alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 50097.

#### Protest 66165-K of Kanebo, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial, the only evidence introduced was a report of a chemist of the United States Customs Laboratory reading, “The sample consists wholly of casein fibres.” Plaintiff argued that since the fibers in question consist wholly of casein, they cannot be compounds of casein, and it would be necessary to have some other ingredient compounded with casein in order to come under the provision of paragraph 33, citing *United States*v. *Olivier Straw Goods Corp.*(19 C. C. P. A. 71, T. D. 44898); *Brin & Wachenheim*v. *DuPont Cellophane Co.*(17 id. 122, T. D. 43454); and *Monticelli Bros.*v. *United States*(8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 21, T. D. 37162). Upon the record the court was unable to determine whether or not the principle of the cited cases had any application to the case at bar. It was held that the chemist’s report is insufficient to establish plaintiff’s claim, and there was nothing in the record to show how the merchandise *231was produced or manufactured. Therefore, it was held that the plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proof resting upon it to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector's classification. The protest was overrruled.
# C_2007294EN.01002101.xml

| 6.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/21

---

Corrigendum to the Notice of Initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the People's Republic of China and Russia

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 226 of 26 September 2007
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 226 of 26 September 2007

(2007/C 294/11)

On page 10, point 5.1(e) first sentence:

for:

for:

‘For those exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China and Belarus who claim ...’,

read:

read:

‘For those exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China who claim ...’;

and third sentence:

for:

for:

‘The Commission will send claim forms to all exporters/producers in Belarus and to those exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China who have been included in the sample and to any association of exporters/producers named in the complaint, as well as to the authorities of the People's Republic of China and Belarus.’,

read:

read:

‘The Commission will send claim forms to those exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China who have been included in the sample and to any association of exporters/producers named in the complaint, as well as to the authorities of the People's Republic of China.’

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130985 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130985 

 COA: 258579 

Wayne CC: 04-003502-02

JUAN D. BULLOCK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
(Reap. Dec. 8553)

#### R. J. Saundeus & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 902506; 954246.

(Decided February 21, 1956)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel, subject to the approval of the court,

> 1. That the merchandise the subject of the appeals enumerated above consists of vitamin products imported from Holland.

> 2. That, on or about the dates of exportation of the said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade, for home consumption therein or for export to the United States; that such or similar imported merchandise was not at the aforesaid times freely offered in the United States for sale for domestic consumption therein; that cost of production, as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis of appraisement of the said merchandise; and that such cost of production is represented by the invoice unit prices less charges for air freight, ocean freight, insurance and consular fee, as invoiced.

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

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the invoice unit prices, less charges for air freight, ocean freight, insurance, and consular fee, as invoiced.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4725 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to establish a criminal penalty 

for unauthorized access to Department of Defense facilities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11 (legislative day, JULY 10), 2024 

Mr. CRUZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to establish a criminal penalty for unauthorized access to Department of 

Defense facilities. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Guarding and Admin5 istering Trespass Enforcement, Controlling Restricted 

6 Areas, and Stopping High-risk Encroachment Recidivism 

7 and Sabotage Act’’ or the ‘‘GATE CRASHERS Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4725 IS

1 SEC. 2. UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO DEPARTMENT OF DE2 FENSE FACILITIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 67 of title 18, United 

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘§ 1390. Unauthorized access to Department of De7 fense facilities 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful, within the 

9 jurisdiction of the United States, without authorization to 

10 go upon any property that— 

11 ‘‘(1) is under the jurisdiction of the Depart12 ment of Defense; and 

13 ‘‘(2) has been clearly marked as closed or re14 stricted. 

15 ‘‘(b) PENALTIES.—Any person who violates sub16 section (a) shall— 

17 ‘‘(1) in the case of the first offense, be fined 

18 under this title, imprisoned not more than 180 days, 

19 or both; 

20 ‘‘(2) in the case of the second offense, be fined 

21 under this title, imprisoned not more than 3 years, 

22 or both; and 

23 ‘‘(3) in the case of the third or subsequent of24 fense, be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 

25 than 10 years, or both.’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4725 IS

