alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 54698.

#### J. & H. Baer, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 156029-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
#### Veronica Robinson, as Conservator of Vincent T. Robinson, et al., Respondents, v Robert Bosch Power Tool Corporation, Appellant, and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Defendants, et al., Third-Party Defendant. (And Third-Party Actions.)

[633 NYS2d 298]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered March 1, 1995, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiffs presented substantial circumstantial evidence in support of their design defect and failure to warn claims. " ' "Proof of defendant’s liability may be established by circumstantial as well as direct evidence.” ’ ” *(Flynn v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.,*94 AD2d 617, 618, *affd*61 NY2d 769.) A jury could reasonably infer that defendant-appellant’s chop saw was defectively designed and that the "defect was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs injury” *(Voss v Black & Decker Mfg. Co.,*59 NY2d 102, 110). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
KOLLMORGEN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES                   EXHIBIT 27
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED
      IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>        
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        12-MOS     
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                   17,789 
<SECURITIES>                                  0 
<RECEIVABLES>                            40,831 
<ALLOWANCES>                                697 
<INVENTORY>                              26,210 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         98,503 
<PP&E>                                  113,496 
<DEPRECIATION>                           84,693 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          147,474 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    71,038 
<BONDS>                                  40,340 
<COMMON>                                 26,904 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    25,506 
<PREFERRED>                                   0 
<OTHER-SE>                              (15,607)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            147,474 
<SALES>                                 219,493 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        228,655 
<CGS>                                   146,979 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           152,614 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         65,025 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        4,007 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           7,157 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       7,157 
<DISCONTINUED>                                0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0 
<CHANGES>                                     0 
<NET-INCOME>                              7,157 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.26 
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.26 
        



</TABLE>
## NUMBER 13

- 2 1

- 00 140

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ANDREW T. REED

, Appellant,

v.

PATTY CARRION, INDIVIDUALLY,

EDDY MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY,

DR. RAUL MARQUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY

AND D/B/A ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY

CENTER SPORTS MEDICINE

, Appellee s

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from County Court at Law No. 7

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s motion for extension of appellate

deadline

. On May 4

, 2021, a ppellant filed a notic e attempting to appeal the trial court’s2 Order Granting Dismissal and Attorney Fees

, signed on January 20, 202 1

. We now

dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

An appeal taken from a dismissal in such a case shall be accelerated

. See T EX

.

C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN . § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon 2008). To perfect an accelerated

appeal, the party is required to file a notice of appeal “within 20 days after the judgment

or order is signed.” Id. at R. 26.1(b). The filing of a motion for new trial, request for

finding s of fact and conclusions of law, or any other post

- judgment motion, except for a

motion for extension of time filed under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3, “will not

extend the time to perfect an accelerated appeal.” Id. at R. 26.3, 28.1(b).

We are to construe the rules of appellate procedure reasonably and liberally so

that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to

effectuate the purpose of a rule. See Verburgt v. Dorner

, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616

- 17 (Tex.

1997). Nevertheless, we are prohibited from enlarging the scope of our jurisdiction by

enlarging the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case in a manner not provided for by

rule. See Tex. R. App. P. 2; In re T.W., 89 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. App.

– Amari llo 2002, no

pet.).

A ppellant’s notice of appeal was untimely ; therefore, we lack jurisdiction

over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and appellant’s motion for extension

of appellate deadline for want of jurisdiction

.

CLARISSA SILVA

Justice

D elivered and filed on the

29 th day of July , 202 1.
No. 54704.

#### Bardinet Exports, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 159913-K (Philadelphia).

*282Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

September 1, 1944

No. 49689.

#### Protest 934877-G of Tarnower Bros., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilspn, J.

At the trial the only witness testified that the merchandise in question is the same or identical with exhibit B in decision reported in Abstract 47291. However, an examination revealed that the exhibit was not *279therein held dutiable as an unbleached hat. In accordance with said abstract the hats in question were held properly classified.
# EUR-Lex - 52007PC0786 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007PC0786

**Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument /* COM/2007/0786 final */ **

*

*

[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 5.12.2007

COM(2007) 786 final

Proposal for a

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the Mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006[1] allows for the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument to allow the financing of clearly identified expenditure which could not be financed within the limits of the ceilings available for one or more headings of the multiannual financial framework.

For budget 2008, additional expenditure, beyond the ceilings of sub-heading 1a and heading 4 is required. It is therefore proposed to mobilise the Flexibility Instrument in accordance with point 27 of the Interinsitutional Agreement.

The amounts to be mobilised are as follows:

- EUR 200 million towards the financing of the European GNSS programmes (EGNOS-GALILEO);

- EUR 70 million for the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Proposal for a

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the Mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management[2], and in particular point 27 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission[3],

Whereas:

At the conciliation meeting on 23 November 2007 the two arms of the budgetary authority agreed to mobilise the Flexibility Instrument to complement the financing in the 2008 budget of:

- the European GNSS programmes (EGNOS-GALILEO) for an amount of EUR 200 million;

- the Common Foreign and Security Policy for an amount of EUR 70 million.

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008 (hereinafter “the 2008 budget”), the flexibility instrument shall be used to provide the sum of EUR 270 million in commitment appropriations.

These amounts shall be used to complement the financing of:

- the European GNSS programmes (EGNOS-GALILEO) for an amount of EUR 200 million, under article 06 02 10 Galileo Programme in Sub-Heading 1a;

- the Common Foreign and Security Policy for an amount of EUR 70 million, under chapter 19 03 in Heading 4.

Article 2

This decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union at the same time as the 2008 budget.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

[1] OJ C 139, 14.06.2006, p. 1

[2] OJ C 139, 14.06.2006, p. 1.

