alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.7


 


This Assignment and Assumption of Leases and Security Deposits (“Assignment”) is entered
into as of the 16th day of March, 2015.


 






    	1



    	 



    

 


 






    	2



    	 



    

 


 






    	3



    	 



    

 


 






    	4



    	 



    

 


 






    	5



    	 



    

 


 






    	6



    	 



    

 


 






    	7



    	 



    

 


 






    	8



    	 



    

 


 






    	9
(Reap. Dec. 10774)

#### Berben Corp. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 884827, etc.

(Decided June 10, 1964)

*Barnes, Richardson & Oolbwrn*for the plaintiffs.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made a part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain pistols and parts thereof and fittings therefor.

The parties hereto have submitted the appeals for decision on 'a stipulation of facts which reads as follows:

> That the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof are limited to the merchandise described on the invoices as pistols, with or without other words of description, and parts thereof and fittings therefor, and exported by the firm of Pietro Beretta, Italy.

> *591That tlie issues are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *Berben Corporation*v. *United States,*Reap. Dee. 10552, and that the record therein maybe incorporated herein.

> That at the time of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Italy or for exportation to the United States, and was likewise not freely offered for sale in the United States.

> That at the time of exportation the cost of production of the merchandise involved herein, as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the entered value.

Upon, the record before the court, I find and bold 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 pistols and parts thereof and fittings therefor in issue and that said value is represented by the entered value.

As to all other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Timothy J. WEIR, Appellant

No. 83-2377.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 30, 1983.

Decided Jan. 5, 1984.

*95Timothy J. Weir, pro se.

Before HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and JOHN R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Timothy J. Weir stands convicted of two counts of failure to file income tax returns. On the first count, the Magistrate sentenced Weir to six months imprisonment; on the second count, Weir was fined and costs were assessed against him, and after the Magistrate suspended imposition of his sentence, Weir was placed on three years probation. Weir, in a *pro se*petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asked the court to set aside his sentence. In his section 2255 petition, Weir argued initially that the Magistrate improperly invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3651 with respect to Count II because he did not articulate any specific sentence terms before suspending imposition of sentence. Secondly, Weir argued that his sentence violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(a) because Weir was absent when the written order of sentence was executed. The district court dismissed the petition and we affirm.

18 U.S.C. § 3651 provides, in pertinent part, that after the district court enters a judgment of conviction, it “may suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place the defendant on probation” if doing so would promote justice and be in the public interest. By the statute’s plain meaning, where imposition of the sentence is stayed, pronouncement of a specific term is unnecessary.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(a) mandates the defendant’s presence at certain stages of the criminal proceedings against him, including at “imposition of sentence.” Weir was present at his sentencing hearing. Because the oral sentence and not the written order constitutes the actual judgment of the court, *United States v. Marquez,*506 F.2d 620, 622 (2d Cir.1974); *United States v. Raftis,*427 F.2d 1145, 1146 (8th Cir.1970), Weir was not prejudiced by being absent at the entry of the written order.

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 VALENTIN GANNITSKIY, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-73601 Age n c y No. A074-806-631 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 20, 2016 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TASHIM A, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Va le ntin Ga

nnitskiy , a

native and c itiz e n of Ukra ine , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED JAN 26 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 9th C ir. R . 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, inc luding a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inations, C

h e bc houb v . IN S , 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th C ir. 2001), a nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm ination ba se d on Ga

nnitskiy ’ s subm ission of a n a lte re d birth c e rtific at e , the inc onsiste nc ie s re ga rding his surna

m e , a nd his fa ilure to c orroborate his c la im . Se e id. at 1045; De sta v . Ashc roft , 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th C ir. 2004) (a dve rse c re dibility finding supporte d whe re fra

udule nt doc um e nts a

nd inc onsiste nc ie s in te stim o ny we nt to the h e art of the c la im ). Ga nnitskiy ’ s e xpla

nations do not c om

pe l the c ontra

ry re sult. Se e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th C i r. 2000). In the a bse nc e of c re d ible t e s tim ony , his a s y lum and withholding of re m o va l c la im s fa il. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). Fina lly , Ga

nnitskiy ’ s C AT c la im

a lso fa ils be c a

use it is ba se d on the sa

m e sta te m e nts thea ge nc y

found not c re dible , a

nd he doe s not point to a

ny othe r e vide nc e in the re c ord to c om pe l a finding tha

t it is more like ly tha

n not he would be torture d if re turne d to Ukra ine . Se e Almaghzar v . Gonzale s , 457 F.3d 915, 923 (9th C ir. 2006). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 3 6 0 1 2
Before the Second Division,

December 5, 1947

No. 52061.

#### High Grade Import Co. *v.*United States,

protests 612920-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of knit fabric the same in all material respects as the fabric of which the gloves the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333) were made. In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 489 

To prohibit any direct or indirect United States funding for the territory 

of Gaza unless certain conditions are met. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To prohibit any direct or indirect United States funding 

for the territory of Gaza unless certain conditions are met. 

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 ‘‘Stop Taxpayer Fund5 ing of Hamas Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON THE EXPENDITURE FOR FEDERAL 

7 FUNDS IN GAZA. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—No United States Government 

9 funds may be obligated or expended in the territory of 

10 Gaza until after the President certifies to the Committee 


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 489 IS

1 on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee 

2 on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives that 

3 such funds can be expended without benefitting any orga4 nization or persons that is— 

5 (1) a member of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic 

6 Jihad, or any other organization designated by the 

7 Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist organization 

8 under section 219 of the Immigration and Nation9 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); or 

10 (2) controlled or influenced by Hamas, Pales11 tinian Islamic Jihad, or any such foreign terrorist 

12 organization. 

13 (b) UNITED NATIONS ENTITIES.—No United States 

14 Government funds may be obligated or expended in the 

15 territory of Gaza through any United Nations entity or 

16 office unless the President certifies to the congressional 

17 committees referred to in subsection (a) that such entity 

18 or office is not encouraging or teaching anti-Israel or anti19 Semitic ideas or propaganda. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 10107)

#### C. S. Emery & Company *v.*United States

Entry No. K-2214, etc.

*521(Decided November 22, 1961)

*Sharretts, Paley & Garter*for tbe plaintiff.

*William E. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “C,” 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 by and between counsel for tbe parties hereto that tbe merchandise covered by tbe appeals for reappraisement listed on Schedule O, hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of Masonite Presdwood, Panelwood, and similar products exported from Canada during 1957.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there is no foreign value, export value or United States value, as those terms are defined in section 402 (e), (d) and (e), respectively, of the Tariff Act of 1930, for such or similar merchandise and that the costs of production as defined in section 402(f) of said Act for the respective products marked A and checked CEN, ERH, WRR, WVC, SBM (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiners Clarence E. Nolin, Frank R. Horton, William R. Rawley, William V. Caputo, Stuart B. Myers (Examiner’s Name) on said invoices, is stated on Schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof, and said costs of production for the respective products marked B and checked CEN, FRH, WRR, WVC, SBM, (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiners Clarence E. Nolin, Frank R. Horton, William R. Rawley, William V. Caputo, Stuart B. Myers (Examiner’s Name) on said invoices, is stated on Schedule B hereto attached and made a part hereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals for reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts, I find that tbe proper basis for appraisement of tbe merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is cost of production, as defined in section 402(f) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, and bold that such statutory value therefor is as set forth in schedules “A” and “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 27, 2019

No. 04-19-00159-CR

Alfred CASAREZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-0358-CR-C

Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The panel has considered Appellant’s motion for rehearing; the motion is DENIED. See

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.051(e), (g) (transfer to adult community supervision); Davis v. State, 

195 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“There is no legislative authority for entertaining 

a direct appeal from an order modifying the conditions of community supervision.”).

