alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-20215

 

ARKWRIGHT-BOSTON MANUFACTURERS;

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; MUTUAL

MARINE OFFICE, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

JAMES E. ROSS, ET AL.,

Defendants,

JAMES E. ROSS and LLOYDS OF LONDON (reinsurers),

Defendants-Appellees.

versus

J. DOUGLAS SUTTER,

Defendant-Appellant,

versus

MAFRIGE & KORMANIK, P.C.; STEVENS MAFRIGE;

RONALD J. KORMANIK, G. BYRON SIMS; THOMAS A.

BROWN, BROWN SIMS WISE & WHITE, P.C.; THOMAS N. 

THURLOW, and CHARLES R. LIPCON,

Appellees.

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

TRACEY NAVIGATION CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES E. ROSS; THE OCEANUS MUTUAL UNDERWRITING

ASSOCIATION (BERMUDA); ALEXANDER & ALEXANDER

OF TEXAS, INC.
2

Defendants,

JAMES E. ROSS,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

J. DOUGLAS SUTTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

ARKWRIGHT-BOSTON MANUFACTURERS; MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY; MUTUAL MARINE OFFICE, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TRACEY NAVIGATION CO., LTD.; GONZALO SOSA,

Individually and Assignee of Tracey Navigation

Company, Intervenor;

Defendants-Third Party

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

and

GONZALO SOSA, Individually and Assignee

of Tracey Navigation Company,

Intervenor-Appellee,

versus

J. DOUGLAS SUTTER,

Third Party DefendantAppellant,

versus

JAMES E. ROSS,

Third Party DefendantAppellee.
 

*Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

3

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

 

June 11, 1996

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

After consideration of the briefs and record, this Court

concludes that appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible

error, or that the district court clearly erred or abused its

discretion in declining to impose sanctions under Rule 11 or

section 1927. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. The motion of appellees for sanctions under Rule 38 is

DENIED.
# EUR-Lex - 52007SC1631 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007SC1631

**Declaration - Joint Tripartite Declaration Establishing a "European Maritime Day" /* SEC/2007/1631 final */ **

*

*

[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 3.12.2007

SEC(2007) 1631 final

DECLARATION

Joint Tripartite Declaration Establishing a "European Maritime Day"

DECLARATION

Joint Tripartite Declaration Establishing a "European Maritime Day"

Recalling that Europe is a Maritime Continent with almost 70,000 km of coastline,

Recalling that 22 of the European Union’s 27 Member States are coastal or island States,

Recalling that the maritime regions of the European Union account for some 40% of its GDP and of its population,

Recalling that over two thirds of the Union’s boundaries are maritime and that the maritime spaces under the jurisdiction of its Member States are larger than their terrestrial territory,

Recalling the economic importance of, and synergies between sectors as diverse as shipbuilding and shipping, ports and fisheries, offshore energy, tourism, environment and maritime heritage,

Recalling that Europe must enhance its capacity to deal with the major challenges it faces such as globalisation, climate change, energy sustainability and environmental pressures on the coasts and seas,

Recalling the importance of coastal regions, islands and the outermost regions and the relevance of regional and local authorities in shaping and implementing the future European maritime policy,

Recalling the importance of a healthy marine environment both for the sustainability of economic activities on the seas and for the quality of life in coastal regions,

Mindful of the common heritage and the common responsibility of Europeans for the oceans and seas,

Recalling the vastness of the world's oceans and the role which the EU can play in preserving them as a resource for the future of mankind,

Underlining the necessity to increase awareness and visibility of the importance of the oceans, of a vibrant maritime economy and of the rich European maritime heritage the benefits of which should be celebrated each year,

The European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

Approve the establishment of a "European Maritime Day" to be celebrated May 20th each year, around which awareness raising and networking activities will be organised.
Before the First Division,

March 21, 1946

No. 50954.

#### Petition 6497-R of Chemco, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It appeared from the record that the petitioner manufactured a sensitized paper for X-ray films. Before the outbreak of the war petitioner bought from a domestic source all the basic paper used by it in the manufacture of this product. Thereafter, it became necessary to locate a *243new source of supply, and ultimately petitioner placed orders with a firm in England making the type of paper required. Petitioner was willing to pay whatever price the British firm charged and left it up to them to invoice the merchandise at whatever price was the prevailing market value at the time shipment was made. Prior to entry the customs broker filed a submission sheet with the appraiser requesting information as to value, upon which the appraiser placed a notation stating that the correct foreign or export value be ascertained from the shipper. However, petitioner and the broker concluded that the purchase price was at least as high as the market value for the reason that they could not conceive of any firm shipping merchandise at less than market value under the circumstances surrounding this transaction, and therefore decided to adhere to the entered value. It was appraised at the entered value which was based upon the purchase price and the collector thereafter appealed for reappraisement. No trial was had but the parties by stipulation agreed on a value higher than the entered value, and the case was decided on the basis of that stipulation. Upon the record the court was convinced that petitioner acted in good faith and that there was no intention to conceal or misrepresent any of the facts or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
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 

