alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Third Division,

January 8, 1942

No. 46798.

#### Protest 74509-K of Wm. Filene’s Sons Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty as claimed.
Before the Second Division,

May 3, 1946

No. 51081.

#### Protests 117908-K, etc., of Allied Mat and Matting Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Watson, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 78]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered September 30,1993, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

It cannot be said that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the burglary charge simply because of the absence of signs or barriers prohibiting entrance into the office from which defendant appropriated a computer. Even if defendant’s entry into the office was licensed, the fact finder could find that he knew he was not permitted to remain because it was apparent after his entry, from the time of the day, after 6:00 p.m. on a Friday night, and the absence of any persons in the reception area or interior offices, that the office was not at the time open to the public *(People v Powell,*58 NY2d 1009; *cf, People v Lloyd,*180 *265AD2d 527, *lv denied*79 NY2d 1003). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**PEDRO JUNIOR RODRIGUEZ,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 332 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 11th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Al lowance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8666 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize holding court for the 

Central Division of Utah in Moab and Monticello. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2024 

Ms. MALOY (for herself and Mr. CURTIS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize holding 

court for the Central Division of Utah in Moab and 

Monticello. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JUDICIAL DISTRICT. 

4 Section 125 of title 28, United States Code, is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘and St. George’’ and inserting ‘‘St. 

6 George, Moab, and Monticello.’’ 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# ANTONELLI Drone!UAS Practice Group U.S. Oepartment ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 NewJersey Ave S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 

# L A W

**-,~~.,_,_"''""''-""** 35 E Wacker Drive

**~SUite:~t875** Chicago, IL 60601 Tel. 312.201.8310 Jeffrey(£ji.Antonelli-La\v.coin July 25, 2016 Re: Amendment to Kovar & Associates LLC ExemptionNo. 11905 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-1331 Dear Sir or Madam: Kovar & Associates LLC ("Kovar & Associates") requests an amendment to Exemption No. 11905 for the purpose updating their address. The new address is: Kovar & Associates, LLC 38 Cross Rd. Exeter, NH 03833 

### Ifwe canprovide any additional informationto assist your understanding orreview ofthis document, please do not hesitate to contact us at 312-201-8310 orvia email atJeffrey@AntonelliLaw.com.

**~.** 

### 1 Attorneys for Kov



# . ' 'elia R. Niemi ·Associates LLC
#### George N. Gilbert, *Respondent, v.*Shadrach Groff, *as Administrator, etc., Appellant.*

— Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.
Before the Second Division,

May 24, 1960

No. 64231.

protests 295896-K, etc. (New York).

#### S. P. Skinner Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of log fires similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *S. P. Skinner Co., Inc.*(46 C.C.P.A. 105, C.A.D. 708), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
^iT OF 

iiv n 

• - ; - 1 

Mary Kay Mauren 

6905 Ayr Lane 

Bethesda, MD 20817 

(301)229-8040 

February 15,2012 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0089 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

West Bldg. Grand Floor Room W120140 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

RE: Sun Country Airline Washington-Reagan to Lansing Route 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

The current Sun Country route between Lansing, Michigan and Washington, 

D.C./Reagan/National Airport is a route that needs to be maintained. It offers much needed 

flexible and affordable service between these regions. Without the direct service, passengers are 

required to use airline routes that necessitate connecting flights through other hub airports. This 

poses additional difficulty for elderly persons and those with disabilities. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Mary Kay Mauren-*
#### Schmid Brothers Inc. (Meadows Wye & Co., Inc.) et al. *v.*United States

No. 7489.

Entry No. 709510, etc.

Pro forma invoices dated Torquay, England, July 16, 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 10, 1945, etc.

(Decided December 19, 1947)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This proceeding has been submitted upon a stipulation wherein the parties hereto have agreed that the issues involved in the reappraise-ments listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, are the same in all material respects as in the case of *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334. The record in that case was admitted as part of the record herein.

In view of the aforesaid stipulation and accepting same as a statement of fact, and in view of the decision cited, I find and hold that the export values of the" merchandise are the values found by the appraiser, less any additions on entry by the importers by reason of advances by the appraiser in similar cases to equal the British purchase tax, so-called.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Pierro, Appellant, *v.*Pierro.

Argued January 17, 1969.