[3] OJ [...]
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-706 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SPACE COOPERATION 

Dawn Mission 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ITALY 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Rome July 2 and 6, 2007 

with 

Memorandum of Understanding 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
ITALY 

Space Cooperation: Dawn Mission 

 Agreement effected by exchange of notes 

 at Rome July 2 and 6, 2007; 

 Entered into force July 6, 2007. 

 With memorandum of understanding. 











NOTE: The first paragraph of Article 12 should be numbered "12.1".
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-627.3 

________________________________________________________________________ 

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 

Article 98 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and SENEGAL 

Signed at Dakar June 19, 2003 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
SENEGAL 

International Criminal Court: Article 98 

 Agreement signed at Dakar June 19, 2003; 

 Entered into force June 27, 2003.
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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC., a California )

corporation, ) CIV. S-04-2407 GEB GGH

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

GLEN BOWEN, ) CONFERENCE

)

Defendant. )

)

The Status Report that Plaintiff filed May 27, 2005, reveals

a default judgment hearing is scheduled before the Magistrate Judge on

July 21, 2005. Since this action may be resolved by default judgment,

the Status Conference is continued to September 19, 2005. Plaintiff

shall file a status report no later than September 6, 2005, in which

Plaintiff is only required to explain the status of the default issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02407-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 1
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

LUIS DOMINGUEZ-CRUZ, No. 2:04-cv-1903-MCE-DAD-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

ROACH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On December 13, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order

Denying the Plaintiff’s September 1, 2005 Request for the

Appointment of Counsel. On May 1, 2006, Plaintiff filed a

Request for Reconsideration of that Order. Local Rule 72-303(b),

states “rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be final if no

reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within ten court

days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the

parties.” E.D. Local Rule 72-303(b). Plaintiff’s Request for

Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order of December 13,

2005 is therefore untimely.

///

Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD Document 18 Filed 05/19/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s May 1,

2006 Request for Reconsideration is denied.

DATED: May 18, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01903-MCE -DAD Document 18 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;
 (b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;
 (c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and
 (d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 /s/ Paul A. LangPaul A. LangPresident


Date: November 15, 2010
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-1206 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CIVIL AVIATION 

Transport Services 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and GEORGIA 

Signed at Washington June 21, 2007 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 GEORGIA 

Civil Aviation: Transport Services 

 Agreement signed at Washington 

 June 21, 2007; 

 Entered into force December 6, 2007. 

 With annexes. 
NOTE: The date the Convention on International Civil Aviation opened for sig
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 19, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40584 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NICOLAS PENA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-149-2

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Nicolas Pena appeals the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for importing cocaine. He argues that the district court erred by not finding that he played a minor role in the offense and sentencing him accordingly. As Pena concedes, this claim is reviewed for plain error only due to his failure to raise it in the district court. See United States v. Villegas , 404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir. 2005). Pena has failed to establish that he was less culpable than other participants in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2,No. 06-40584 -2- comment. (n.5). He has not shown that the district court plainly erred in connection with his sentence. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.3

               STATEMENT UNDER OATH OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
       REGARDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO EXCHANGE ACT FILINGS

I, Gaylen M. Brotherson, state and attest that:

     (1)  To the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the covered
          reports of M.B.A. Holdings, Inc., and, except as corrected or
          supplemented in a subsequent covered report:

          o    no covered report contained an untrue statement of a material
               fact as of the end of the period covered by such report (or in
               the case of a report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials,
               as of the date on which it was filed); and

          o    no covered report omitted to state a material fact necessary to
               make the statements in the covered report, in light of the
               circumstances under which they were made, not misleading as of
               the end of the period covered by such report (or in the case of a
               report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials, as of the date
               on which it was filed).

     (2)  I have reviewed the contents of this statement with the Company's
          Audit Committee.

     (3)  In this statement under oath, each of the following, if filed on or
          before the date of this statement, is a "covered report":

          o    Annual Report on Form 10-K of M.B.A. Holdings, Inc. for the year
               ended October 31, 2002 filed with the Securities and Exchange
               Commission, File Number 1-9183,

          o    all reports on Form 10-Q, all reports on Form 8-K and all
               definitive proxy materials of M.B.A. Holdings, Inc. filed with
               the Commission subsequent to the filing of the Form 10-K
               identified above; and

          o    any amendments to any of the foregoing.


/s/ Gaylen M. Brotherson
-------------------------------
Gaylen M. Brotherson
January 22, 2003

                                       Subscribed and sworn to before me
                                       this 22nd day of January 2003.

                                       /s/ Shelly Beesley
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Notary Public

                                       My Commission Expires:
                                       September 30, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0278

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

DANIEL HUNTER FLANSBURG,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Appellant Daniel Hunter Flansburg appeals from the Sentencing Order and Judgment

of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, in its Cause No. BDC-19-097. 

Flansburg argues the District Court erred by failing to give him credit for 169 days served

because it calculated his time from the wrong start date. 

The State has filed a Notice of Concession that this matter should be remanded to the 

District Court for the purpose of entering an amended sentence and judgment. The State 

agrees that in this case the District Court erred in failing to give Flansburg credit for sufficient

days served and that Flansburg is due credit for an additional 169 days.

Based on Flansburg’s opening brief and the State’s concession, and good cause 

appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Eighth Judicial 

District Court, Cascade County, with instructions for the District Court to amend its Judgment 

and Commitment to give Flansburg credit for an additional 169 days served.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of this appeal is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that REMITTITUR shall issue IMMEDIATELY UPON 

REMAND.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to 

presiding judge Honorable Elizabeth A. Best.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 8 2023

12/08/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0278
32.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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 Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kimberly A. Springsteen-Abbott, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (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.
 
 
 /s/Kimberly A. Springsteen-AbbottKimberly A. Springsteen-AbbottPrincipal Financial OfficerNovember 15, 2010