1 (b) TABLE OF SECTIONS AMENDMENT.—The table of 

2 sections for chapter 67 of title 18, United States Code, 

3 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘1390. Unauthorized access to Department of Defense facilities.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Grant Prideco, Inc.
 March 1, 2007
    /s/ MICHAEL MCSHANEName:
    Michael McShaneTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer/s/    MATTHEW D. FITZGERALDName:
    Matthew D. FitzgeraldTitle:
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6617

EVERETTE N. QUILLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GREG DION; JOSEPH WHITMORE, Sergeant,

Defendants -Appellees,

and

JOE MCQUEEN,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District

Judge. (CA-99-220-5-BR-2)

Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Everette N. Quiller, Appellant Pro Se. Edwin Constant Bryson, Jr.,

PATTERSON, DILTHEY, CLAY & BRYSON, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Everette N. Quiller appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellees on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West

Supp. 2000) action. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See Quiller v. Dion, No. CA-99-220-5-BR-2

(E.D.N.C. Apr. 10, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SHAW N ANDER SON, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. C HR IS KRPAN; M IC HAEL FOSTER ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-15974 D.C . No. 1:14-c v-01380-AW IM JS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 25, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, GR AB ER , a nd C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Shawn Ande rson, a

C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing de libe ra te indiffe re nc e to his se rious m e dic a l ne e ds. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo a dism issa l unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1915A a nd 

# FIL ED N OV 02 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).1915(e )(2)(B )(ii). W ilhe lm v . Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th C ir. 2012); Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r). W e re v e rse and re m and. Dism issa l of Ande rson’ s a c tion wa s pre m ature be c a use Ande rson a lle ge d that de fe n da nts fa ile d to provideand de la y e d m e dic a l tre atm e nt for Ande rson’ s ankle . Libe ra lly

c o nstrue d, the se a lle gations in the am e nde d c om pla int we re

“ suffic ie nt to wa

rrant orde ring [de fe nda

nts] to file an a

n swe r.” W

ilhe lm , 680 F.3d at 1116; se e also id. at 1122 (de ny ing or de la y i ng m e dic a l tre atm e nt c an am ount to de libe ra t e indiffe re nc e ; a

prisone r ne e d not show his ha rm wa s substa

ntia l); Toguc hi v . C

hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th C ir. 2004) (a prison offic ia l is de libe ra t e ly

indiffe re nt if he or she knows of a nd disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to a

n inm ate ’ s he a lth). Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

1 5 - 1 5 9 7 4 2
Order entered June 3, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00138
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF T .J.S., A CHILD On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 14
- 15124 

### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s June 2, 2015 motion for an extension of time to file the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Appellant asks for an extension “until the Supreme Court rules on Appellant’s indigence in the Writ of Mandamus.” On May 29, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court denied appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion to the extent that the clerk’s record and reporter’s record shall be filed by JULY 3, 2015

. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to sen d a copy of this order by electronic transmission to Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk, Francheska Duffey, Official Court Reporter for the 330th Judicial District Court, appellant, and counsel for appellee.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
### NUMBER 13

- 12

- 00 637

- CV


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JIM HAMILTON , TDCJ# 1079035, Appellant ,

v.
BRAD LIVINGSTON, ET AL. , Appellee s

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 3 6th District Court of Bee County, Texas.

_ ___________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez , Benavides , and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

T he appellant's brief in the above cause was originally due on January 1 6, 201 3

. Appellant has previously requested and received two prior extensions of time to file the

brief. On April 26, 2013 , this Court ordere d the appellate brief to be filed on or before
May 24, 2013

. The order notified counsel that no further extensions would be granted

and that if the brief was not fil e d, the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of2

prosecution under Texas Rule of Appell ate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless appellant
reasonably explained the failure and the appellee s w ere not significantly injured by the
appellant's failure to timely file a brief.
Instead of filing the brief, appellant filed a third motion for extension of time to file

the brief requesting until June 1, 2013
, or in the alternative thirty days from the time the
ruling on the motion. On May 10, 2013, t he Court denied appellant’s motion for

extension of time to file the brief

. Appellant has failed to file h i s brief. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a), 42.3(b)
, (c)

.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 13th day of June , 20 1 3

.
(Reap. Dec. 10133)

#### Chain Bike Corporation James G. Wiley et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1556, etc.

(Decided December 28, 1961)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

*William E. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement, enumerated in the schedule attached to and made a part of this decision, involve the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain bicycles.

