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

December 1, 1948

No. 52704.'

protest 135486-K (New York).

#### H. Sussbach *v.*United States,

Oliver, Chief Judge:

In this case plaintiff seeks refund under section 557 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 of duties paid on a shipment of jewelry imported from Czechoslovakia.

Section 557 (a), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, provides in part as follows:

* * * Merchandise upon which the duties have been paid and which shall have remained continuously in bonded warehouse or otherwise in the custody and under the control of customs officers, may be entered or withdrawn at any time within three years after the date of importation for exportation or for transportation and exportation to a foreign country, * * * under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, and upon such entry or withdrawal, and exportation or shipment, the duties thereon shall be refunded.

The suit was submitted for decision on the following agreement between counsel for the respective parties:

It is hereby stipulated and agreed between counsel that the merchandise in the entry covered by the above-entitled protest was exported under Immediate Exportation entry No. 5794, dated September 3, 1947, and had, prior to exportation, remained continuously in the custody and under the control of customs officers and that the regulations covering such exportation were complied with.



Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact and on the law applicable thereto, we hold that the plaintiff herein is entitled to a refund of duties paid upon the importation of the involved merchandise. The protest is, therefore, sustained. Judgment will issue accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

May 1, 1946

No. 51068.

#### Protests 25005-K, etc., of Stephen Rug Mills (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same-in all material respects as that passed upon in *Stephen Rug Mills*v. *United Stales*(32 C. C. P. A. 110, C. A. D. 293), and by the court’s decision on remand in Abstract 50056. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as claimed-
#### John Sheaf, Respondent, *v.*William S. Waterbury and others, *Appellants.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Smith, P. J.
March 14, 2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary

U.S. Department of Transportation

400 Seventh Street SW

Washington, DC 20590-0001

RE: Docket DOT-OST-2000-7182

Dear Secretary LaHood:

The University of Louisville is pleased to offer its support to the efforts of Frontier 

Airlines Inc. to initiate new nonstop jet service between Louisville, KY and Ronald 

Reagan Washington National Airport.

Frontier’s proposal brings important competition to one our region’s top air service 

routes, expands the availability of low fares in the Louisville market, and significantly

expands access a top destination for business and leisure activities.

We have found Louisville and Southern Indiana to be an excellent place in which to do 

business, and we believe that competitive jet service to the nation’s capital will greatly

enhance the travel options available from Louisville International Airport. We strongly 

encourage the Department of Transportation to approve Frontier’s proposal for new lowcost, large jet air service between Louisville and Washington DC.

Sincerely, 

Mrs. Kerry E. Schmidt

Director of Accounting Operations
(Reap. Dec. 8475)

#### Elite Glass Co., Inc. v. United States

Entry No. 819001.

(Decided July 21, 1955)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED subject to the approval of the Court that at that time of the exportation of the merchandise herein, 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 *400ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States at $2.70 per hundred pieces, packed, less *2%*less freight from border to port, $18.07.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value as defined under Section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended for such or similar merchandise involved herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was *$2.70*per hundred pieces, packed, less 2 per centum, less freight from border to port $18.07.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
N O

. 0 7

- 1 5

- 0 0 0 79

- C R

KENYA ABDULE MARTIN § IN THE SEVEN TH COURT §

v. § § THE STATE OF TEXAS § OF APPEALS OF TEXAS



### M OTION TO EXTEND T IME T O FILE
THE APPELLANT ’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUS TICES OF TH E COURT OF APPEALS :

COMES NOW Kenya Abdule Martin

, a ppell ant , and files this M otion to

extend the time to file his Brief until September 28 , 2015

.



### I.

The appellant ’ s B rief i s due on September 21 , 201 5

. Two pri or extension s

ha ve been sought and gran ted

. Undersigned counsel is aware that his previous

motion , filed September 7, 2015, stated it would be hi s final one in this case;

counsel si ncerely apologizes for filing yet another motion

.

After counsel filed the second motion, howe ver, a court reporter present at a

pretrial hearing

– not the reporter who transcribed the trial

– filed a supplemental

volume to the reporters record on September 8 , 2015

. In addition, this appeal is a

complicated one with several issues to be researched and raised. In light of all this

,
undersigned counsel requests the Court ’ s ind ulgence for one further week t o

properly prepare the appellant ’ s O p ening B rief

. ACCEPTED 07-15-00079-CR SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

AMARILLO, TEXAS 9/21/2015 10:44:32 PM Vivian Long, Clerk2 

### II.

U n dersigned counsel further represents the following clients whose briefs or

other appellate pleadings were filed on the indicated dates in the 3 0 days preceding

th e filing of this motion , and ha s not yet had time to prepare the brief in this case :

Denton v. State , 07

- 15

- 181/2

- CR

– Opening Brief filed 8/27 /15 Benefield v. State , 02

- 14

- 00099

- CR

– PDR filed 8/28 /15 Finch v. State , 07

- 15

- 104

- CR

– Reply Brief filed 9/3/15 French v. State , 11

- 14

- 284

- CR

– Reply Brief filed 9/3/15

Counsel al so represented a prisoner in a parole revocation case in the second week in

September, in Randall County.

WHEREFORE, the appellant prays the Court grant a n extension of time to

file the Appellant’s Brief to September 28

, 201 5

.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ JOHN BENNETT John Bennett Post Office Box 19144 Amarillo, Texas 7 9114 (806) 282

- 44 55 Fax: (806) 398

- 1988 State Bar Number 00785691 Email: AppealsAttorney@gmail.com Attorney for the appellant3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above Motion was served

by em ail on September 21 , 2015

, on Jack Owen , Esq., Assist ant District Attorney

for Potter County, to him at jackowen@co.potter.tx.us

.

/s/ JOHN BENNETT John Bennett
#### FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FREEHOLD, N. J., APPELLANT, v. ABBIE M. RUTTER, RESPONDENT.

Argued November 22, 1918

Decided March 3, 1919.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 91 *N. J. L.*424.

For the appellant, *Vredenburgh & Vredenburgh.*

*622For the respondent, *John S. Applegate & Son.*

Pee Cueiam.

In this ease we are of opinion that the judgment under review should be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Parker in the court below, and would add nothing to that deliverance were it not for an opinion filed in this court subsequent to the filing of the opinion in the case at bar in the Supreme Court. We refer to *La Rose*v. *Nichols,*91 *N. J. L.*355. It might seem upon a cursory view that as an estoppel was worked there it should be here. Not so.

At common law a married woman could not contract; but under section 5 of the Married Woman’s act *(Comp. Stat., p.*3226) she can, with the exceptions mentioned in the act; and they preserve to her the benefit of the disabilities under which she labored at common law; her disability, therefore, is one at common law, like the disability of infants.

This court, in the La Rose case, held that the contract of an infant for his own benefit (and he received the benefit), induced by his fraudulent representation that he was of age when he looked as though he were, could not be defeated by him on the ground of infancy, as the doctrine of estoppel precluded him.

• It is to be observed that this very statute emancipating married women from their incapacity to contract, while providing that their undertakings by way of suretyship and accommodation endorsement shall not bind them, makes an exception in cases where they obtain, directly or indirectly, any money, property or other thing of value for their own use, or the use, benefit or advantage of their separate estate, in which event they $,re made liable.

Thus it appears that in the case of married women the statute itself makes them liable in the circumstances which this court held infants liable in the La Rose case — that is, where they receive a benefit.

*623*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Black, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 10.

*For reversal*— None.
#### WILLIAM E. CROSBY, APPELLANT, v. THE CITY OF EAST ORANGE, RESPONDENT.

Argued March 7, 1918

Decided May 3, 1918.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following *per curiam*was filed:

“This is an appeal from a judgment of the First District Court of Newark in favor of the plaintiff.

“This action is a second suit brought by the plaintiff, Crosby, against the city of East Orange to recover damages to his real property by the abstraction of waters by percolation therefrom, notwithstanding that *permanent*damages have been heretofore awarded him in a suit in the Supreme Court for injury to the same property by the abstraction of waters by percolation therefrom, by the operation in the same manner of the same water plant.

“The record in the action brought in the Supreme Court above referred to was introduced in evidence. It shows that the action ultimately resulted in a verdict by the jury in favor of the plaintiff and an assessment of damages over and above his costs and charges fat the sum of twenty-seven hundred dollars permanent.’ This is set forth in the *postea.*

*250“This verdict, so announced, and the *postea*thereon, are in full force and effect. An application was made to the Supreme Court to amplify the language of the *postea*and the Supreme Court refused to change the verdict set forth in the *postea*as signed.

“The plaintiff made no application to set- aside this verdict as rendered or the *postea*as signed; on the contrary, he entered a judgment thereon and has issued execution to enforce the judgment and has collected the same. All the foregoing matters are admitted or stipulated or proved in the record now before this court. The court must now deal with this record and declare its effect in the present case. The word ‘permanent’ must be taken by the court as a part of the record. Its significance in actions for injuries is perfectly well settled. The *postea*awards the damages for a permanent injury, and it is too fundamental to require discussion, that a verdict between the same parties for permanent injuries to land, is a bar to any future action by the owner of that land for injuries arising to the same land from the same cause.

