alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10173)

#### Amer. Customs Brokg. Co. for Acct. of Unitron Import Corporation et al. v. *United*States

Entry No. 4191, etc.

*558(Decided February 15, 1962)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*William IT. Orriolc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule for decision upon stipulation reading as follows:

> 1 — That this stipulation is limited to the items marked “A” and initialed HNK (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiner Henry N. Kimura (Examiner’s Name) on the invoices covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof.

> 2 — That as so limited, the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *Gitkin Co.,*A.R.D. 132, and that the record in said case may be incorporated into the record herein.

> 3 — That at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was 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 exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing 'the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the appraised values, less the amounts described on the invoices under the heading “actual charges.”

> 4 — That on or about the said time of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the country of exportation for home consumption.

> 5 — The above-entitled appeals may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and are abandoned in all other respects.

On. the agreed facts, I find export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, as it existed prior to the amendment thereof by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, or as defined in section 402(b) of said act, as so amended, according to the date of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of the involved merchandise, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the items described above and that such value, in the case of the said merchandise, was the appraised value, less the amounts described on the invoices under the heading “actual charges.”

Judgment will issue accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 10498)

#### United China & Glass Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 2798-H.

(Decided April 23, 1963)

*Stem & ShostaJc (Marjorie M. ShostaJc*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General *(Sheila N. Ziff,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

When this appeal for reappraisement was called for trial, it was submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> Miss Shostak : * * *

> At this time plaintiff offers to stipulate subject to the approval of the court, that as to the iron stone ware Ming Tree pattern on page 6 of the commercial invoice, on the date of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the ex-factory invoiced unit values net packed.

> *457Mrs. *Ziff :*After conferring with tlie Appraiser and Assistant Appraiser at tlie port of Houston, we so agree.

> Miss Shostak : Plaintiff further offers to stipulate that the merchandise was entered subsequent to February 27, 1958, which is the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 provisions amending Section 402, and that iron stone ware is not included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, issued January 20, 1958, as provided for in Section 6-a of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress.

> Plaintiff further offers to stipulate that this appeal to reappraisement be deemed submitted for decision on this stipulation.

> Mrs. Ziff : So agreed.

On tbe agreed facts, I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the iron stoneware, Ming Tree pattern, involved herein and that such value is the ex-factory invoiced unit values, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 64947.

#### Antique Import Co. *v.*United States,

protest 60/4022 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

The protest was dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.1**
**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**
**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**
          In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2003 (the “Report”) of UTEK Corporation (the “Registrant”), asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,Clifford M. Gross, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, herebycertify, to the best of my knowledge, that:
          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theRegistrant.      /s/ Clifford M. Gross       Name: Clifford M. Gross   Date: March 17, 2004
(Reap. Dec. 10485)

#### Hurricane Import Co. (PM) et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 54306, etc.

(Decided April 16, 1963)

*Lawrence é Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

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

Wilson, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto, for decision upon stipulation, reading as follows:

> 1. That this stipulation is limited to the merchandise marked “R” and initialed OF (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiner C. Fleisehman (Examiner’s Name) on the invoices covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on Schedule “A” hereto annexed.

> 2. That the merchandise and the issues involved in the above-entitled appeals for reappraisement are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Gitkin Co.,*A.R.D. 132, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 3. That the involved merchandise was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after February 27, 1958 and is not identified in the Final *443List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521).

> 4. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold for exportation to the United States to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the appraised *per se*unit values, net packed, exclusive of the additional charges and commissions noted on the invoice.

> 5. That the above-entitled appeals for reappraisement may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On tlie agreed facts and following the decision in the cited case, I find and hold that export value, as defined in section 402 (b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise described above and that such values were the appraised *per se*unit values, net, packed, exclusive of the additional charges and commissions noted on the invoice.

As to all merchandise other than that described above, the appeals for reappraisement, having been abandoned, are to that extent dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 44096.