Said appeals have been submitted for decision upon a stipulation of the parties hereto, wherein it has been agreed that, on or about the date of exportation of the involved merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation to all purchasers for home consumption or for exportation to the United States. It was stipulated further that, on or about the said date of exportation, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the United States. The parties hereto agreed that the cost of production of such merchandise is equal to the invoice price, less the proportionate part of items of ocean freight, insurance, and consular fee, as invoiced.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that 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, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(f) ), is the proper basis of value for the bicycles in issue and that such value is the invoice price, less the proportionate part of items of ocean freight, insurance, and consular fee, as invoiced.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS BAADSGAARD; SHELLY BAADSGAARD,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, a Liberty Mutual Company,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 20

- 36104

D.C. No. 4:19

- cv

- 00075

- BMM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021 * *
Seattle, Washington

Before: GOULD, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Dennis and Shelly Baadsgaard appeal from the district court ’s entry of

summary judgment for Safeco Insurance Co.

, denial o f the Baadsgaards ’

application for additional discovery , and denial of the Baadsgaards’ objection to a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

* * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 10 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

pretrial protective discovery order

. We have jurisdiction under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1291

,

and we affirm

.

1. The district court properly granted summary judgment for Safeco.

Safeco w as prejudiced by the insured ’s failure to provide notice of the state court

complaint because Safeco was depriv ed of the opportunity to defend its insured

,

and it now faces exposure to potential liability far greater than its policy limits

.

See Steadele v. Colony Ins. Co., 260 P.3d 145, 1 49

– 51 (Mont. 2011)

.

Additionally, Safeco did not breach its duty to defend its insured because it was not

given notice of the state court complaint

, see id. , and the duty to defend does not

arise until a legal complaint is filed against the insured

, s ee Tidyman ’ s Mgmt.

Servs. Inc. v. Davis , 330 P.3d 1139, 1149 (Mont. 2014).

2

. The district court properly denied the Baadsgaards’ o bjection to the

protective order becau se “good cause” existed for the order under Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(c)(l) and the objection was moot

. S ee B.R.S. Land Invs. v. United States , 596

F.2d 353, 356 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam)

.

3. The district court properly denied the Baadsgaards ’ Rule 56(d)

application for further discovery because Safeco would still be entitled to summary

judgment even if the Baadsgaard s discovered additional sought

- after facts. See

Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc. , 899 F.3d 666, 678 (9th Cir. 2018).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,689,247              16,169,749
<SECURITIES>                                14,758,773               2,824,417
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,517,718               6,775,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (531,805)               (341,942)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,141,590              26,364,207
<PP&E>                                       3,897,975               3,852,245
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,131,686)             (1,569,489)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,626,303              35,647,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,926,037               5,192,345
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        34,818                  34,818
<OTHER-SE>                                   (385,626)               (315,883)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,626,303              35,647,691
<SALES>                                     20,553,176              25,552,056
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,553,176              25,552,056
<CGS>                                       15,151,776              17,389,784
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,151,776              17,389,784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               783,790                 740,251
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (24,919)                (40,421)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,685,967)                 216,701
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0               (114,695)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,685,967)                 331,396
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,685,967)                  71,093
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.35)                     .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.35)                     .00



</TABLE>
# C_2007152EN.01000601.xml

| 6.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/6

---

State aids — Decisions to propose appropriate measures pursuant to article 88(1) of the EC Treaty where the Member State concerned has accepted those measures

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 152/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 4.4.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | E 7/05 |
| Member State | Finland |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Alustakausjärjestelmä |
| Legal basis | Laki valtion alustakauksista 573/1972
  Laki 422/2001 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Sectoral development |
| Form of aid | Guarantee |
| Budget | — |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | Unlimited |
| Economic sectors | Shipbuilding |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Finnvera Plc — Eteläesplanadi, 8
  P.O. Box 1010
  FIN-00101 Helsinki |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

4.4.2007

Reference number of the aid

E 7/05

Member State

Finland

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Alustakausjärjestelmä

Legal basis

Laki valtion alustakauksista 573/1972

Laki 422/2001

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Sectoral development

Form of aid

Guarantee

Budget

—

Intensity

—

Duration

Unlimited

Economic sectors

Shipbuilding

Name and address of the granting authority

Finnvera Plc — Eteläesplanadi, 8

P.O. Box 1010

FIN-00101 Helsinki

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---