- 1 -

McC

U

R

D

Y

&

F

U

L

L

E

R

L

L

P

1080 Marsh Road, Suite 110

Menlo Park, C

A 94025

(650) 618-3500

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL POOL, 

INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 100, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO.: CIV. S-04-2689 MCE JFM 

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE, ORDER THEREON 

Plaintiff Transport International Pool, Inc. respectfully requests that this Court dismiss with 

prejudice its complaint filed in this action against defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. 

DATED: November 14, 2005 BARRY, UBALDI, MCPHERSON & FLESHER 

 By: _________/S/_________________________

 DENNIS McPHERSON 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL POOL, 

 INC. 

Case 2:04-cv-02689-MCE -JFM Document 14 Filed 11/29/05 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 

27 

28 

- 2 -

McC

U

R

D

Y

&

F

U

L

L

E

R

L

L

P

1080 Marsh Road, Suite 110

Menlo Park, C

A 94025

(650) 618-3500

Pursuant to the request of plaintiff, as against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, this 

matter is ordered dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

DATED: November 29, 2005 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 

Case 2:04-cv-02689-MCE -JFM Document 14 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 49701.

#### Protests 61360-K, etc., of H. B. Lambert Co., Inc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the merchandise in question is similar to that the subject of *United States*v. *Yick Shew Tong Co.*(25 C. C. P. A. 255, T. D. 49392) and *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States,*5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372, Yuk Chook Pin and Sar Sum Pin. were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34. It was further stipulated that certain other merchandise consists of Lung Ngan Yuk or Yuen Yuk, etc.; dried lily seeds (Gone Lin Tze) or (Pak Lin Tze); dried lily bulbs (Oi Hop Gone) or (Gone Bak Hop); dried lotus nuts; Yuk Chook; Lui Hang Kor, etc., the same as the merchandise involved in *United States*v. *Yick Shew Tong Co., supra,*and *Oy Wong Tong Co.*v. *United States, supra.*In accordance therewith this merchandise was held entitled to free entry under paragraph -1669. Protests sustained to this extent.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) ASFA Construction ) ) Under Contract No. W912PB-13-P-0157 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61471

Theodore P. Watson, Esq.

Watson & Associates, LLC Aurora, CO Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney LTC Robert B. Nelson, JA

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL For reasons indicated by the parties, the Board is unable to proceed with disposition ofthese appeals for an inordinate length oftime due to factors not within the control ofthe Board. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Board Rule l 8(b). Unless either party or the Board acts to reinstate the appeal within one year from the date ofthis Order, the dismissal shall be deemed with prejudice. Dated: July 11, 2019

OWEN C. WILSON Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61471, Appeal ofASFA Construction, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated: PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Case Financial, Inc., (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Eric A. Alden, chief executive officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13a-14(b)
            or 15d-14(b) 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 results of operations
            of the Company.

Date: January 12, 2004

                                        /s/ Eric A. Alden
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Eric A. Alden
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                       62
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the quarterly report of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2008 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Frank Rovito, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Frank Rovito

Frank RovitoChief Financial OfficerDated: September 18, 2008

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to East Coast Diversified Corporationand will be retained by East Coast Diversified Corporation and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 63137.

#### Air Clearance Association, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/17716 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
(November 16, 1995)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terry R. Clark, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 412]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered March 1, 1993, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

Defense counsel has made application to be relieved as counsel for defendant on the basis that there are no nonfrivolous issues that may be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record and defense counsel’s brief, we agree. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and defense counsel’s application to be relieved of assignment is granted.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
f 1

3*UlJ!*ujdLjAJLj^^ C-y

Sicctf- ai C £/0_o5^oj_(L12&U&&—J&&L.