#### Protest 783713-G of J. M. MacDonald Import Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protest was dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.7
[LOGO]


                               Cash Purchase Form
                               ------------------



Participant Name:
                                        ---------------------------------------
Name of Affiliated Agency:
                                        ---------------------------------------
Participant's Social Security/Tax ID #:
                                        ---------------------------------------
Participant's Account #:
                                        ---------------------------------------
Address:
                                        ---------------------------------------

                                        ---------------------------------------
Telephone Number:
                                        ---------------------------------------
Amount of Cash Enclosed:                $
                                        ---------------------------------------

Do you want to change your Dividend Reinvestment Option?  You have previously
indicated whether you want dividends paid on shares held in your plan account to
be reinvested in Vesta common stock or paid in cash.  If you wish to change your
pre-existing election, please indicate below.  If you do not want to change your
pre-existing election, leave the following line blank.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(indicate either (i) Dividend Reinvestment or (ii) Cash Dividends)

UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I CERTIFY THAT THE TAX IDENTIFICATION / SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER SHOWN ABOVE IS CORRECT.

The above named participant in the Vesta Agents Stock Incentive Plan (the
"Plan") hereby authorizes the Plan administrator to purchase shares for the
account of the participant, in the amounts indicated above, on the next
scheduled quarterly purchase date.  If this Purchase Form is not received by
Vesta at least 15 days prior to the next scheduled purchase date, I understand
such purchase will not be made until the next succeeding scheduled purchase
date.

I hereby represent and warrant to Vesta that (a) a copy of the most recent Plan
prospectus covering the Plan has been delivered to the participant named above,
and (b) the funds remitted with this form represent all funds contributed by the
participant named above in payment of such purchase.


                                By:
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                Name:
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                Position with Entity:
                                                      --------------------------
About this capture
Government Printing Office
FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
#### In the Matter of Latoya T., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 562]

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Esquirol, J.), dated May 16, 1990, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated March 14, 1990, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of robbery in the second degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 14, 1990.

Ordered that the order of disposition is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the fact-finding order is vacated, the petition is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for the purpose of entering an order pursuant to Family Court Act § 375.1.

*452The Family Court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition based upon the alleged violation of her right to a speedy trial. The fact-finding hearing commenced beyond the 60-day time limit specified in Family Court Act § 340.1 (2). Moreover, the presenting agency failed to establish that the initial adjournment was for good cause or that the successive adjournments were granted because of special circumstances *(see,*Family Ct Act § 340.1 [4] [a], [b]; [6]; *People v Santos,*68 NY2d 859; *People v Berkowitz,*50 NY2d 333; *People v Robbins,*207 AD2d 565).

In light of the foregoing, we do not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 14 - 00364 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF R .J.G., A CHILD On Appeal from the 64th District Court Hale County, Texas Trial Court No. A36136 - 0807, Honorable Robert W. Kinkaid Jr., Presiding



### November 14 , 2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant James L. Gunter filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s June 27, 2014 modification order in a suit affecting the parent - child relationship. Gunter’s motion for new trial was overruled. We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a directive of this court. Gunter’s notice of appeal was filed October 10. 1 In a written request filed on October 20, the district clerk sought additional time to file the clerk’s record because Gunter had not paid or made arrangements to pay for preparation of the clerk’s record.

1 The notice of appeal was filed within 15 days of the deadline. We granted Gunter’s motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3.2

By letter of October 21, we ordered Gunter to make acceptable payment arrangements by November 5, and advised him that failure to comply would subject the appeal to dismissal for want of prosecution without further notice. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 37.3(b). We further directed the district clerk to file a stat us report if Gunter failed to make payment arrangements as directed. The district clerk has filed a status report indicating that she mailed the bill of costs to counsel for Gunter on October 23, 2014, and stating that Gunter nonetheless has not paid or m ade payment arrangements for preparation of the clerk’s record. 2 Because no clerk’s record was filed in this appeal due to the fault of Gunter after receiving a reasonable opportunity to cure his failure to make payment arrangements, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with a directive of the court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 37.3(c), 42.3(b),(c).

Per Curiam

2 Gunter has not paid the filing fee for this appeal nor has he offered proof of indigence. He has not responded to an October 21 letter from this court’s clerk notifying him of the defect, and affording ten days for correction .
#### Humphrey McDowell v. State.

177 So. 612.

Division B.

Opinion Filed December 14, 1937.

*John B. Singeltary',*for Plaintiff in Error;

*359
      *Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *Tyrus A. Nor-wood,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This writ of error was taken to a judgment of conviction for murder in the third degree. The judgment thus brought before us for review must be reversed upon the authority of Bennett v. State, 127 Fla. 759, 173 So. 817, and the cases therein cited.

