decided, and for the reasons therein, set forth,

The judgment herein is annulled and reversed and it is now decreed that there be judgment in favor of relator herein ordering and commanding- the respondents herein to print and cause to be printed the name of relator upon all ballots to be used and cast at the primary election to be held in the Parish of St. John the Baptist on January 25, 1916, as a candidate of the Democratic Party for nomination to the office of Constable, Ward 5, of said Parish, and to certify relator’s name as such candidate' to the Secretary of. State of Louisiana; and it is further decreed that respondents pay the costs of both 'Courts.

Reversed.
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

ARNOLD J. FLEMING,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2347 MCE DAD P

vs.

DR. LINDNER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On September 12, 2005, the undersigned issued an order resolving four motions

filed by plaintiff and one motion filed by defendants. Plaintiff has filed two new motions.

First, plaintiff asks the court to reconsider the September 12, 2005 order with

regard to an observation contained in a footnote concerning exhaustion of administrative

remedies. Plaintiff offers argument and evidence on the issue.

Plaintiff is referred to the court’s order filed November 18, 2004. That order sets

forth in detail the requirements for opposing a defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. Defendant has been directed to file a renewed motion to

dismiss, and plaintiff has been directed to file opposition. All of plaintiff’s evidence and

arguments concerning exhaustion must be presented in opposition to defendant’s renewed

motion. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.

Case 2:04-cv-02347-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 10/03/05 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

Second, plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court

has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in

§ 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain

exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not

find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will

therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 27, 2005 motion for reconsideration of the order filed

September 12, 2005, is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s September 27, 2005 motion for the appointment of counsel is

denied.

DATED: September 30, 2005.

DAD:13

flem2347.31

Case 2:04-cv-02347-MCE -DAD Document 24 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 12.1
 COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Six Months Ended
    
    
    Years Ended December 31,June 30, 2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003($ in thousands)Fixed charges (1):Interest expense
    
    $
    349,028
    
    
    $
    847,241
    
    
    $
    606,725
    
    
    $
    185,935
    
    
    $
    79,053
    
    
    $
    39,956Interest capitalized
    
    
    
    
    
    
    357
    
    
    
    414
    
    
    
    932
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Interest portion of rental expense
    
    
    843
    
    
    
    1,697
    
    
    
    1,327
    
    
    
    1,244
    
    
    
    1,494
    
    
    
    843Total fixed charges
    
    $
    349,871
    
    
    $
    849,295
    
    
    $
    608,466
    
    
    $
    188,111
    
    
    $
    80,547
    
    
    $
    40,799Earnings:Net income before noncontrolling interest expenses
and income taxes
    
    $
    108,730
    
    
    $
    268,788
    
    
    $
    350,749
    
    
    $
    269,072
    
    
    $
    205,421
    
    
    $
    132,480Fixed charges
    
    
    349,871
    
    
    
    849,295
    
    
    
    608,466
    
    
    
    188,111
    
    
    
    80,547
    
    
    
    40,799Less: Interest capitalized
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (357
    )
    
    
    (414
    )
    
    
    (932
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total earnings
    
    $
    458,601
    
    
    $
    1,117,726
    
    
    $
    958,801
    
    
    $
    456,251
    
    
    $
    285,968
    
    
    $
    173,279Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.3
    x
    
    
    1.3
    x
    
    
    1.6
    x
    
    
    2.4
    x
    
    
    3.6
    x
    
    
    4.2
    x
 
 (1)
    
    Excludes interest related to the application of FIN 48.
Order entered April 30 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 19
- 01350
- CV
MIRAMAR FAIRMOUNT PA RTNERS, LLC AND CALABAZA HOLDINGS, L LC, Appellant s

V. 2902 MAPLE, LP , ANDERS P. TING , AND COMERICA BANK, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 16
- 10049

ORDER Before the Court is the April 27, 2020 motion of Calabaza Holdings, LLC for an extension of time to file i ts combined reply and cross

- appellee’s brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to June 8, 2020

. Also before the Court is the April 27, 2020 motion of Miramar Fairmount Partners, LLC for an extension of time to file its combined reply and cross

-app ellee’s brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to June 15, 2020

.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          26,378
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  638,120
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,669
<INVENTORY>                                     50,328
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               963,854
<PP&E>                                       6,167,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                 377,687
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,540,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,825,306
<BONDS>                                      3,293,326
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       564,192
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,101,649
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,540,283
<SALES>                                      1,745,481
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,745,481
<CGS>                                          956,181
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,440,424
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,460
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             251,986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                245,179
<INCOME-TAX>                                    90,527
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            154,652
<DISCONTINUED>                               (396,096)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (241,444)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.01)


</TABLE>