•S3SJ2&&

Rica*Jo C*<s&Z05> */3S$?tfC

fiECHVEDiir

COURTOFCRmwALAPPei^

MAY 15 2015

-^b©mcostarcii«r
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20215

ARKWRIGHT-BOSTON MANUFACTURERS; MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; MUTUAL MARINE OFFICE, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus
JAMES E. ROSS, ET AL., Defendants, JAMES E. ROSS and LLOYDS OF LONDON (reinsurers), Defendants-Appellees.

versus J. DOUGLAS SUTTER, Defendant-Appellant,

versus MAFRIGE & KORMANIK, P.C.; STEVENS MAFRIGE; RONALD J. KORMANIK, G. BYRON SIMS; THOMAS A. BROWN, BROWN SIMS WISE & WHITE, P.C.; THOMAS N. THURLOW, and CHARLES R. LIPCON, Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TRACEY NAVIGATION CO., LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMES E. ROSS; THE OCEANUS MUTUAL UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION (BERMUDA); ALEXANDER & ALEXANDER OF TEXAS, INC.2 Defendants,

JAMES E. ROSS, Defendant-Appellee, and J. DOUGLAS SUTTER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ARKWRIGHT-BOSTON MANUFACTURERS; MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; MUTUAL MARINE OFFICE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TRACEY NAVIGATION CO., LTD.; GONZALO SOSA, Individually and Assignee of Tracey Navigation Company, Intervenor; Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellees, and GONZALO SOSA, Individually and Assignee of Tracey Navigation Company, Intervenor-Appellee,

versus J. DOUGLAS SUTTER, Third Party DefendantAppellant,

versus JAMES E. ROSS, Third Party DefendantAppellee.* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. 3 Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

June 11, 1996 Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. *
PER CURIAM: After consideration of the briefs and record, this Court concludes that appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible
error, or that the district court clearly erred or abused its discretion in declining to impose sanctions under Rule 11 or section 1927. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The motion of appellees for sanctions under Rule 38 is
DENIED.
# Table 1-1

# Table 1-1-contd

# Table 1-2

# Table 1-2-contd

# Table 1-3

# Table 1-3-contd

# Table 1-4

# Table 1-4-contd

# Table 1-5

# Table 1-5-contd

# Table 1-6

# Table 1-6-contd
No. 55282.

#### I. L. Hartman & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 154728-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 44019.

#### Protest 800314-G of Kresge Dept. Store (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303) the Rockingham-ware in question was held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 210 as claimed.
29–008 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 113–31 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 678) 

TO AUTHORIZE ALL BUREAU OF RECLAMATION CONDUIT FACILITIES FOR HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT 

UNDER FEDERAL RECLAMATION LAW, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

APRIL 9, 2013.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 140] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 140, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 678, the Bureau 

of Reclamation and Small Conduit Hydropower Development and 

Rural Jobs Act, under a modified open rule. The resolution provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by 

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The resolution waives all points of order against 

consideration of the bill. The resolution provides that the bill shall 

be considered as read. The resolution waives all points of order 

against provisions in the bill. The resolution makes in order only 

those amendments that are submitted for printing in the Congressional Record dated at least one day before the day of consideration 

of the amendment and pro forma amendments for the purpose of 

debate. Each amendment submitted for printing may be offered 

only by the Member who submitted it for printing or the Member’s 

designee and shall be considered as read if printed. The resolution 

provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

Although the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the Committee is not aware of any points of 

order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature. 

Although the resolution waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, the Committee is not aware of any points of order. 

The waiver prophylactic in nature. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 40 (Thursday, March 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3653]



[[Page 9342]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): NIOSH Occupational Safety and Health Project 
Grants, Program Announcement Number (PAR) 06-484

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

    Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., March 15, 2007 (Closed).
    Place: Residence Inn, 1456 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, 
telephone 703-548-5474.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis 
and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The SEP meeting will include the 
review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in 
response to ``NIOSH Occupational Safety and Health Project Grants,'' 
PAR 06-484. The applications being reviewed include information of a 
confidential nature, including personal information concerning 
individuals associated with the applications.
    This Federal Register Notice is being published on less than 15 
calendar days notice to the public (41 CFR 102-3.150(b)), for the 
following reason: The cancellation of a preparatory meeting 
scheduled for January 16th due to inclement weather caused the late 
publication of this notice. Convening the preparatory meeting was 
necessary before this meeting could be scheduled. The preparatory 
meeting occurred on February 20-21, 2007, which enabled the program 
to finalize plans for this meeting.
    For Further Information Contact:Charles Rafferty, Ph.D., 
Designated Federal Officer, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30333, 
telephone 404-498-2582.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: February 26, 2007.
Elaine L. Baker,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E7-3653 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT
C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N (C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2
, SU B P ART B

. SE04360A144
No. 55983.

protests 167068-K, 167070-K, and 169253-K (Boston).

#### Fred Theise Mfg. Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129752 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: 129752 

 COA: 261428 

Wayne CC: 01-008224

TYRONE V. ALLEN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 23, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p1219 

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. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk