alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 51774.

#### Protests 486860-G, etc., of Fownes Bros. & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiffs was therefore sustained.
# C_2007262EN.01001501.xml

| 1.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/15

---

Notice concerning the countervailing measures in force in respect of imports into the Community of cotton-type bed linen originating in India: modification of the name of a company subject to an individual countervailing duty rate

(2007/C 262/13)

Imports of cotton-type bed linen, originating in India are subject to a definitive countervailing duty, imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2004 (1).

1

Ramesh Textiles, a company located in India, whose exports to the Community of cotton-type bed linen are subject to an individual countervailing duty rate of 7,6 % imposed pursuant to Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 74/2004, has informed the Commission that on 1 April 2007, it changed its name to Ramesh Textiles India Pvt. Ltd.

The company has argued that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the individual duty rate applied to the company under its previous name of Ramesh Textiles.

The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Regulation (EC) No 74/2004. Therefore, the reference to Ramesh Textiles should be read as Ramesh Textiles India Pvt. Ltd in the Annex of Regulation (EC) No 74/2004.

The Taric additional code A498 previously attributed to Ramesh Textiles shall apply to Ramesh Textiles India Pvt. Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ L 12, 17.1.2004, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1840/2006 (OJ L 355, 15.12.2006, p. 4).

1

---
#### Sheila Mann, Petitioner *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent.

Argued March 5, 1981,

before Judges Mencer, MacPhail and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three.

*Jose E. Morales,*with him *Patricia L. Smith,*for petitioner.

*William J. Kennedy,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *Richard Wagner,*Chief Counsel, and *LeRoy S. Zimmerman,*Attorney General, for respondent.

April 7, 1981:

Opinion by

Judge MacPhail,

This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which denied *320unemployment compensation benefits to Appellant because she voluntarily quit her employment without necessitous or compelling reasons.1

Appellant, a black female, was employed by the Burroughs Corporation as an associate instructor in electronics as a part of the employer’s “New Jobs for Women” affirmative action program. After seven and one-half months on the job, she quit. Her reasons for doing so constitute the sole issue in this case. Appellant contends that she was forced to quit by circumstances attendant to her employment. The employer denied that those circumstances existed. Appellant had the benefit of two hearings. At the first hearing she alluded to some racial discrimination as the reason for her quitting. At the second hearing she testified she quit because she was undergoing emotional and psychological stress due to being forced to teach a course for which she had been inadequately trained.

Since the Appellant did quit voluntarily, it was her burden to show cause of a necessitous or compelling nature for doing so. The Board twice concluded that she had failed to sustain that burden.

Where the decision of the Board is against the person having the burden of proof, the Board will be affirmed in the absence of a capricious disregard of competent evidence. *Houff Transfer, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,*40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 238, 397 A.2d 42 (1979). Our careful review of the record in this case convinces us that there has been no capricious disregard of evidence by the Board except with respect to Finding of Fact No. 5,2 an error admitted by the Board in this appeal. *321That erroneous finding is not crucial to the result in the instant case.

Accordingly, we affirm.

Order

And Now, April 10, 1981, the order entered April 7,1981, is amended to read as follows:

> And Now, this 7th day of April, 1981, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated January 16, 1980, in appeal No. B-79-1-B-260 denying unemployment compensation benefits to Sheila Mann is affirmed.

Judge Wilkinson, Jr. did not participate in the decision in this case.

1

 Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, *as amended,*43 P.S. §802(b)(l).

2

 5. Claimant did not bring her dissatisfaction to the attention of management.
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

LARKLAND GASSOWAY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2026 WBS KJM P

vs.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE 

OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed on February 9, 2005. 

Documents filed by petitioner since the closing date will be disregarded and no orders will issue

in response to future filings.

DATED: May 16, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp

gass2026.158

Case 2:04-cv-02026-WBS -KJM Document 13 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 1
NO. 07-12-0435-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

NOVEMBER 7, 2012

______________________________

NICOLE HICKS,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellees

______________________________

FROM THE 364th DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2011-429,920; HON. BRADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellant Nicole Hicks appeals from her conviction for the offense of theft of over 

$20,000 but less than $100,000. On November 2, 2012, the clerk’s record was filed. 

The reporter’s record was due on November 5, 2012. On November 5, 2012, the 

reporter filed a request for an extension of time to file the record for the reasons that 

appellant has not submitted a request for preparation and a written designation for the 

record, nor has she paid for the record.
2

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the causes to the 364th District 

Court of Lubbock County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial 

court shall determine, via hearing or other reasonable means:

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; 

 2. whether appellant is indigent; and, if so,

3. whether the appellant is entitled to a free record or appointed counsel.

The trial court is also directed to enter such orders necessary to address the 

aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters 

(including the name, address, and phone number of any attorney it may appoint to 

represent appellant in this appeal) in a supplemental record and cause that record to be 

filed with this court by December 7, 2012. Should further time be needed to perform 

these tasks, then same must be requested before December 7, 2012. 

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Before the Second Division,

April 24, 1946

No. 51039.

#### Protests 928548-G, etc., of Katz Berk Hat Body Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record established that certain items of the merchandise consist of hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 47291. Upon the established facts and following the authority cited the merchandise in question was held dutiable as claimed.
Exhibit 23










Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Fidelity D & D Bancorp, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission of our report dated March 29, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Fidelity D & D Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, which report appears in the Registrant’s Annual Report to Shareholders for the year ended December 31, 2010 and in the registrant’s registration numbers 333-152806, 333-113339 and 333-64356.





/s/ ParenteBeard LLCParenteBeard LLCWilkes-Barre, PennsylvaniaMarch 29, 2011
No. 41819.

#### Protest 211731-G of Abraham & Straus, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record established that certain of the items in question consist of Normandy laces similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim was therefore sustained as to these articles.
#### Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, Appellant-Respondent, v Diane Costa, Respondent-Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 571]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. *971Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the cross motions of plaintiff and defendant for summary judgment. The record reveals that material issues of fact exist regarding whether defendant made material misrepresentations on her application for the disability income insurance policy issued to her by plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to establish that it would have rejected defendant’s application in the absence of the alleged misrepresentations and failed to submit sufficient proof of its underwriting practices regarding applicants with similar histories *(see, Church of Transfiguration v New Hampshire Ins. Co.,*207 AD2d 1039).

Although the notice of appeal recites that plaintiff appeals from that part of the order granting defendant leave to amend her answer and second counterclaim, plaintiff on appeal does not address that part of the order. Plaintiff has thus abandoned the issue on appeal *(see, Sto Corp. v Henrietta Bldg. Supplies,*202 AD2d 969, 969-970). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
#### ARTHUR P. BRODERSON, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. JOHN SPERLING, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Messrs. Teltser, Byrne & Greenberg, Mr. Bernard D. Pearl*and *Mr. Philip M. Freedman*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Accardi & Koch*for the respondents.

May 14, 1968.

Denied.
Before the First Division,

May 28, 1953

No. 57354.

protest 201153-K (New York).

#### Gerhard & Hey Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cellophane sheets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Coughlin Mfg. Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 40, C. D. 1345) and *Gillette Safety Razor Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 44, C. D. 1346), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
446 A.2d 689

#### Commonwealth v. Graham, Appellant.

Submitted November 6, 1981.

Harris R. Rosen, for appellant; Jane C. Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before SPAETH, BECK and LIPEZ, JJ.

The order is affirmed.
No. 45003.

#### Protest 24596-K of M. Zwiebel (New York).

Opinion by

Oliveb, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of squawker balloons in part of bamboo similar to those the subject of Abstract 40493. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 was therefore sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8556)

#### Hancor, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 882415.

(Decided March 9, 1956)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

When this case was called for hearing, the record indicates that there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff and the case was submitted “subject to a motion for judgment by defendant.”

In conformity with the requirements of the statute (28 U. S. C. § 2631), I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment for defendant will be entered accordingly.
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 Homeland Security

###### Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 

          - [CBP Dec. 07-08] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice of re-approval of Thionville Surveying Co., Inc., of New Orleans, Louisiana, as a commercial gauger and laboratory. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13, Thionville Surveying Co., Inc., 5440 Pepsi Street, Harahan, Louisiana 70123, has been re-approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils, and to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analysis or gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific tests or gauger services this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                        *http://www.cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​org_​and_​operations.xml*.                     