It is so ORDERED on June 27, 2019.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 5721] 

*Summary:*                     Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition                           ( print page 11928)                        “Royal Portraits of Celebration”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, from on or about April 27, 2007, until on or about September 3, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

*For Further Information Contact:*                     For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.                 

Dated: March 5, 2007. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

 [FR Doc. E7-4660 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
No. 61366.

protests 302794-K (B), etc. (New York).

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc., and Yanowitch Fur Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “L” consist of lambskin plates similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Prime Fur Corp.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 83, C. D. 1802), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1802, *supra.*
# C_2007277EN.01001801.xml

| 20.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/18

---

Communication from the Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the basis of Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2007/C 277/12)

The Minister for Economic Affairs hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block P3 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).

Mijnbouwregeling

Staatscourant

With reference to the Directive Directive 94/22/EC mentioned in the introduction and Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit a competing application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block P3 of the Dutch continental shelf.

Mijnbouwwet

Staatsblad

The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the above-mentioned Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to: The Minister for Economic Affairs, For the attention of J.C. De Groot, Director for the Energy Market, ALP/562, P.O. Box 20101, 2500 EC Den Haag, the Netherlands.

Official Journal of the European Union

Applications submitted after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than twelve months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained from the following telephone number: (31-70) 379 77 62 (contact person: E.J. Hoppel).

---
# C_2007053EN.01000301.xml

| 8.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/3

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92

Amendment of public service obligations imposed on certain scheduled air services in Spain

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 53/03)

Pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992, the Spanish Government has decided to amend the public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services in the Balearic Islands published in OJ C 307 of 17 December 2003 and amended in OJ C 95 of 22 April 2006.

The maximum fare for a single ticket shall be as follows:

| a) | Majorca-Ibiza: EUR 85 |
| --- | --- |

a)

Majorca-Ibiza: EUR 85

| b) | Majorca-Minorca: EUR 85 |
| --- | --- |

b)

Majorca-Minorca: EUR 85

| c) | Minorca-Ibiza: EUR 117 |
| --- | --- |

c)

Minorca-Ibiza: EUR 117

The other requirements of the public service obligation published in OJ C 307 of 17 December 2003 remain unchanged.

---
Attachment VII

2003 SIP Submittal
No. 53023.

#### K. Iguchi et al. *v.*United States,

protests 836381-G, etc. (Providence).

*284Opinion by

Cole, J.

An examination of the official record in each protest disclosing nothing to warrant disturbing the decision of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protests were overruled.
#### Hinkler *v.*Hoover et al., Appellants.

Argued October 10, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*Irving 0. Murphy,*with him *MacDonald, Illig, Jones d Britton,*for defendant, appellant.

*James D. McDonald, Jr.,*with him *Quinn, Plate, Gent, Buseek & Leemhuis,*for additional defendant, appellant.

*John W. Beatty,*with him *Knox, Graham, Pearson & McLaughlin,*for appellee.

*632*Thomas J.*McCarthy, and *Shreve, Sennett, McCarthy & Higgins,*for appellee.

November 27, 1968:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgments affirmed.

Mr. Justice Musmanno took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAFAR AFSHAR,

NO. CIV. S-04-1088 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO

POLICE DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; and SHERIFF

LOU BLANAS, individually and in his

official capacity as Sheriff of the

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of the parties’ pretrial statements.

A Pretrial Conference is currently set for February 6, 2006 at 2:00

p.m. Also pending before the court are cross-motions for summary

judgment, which are set to be heard on the court’s February 27,

2006 law and motion calendar. Given the pending cross-motions, the

Pretrial Conference is CONTINUED to June 6, 2006 at 2:30 p.m.

DATED: January 24, 2006.

 /s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 83 Filed 01/25/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 52057.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

protests 125200-K, etc. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation that the merchandise consists of rhubarb similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(19 Cust. Ct. 12, C. D. 1060) the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 752 was sustained.
No. 58076.

protest 839016-G (New York).

#### Natt Weinstock, Inc. v. United States,

Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Fobd, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in O. D. 1480, *supra.*