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

*Owrl M. Mazzoeone,*with him *Glenn A. Troutman, Victor 8. Jaezun,*and *Sheer & Mazzoeone,*and *Power, Bowen é Valimont,*for appellants.

*132April 23, 1969:

*Frank Carano,*with him *Charles H. Dor sett, Jr.,*and *Carano and Kunken,*and *Eastbum & Gray,*for appellees.

Opinion by Me.

Justice Cohen,

Plaintiff instituted an action in equity to compel specific performance of a provision in an agreement for the sale of a portion of a farm. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint and under “New Matter” alleged that specific performance did not lie for the reason that the parcel in controversy was not described with sufficient specificity to remove it from the provisions of the Statute of Frauds.

Plaintiff filed a reply to the “New Matter” maintaining that the description was sufficient in specificity to afford him the requested remedy. Defendants then filed a motion for judgment on the pleading. After argument, the lower court made the following order: “And Now, this 15th day of January, 1968, defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleading is refused and denied.” Plaintiff appeals that order.

This appeal must be quashed. It is apparent that plaintiff is not a party aggrieved by the order, hence, cannot take this appeal. To be an aggrieved party he. must be adversely affected by the order and he must have some pecuniary interest which is injuriously affected. *Louden Hill Farm, Inc. v. Milk Control Commission,*420 Pa. 548, 217 A. 2d 735 (1966).

Plaintiff concedes that he is not out of court, but contends he is harmed by what the court said in its opinion concerning the legal sufficiency of his complaint and his reply to “New Matter.” 'What the court had to say in its opinion regarding the sufficiency of the pleadings is dicta and does not establish the law of the case. *Delaware River Port Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission,*408 Pa. 169, 182 A. 2d 682 (1962).

*133If, at trial, the court rules that the testimony which plaintiff has produced is not sufficient to merit a recovery, he is then aggrieved by the final decree and qualified to take an appeal. Plaintiff is not now injured by the court’s order and is not a proper appellant.

Appeal quashed, costs on appellant.

Mr. Justice Roberts concurs in the result.
March 7, 1951

No. 55338.

#### Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 163965-K.

Plain-

tiff’s application for rehearing granted.
No. 45064.

#### Protest 31023-K of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel pipe kazoos in chief value of metal were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 397 as claimed. Abstract 44122 followed.
Exhibit 32(a)


                            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 MSW Energy Holdings LLC. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), we, John T.
Miller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael J. Gruppuso, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.


    /s/ John T. Miller                                   /s/ Michael J. Gruppuso
    ------------------                                   -----------------------
    John T. Miller                                       Michael J. Gruppuso
    Chief Executive Officer                              Chief Financial Officer
    August 12, 2004                                      August 12, 2004
Exhibit 35.1

 

ANNUAL SERVICER’S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

 

This Compliance Certificateis furnished pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of May 13, 2010,by and among Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2010-A, Hyundai Capital America, as seller and servicer (the “Servicer”),Hyundai ABS Funding Corporation, as depositor, and Citibank, N.A., as indenture trustee and Item 1123 of Regulation AB. The undersignedhereby certifies that:

 

1)	I am a duly authorized officer of theServicer.

 

2)	A review of the activities of the Servicerfrom January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 (the “Relevant Period”) and of the Servicer’s performance underthe Agreement during the Relevant Period has been made under my supervision.

 

3)	Based on such review, the Servicer has,to the best of my knowledge, fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the RelevantPeriod.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executedthis Compliance Certificate this 28th day of March, 2012.

 

 

 

HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA, as Servicer

 

 

By:  /s/ MIN SOK RANDYPARK        

Name: Min Sok Randy Park

Title: Chief Financial Officer
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden (Notices) Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, May 3, 2007 from 1 p.m. ET. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227, or 954-423-7979. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden (Notices) Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, May 3, 2007 from 1 p.m. ET via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write Sallie Chavez, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Sallie Chavez. Ms. Chavez can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

*The agenda will include:*                     Various IRS issues.                 

Dated: March 19, 2007. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

[FR Doc. E7-5599 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RINGO CHAN,

Petitioner

v.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION,

Respondent

______________________

2020-1239

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-4324-19-0153-I-1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

ADAM AUGUSTINE CARTER, The Employment Law 

Group, PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. Also 

represented by ROBERT SCOTT OSWALD.

 DOMENIQUE GRACE KIRCHNER, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by CLAUDIA BURKE, JEFFREY B. CLARK, ROBERT 

EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.