# DATES:

The re-approval of Thionville Surveying Co., Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on June 23, 2005. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene J. Bondoc, Ph.D, or Randall Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060. 

      ( print page 13298)    
Dated: March 15, 2007. 

Ira S. Reese, 

Executive Director Laboratories and Scientific Services.

 [FR Doc. E7-5105 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-464]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,172]


Sunshine School Uniforms and Supply Company Including On-Site 
Leased Workers of ADP Total Source Medley, Florida; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on October 23, 2006, applicable to workers of 
Sunshine School Uniforms, and Supply Company, Medley, Florida. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2006 (71 
FR 66799).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged 
in the production of school uniforms.
    New information shows that leased workers of ADP Total Source were 
employed on-site at the Medley, Florida location of Sunshine School 
Uniforms and Supply Company.
    Information also shows that all workers separated from employment 
at the subject firm had their wages reported under a separate 
unemployment insurance (UI) tax account for ADP Total Source.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Sunshine School Uniforms and Supply Company, Medley, Florida 
who were adversely affected by a shift of production to Guatemala.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,172 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Sunshine Schools Uniforms and Supply Company, 
including on-site leased workers ADP Total Source, Medley, Florida 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after September 27, 2005, through October 23, 2008, are eligible to 
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act 
of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade 
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of January 2007.
Ellott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-464 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
#### ELSIE RINGGOLD, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. WEST BERGEN IRON FOUNDRY, RESPONDENT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Isidor Kalisch*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Jacob B. Friedman*for the respondent.

June 11, 1962.
#### In the Matter of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent, v Doris Elias, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 482]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, Doris Elias appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated July 12, 1993, which, *inter alia,*denied her application and confirmed the award.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

By decision dated April 29, 1992, an arbitrator awarded the appellant $65,000 in compensation for injuries she incurred in a car accident pursuant to an underinsured motorist claim. The appellant, not satisfied with the amount of the award, eventually sought to have it vacated on a variety of grounds. However, because her application was made beyond the 90-day time limit of CPLR 7511 (a), it was properly denied *(see, Matter of Malatestinic v Board of Educ.,*132 AD2d 661).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
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

 On October 20, 2005, plaintiff alleging that he has been placed in administrative 1

segregation in retaliation for this lawsuit and seeking an order requiring prison officials to

immediately release him from administrative segregation. Plaintiff contends that in the absence

of the requested order he will be unable to timely file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff has

not exhausted administrative remedies with respect to this claim, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, and it is

therefore not properly before the court. Plaintiff’s request will be denied. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL E. DIAZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2375 MCE JFM P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed September 20, 2005, plaintiff’s amended complaint was

dismissed and plaintiff was given thirty days to file a second amended complaint. On October

21, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time until December 15, 2005 to file the

second amended complaint. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request will be granted.1

On the same day, plaintiff filed a document styled “Motion for Emergency TRO

and Injunction.” As plaintiff was advised in this court’s September 20, 2005 and October 24,

2005, orders, the court will not entertain any motion for injunctive relief unless and until plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02375-MCE -JFM Document 45 Filed 10/26/05 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

has filed a proper complaint on which this action can proceeding. Plaintiff’s motion will be

denied without prejudice.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 20, 2005 request for court-ordered release from

administrative segregation is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s October 21, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; 

3. Plaintiff is granted until December 15, 2005 in which to file a second amended

complaint; and

4. Plaintiff’s October 21, 2005 motion for injunctive relief is denied without

prejudice. 

DATED: October 25, 2005. 

12

diaz2375.o2

Case 2:04-cv-02375-MCE -JFM Document 45 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. S. JOHN CABRERA, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. John P. Dwyer*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Joseph P. Jjordi*and *Mr. Barry H. Kvenchiclc*for the respondent.

May 14, 1968.

Denied.
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

O.Z. MARTIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2360 MCE CMK P

vs.

EDWARD ALMEIDA, JR., et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action. On July 26, 2006, plaintiff filed his third request for the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff's previous requests were filed on December 27, 2005 and April 13, 2006. All requests

were denied. In light of those orders, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 26, 2006 

request is denied. 

DATED: August 2, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 2:04-cv-02360-ALA Document 29 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 1