Reversed and remanded.

Whitfield, P. J., 'and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
## NO. 12

- 14

- 00352

- CR

NO. 12

- 14

- 00353

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DAVID LYNN SELLERS,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL S FROM THE 173RD

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNT Y, TEXAS

MMMM ME MORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant ’s counsel has filed a motion to dismiss these appeals

. The motion is

accompanied by a document signed by Appellant in which he authorizes his counsel t o file a

motion to dismiss the appeals. No decision has been delivered in these appeals

. Accordingly,

Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal s are dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.2 (a).

Opinion delivered January 21, 2015.

Panel consist ed of Worthen, C.J. and Hoyle, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JANUARY 2 1, 2015

NO. 12

- 14

- 00352

- CR

NO. 12

- 14

- 00353

- CR

DAVID LYNN SELLERS,
Ap pellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal s from the 173rd District Court

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. B

- 20,857 ; B

- 20,858 )

THESE CAUSE S came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to

dismiss the appeal s herein, and the same being cons idered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED

and DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal s be

dismissed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C. J. and Hoyle , J

.
Case No. 14,528.

#### UNITED STATES v. BARROWCLIFF.

[3 Ben. 519.] 1

District Court, N. D. New York.

Nov., 1869.

Internal Revenue — Tobacco Manufacturer’s Bond — Surety—Laches.

1. It is no defence to an action by the government, upon a bond given by a tobacco manufacturer, to recover an amount of duties, that the government seized the manufacturer’s goods as forfeited, instead of distraining upon them for the tax.

2. Laches is not to be imputed to the government in such a case.

[This was an .action by the United States against H. M. Barrowcliff. On motion for a new trial.]

BENEDICT, District Judge.

This was an action upon a tobacco manufacturer’s bond, in which a verdict was rendered in favor of the government for the amount of tax unpaid.

A motion for a new trial is notv made, upon the ground that the court erred in refusing to permit the defendants to show that, on the 23d day of May, the collector seized as forfeited and took from the possession of the defendant, Barrowcliff. the manufacturer, some $20.000 worth of manufactured and raw tobacco.

The proposition, upon which the objection to the exclusion of the evidence in regard to the tobacco which was forfeited is based, appears to be this, that the collector had power under section 83 and section 84 of the revenue act (13 Stat. 259), to distrain upon this tobacco which was forfeited, and so collect the tax, but did not do so, and that there was therefore laches, which discharged the surety upon the bond in suit.

The proposition is unsound. Laches is not to be imputed to the government in such a case; and, assuming that there was neglect on the part of the collector in omitting to distrain, it would have no effect to work a discharge of the surety.

But I do not conceive that there was any neglect. Under the facts, both courses lay open to the government — to collect the tax by suing the bond, and by seizing the tobacco to punish'the frauds with which the manufacturer was charged in the information.

It was entirely competent, therefore, if indeed, it was not required by duty, for the officers of the government to adopt both proceedings. as otherwise no punishment for the-fraud could be inflicted.

I certainly know of no principle upon which the government could' be held bound to waive its rights of forfeiture which had attached by reason of the frauds, in order to save sureties from a liability upon their bond which they knowingly assumed. The motion must be denied.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 55 (Thursday, March 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5241]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CO-922-07-1310-FI; COC64229]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas 
Lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease COC64229 from Tatonka 
Oil and Gas Company, LLC for lands in Moffat County, Colorado. The 
petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due 
since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Milada 
Krasilinec, Land Law Examiner, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, 
at 303.239.3767.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $20.00 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 18\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease COC64229 effective December 1, 2006, under the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited above.

    Dated: March 15, 2007
Milada Krasilinec,
Land Law Examiner.
[FR Doc. E7-5241 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Richard R. Scott, Jr., Appellant, v Walter R. Kelly, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[635 NYS2d 567]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed, without a hearing, the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. We previously rejected the contention of relator that double jeopardy attached to bar his retrial *(Matter of Scott v D’Amico,*170 AD2d 1040, 1041, *lv dismissed*77 NY2d 987). The court erred, however, in stating that "relator’s remedy would be to seek further review under article 440 in the trial court”. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.—Habeas Corpus.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.