 ______________________

Case: 20-1239 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 11/10/2020
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and 

REYNA, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

November 10, 2020

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-1239 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 11/10/2020
No. 50148.

#### Protest 92579-K of Ti Hang Lung & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the commodity passed upon in *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the merchandise, which includes salt as a substantial component part thereof, was excluded from paragraph 5 and held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 as claimed.
Before the First Division,

March 28, 1950

No. 54144.

#### Ames Co., Inc., and Miles Laboratories, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 152233-K and 149314-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of ox gall and sheep gall the same in all material respects to the substance passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
* Pursuant to 5th C I R

. R. 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 5th C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

1 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50821 Summary Calendar

ELIGIO I. AMADOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JUANITA DORMAN, Class Supervisor, ET AL.,

Defendant-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(P-96-CA-90)

August 10, 1998

Before KING, JOHNSON, and DUHE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eligio I. Amador, Texas prisoner #681368, appeals the district

court’s summary judgment dismissal of his civil rights c laims.

Amador has failed to include any argument in connection with the

district court’s reasons for the dismissal of his lawsuit in his

pro se pleadings.

Under the mandate announced in Haines v. Kerner
, 1 courts must

construe p ro se pleadings liberally. However, arguments must be2

briefed t o be preserved for appeal. Y ohey v. Collins

, 985 F.2d

222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Amador has failed to brief

any argument related to the reas ons articulated by the district

court for the summary judgment dismissal of his claims, he has

abandoned these claims and waived any such arguments. Id

.

Amador has failed to raise any meritorious argument on appeal.

Because his appeal is without merit, it is dismissed as frivolous.

See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR

.

R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### S & H Communications, Inc., Respondent, v Seiscor Technologies, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[633 NYS2d 146]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered March 18, 1994, which, *inter alia,*denied Seiscor Technologies, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s breach of warranty cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

UCC 2-401 (1), (2) and (3) are not applicable to the instant situation as the buyer and seller of the allegedly nonconforming goods "explicitly agreed” in their contract that "[u]ntil payment in full is made to the sellers [plaintiff S & H Communications, Inc.], interests, rights and title to the equipment [telephones] shall remain with the sellers.” As Metropolitan Pay Phone, Inc. ("Metropolitan”), which contracted to purchase plaintiff’s stock, never paid plaintiff under their agreement, the "interests, rights and title to the equipment” never passed to Metropolitan. Accordingly, plaintiff continues to possess the right to sue on the equipment’s warranty. Notwithstanding that plaintiff sued Metropolitan and was awarded a money judgment for breach of the contract of sale, plaintiff did not lose its right to sue on the equipment’s warranty since that judgment remains completely unsatisfied. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
#### Lasker-Goldman Corp., Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

[ 633 NYS2d 771 ]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered July 29, 1994, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant City of New York’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered April 3, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court, in dismissing the complaint, properly determined that the recovery of quantum meruit damages by plaintiff, as general contractor on the City construction project, was barred by the valid express written agreement between the parties. Plaintiff neither established that the contract was lawfully rescinded by a material and willful breach by the City, so substantial and fundamental as to strongly tend to defeat the object of the parties in making the contract, nor established an abandonment thereof by conduct which is unequivocal and inconsistent with the intent to be *154bound *(see, North Star Contr. Corp. v City of New York,*203 AD2d 214, 215; *Babylon Assocs. v County of Suffolk,*101 AD2d 207, 215).

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff waived any claimed damages under the contract by its failure to fully comply with the strict notice and itemization requirements of Article 27 of the parties’ contract. The relevant contractual provision required notice within five days of sustaining alleged damage by any act or omission of the City or its agents and itemization of the claimed damages within 30 days of allegedly sustaining such damages. Strict compliance with such contractual notice provisions is a condition precedent to a claim for damages under the contract *(Huff Enters, v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth.,*191 AD2d 314, *lv denied*82 NY2d 655).

Recovery of delay damages is also precluded by Article 13 of the contract, under which plaintiff herein was granted three extensions of time within which to complete performance. In that Article, plaintiff, as general contractor, specifically agreed to make no claim for damages for delay in the performance of the contract occasioned by any act or omission of the City or any of its representatives, and agreed that an extension of time to complete performance is the sole remedy for delay *(North Star Contr. Corp. v City of New York, supra,*at 214-215).

We have reviewed plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.