“The judgment below will be reversed and a judgment entered in favor of the defendant, with costs.”

For the appellant, *Lum, Tamblyn & Colyer.*

For the respondent, *Jerome D. Gedney and Edward M. Colie.*

Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, GARDNER, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— None.
EXHIBIT 10.5

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 3
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         AMENDMENT NO. 3, dated as of November 10, 2003 ("Amendment No. 3") to
the Employment Agreement, dated as of November 1, 1999, as amended to date (the
"Agreement"), by and between eAcceleration Corp., a Delaware Corporation (the
"Company") and Clinton L. Ballard ("Employee").

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to amend the terms of the
Agreement, pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth herein, as of the date
hereof.

         NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the premises and of the mutual
covenants contained herein, and intending to be legally bound, the parties
hereto agree as follows:

         1.       The third sentence of subparagraph (b) of Paragraph 4 of the
                  Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with
                  the following:

                   "For purposes of this Agreement, "Cash Flow" shall mean, for
                  the period for which the bonus is being calculated, an amount
                  equal to the net income of the Company, before taxes,
                  depreciation, amortization, and extraordinary items, in each
                  case computed in accordance with United States generally
                  accepted accounting principles, consistently applied, plus (i)
                  an amount equal to the Company's non-cash expenses less its
                  non-cash gains or income (other than those removed from the
                  calculation of net income as set forth above), plus (ii) an
                  amount equal to the Company's deferred revenues less its
                  deferred expenses, in each case as reflected on the Company's
                  statement of cash flows with respect to operating
                  activities."

         2.       Affirmation of Agreement. Except as expressly amended hereby,
                  the terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full
                  force and effect.

         3.       Counterparts. This Amendment No. 3 may be executed in
                  counterparts, which taken together shall constitute one and
                  the same instrument, and either of the parties hereto may
                  execute Amendment No. 3 by signing either such counterpart.

<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed and delivered this
Amendment No. 3 as of the date first above written.


                                       eACCELERATION CORP.


                                       By:    /s/ E. Edward Ahrens
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          E. Edward Ahrens
                                          Chief Financial Officer

                                             /s/ Clinton L. Ballard
                                       --------------------------------------
                                       Clinton L. Ballard
Exhibit 31.1
 
 Certifications
 
 
 
 I, Ryan C. Farris, certify that:
 
 1I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ally Master Owner Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and
 
 5All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
 
 In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on the information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and U.S. Bank Trust National Association.
 
 Date: March 25, 2020
 
 /s/ Ryan C. Farris
 
 Ryan C. Farris
 President, Ally Wholesale Enterprises LLC, as Depositor
 (Senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1
##### 



Exhibit 32 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 Mediacom Communications
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Rocco B. Commisso, Chief Executive Officer, and Mark E. Stephan,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) 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
ofthe Company. March 12, 2004
    By:
    /s/ Rocco B. CommissoRocco B. CommissoChief Executive Officer By:
    /s/ Mark E. StephanMark E. StephanChief Financial Officer
#### Thomas D. Adams *v.*Abram Stern.

— Motion denied, without costs.
(Reap. Dec. 10183)

#### Isaac B. Cohen & Sons Corp. D. Hauser, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 848833/3; 757710/4.

(Decided February 27, 1962)

*Siegel, Mwndell & Davidson tor*the plaintiffs.

*William H. Orrieh, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeals are for reap-praisement of the values found by the appraiser on footwear in chief value of rubber, imported from Japan.

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for decision upon stipulation, on the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402a (d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise involved and that such values were the appraised unit values, less 2 per centum inspection charges, as stated on the invoices.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 45038.

#### Petition 6059-R of Taylor Milling Corp. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It appeared that there was an error in making the entry and that there was no intention to defraud. The petition was therefore granted.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.57

                                   AGREEMENT

     Reference is hereby made to that certain Option Agreement (as amended, the
"Option Agreement") by and between Lloyd Hobbs ("HOBBS") and Leonard May
Enterprises, Inc. ("MAY") concerning the land and improvements commonly known as
the Guadalupe Valley Nursing Center (the "Facility") as more particularly
described in the Option Agreement.

                             I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

WHEREAS, Summit Care Corporation ("Summit") has succeeded to the interests of
MAY under the Option Agreement.

WHEREAS, S&H, Inc. ("S&H") has succeeded to the interests of HOBBS under the
Option Agreement.

WHEREAS, S&H and Summit desire to amend the terms of the Option Agreement, in
order to, among other things, increase the purchase price of the Facility and
extend the date by which Summit may exercise its option to purchase the Facility
as set forth herein.

                                 II. AGREEMENTS

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the facts set forth above and other good and
valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree to amend the Option Agreement as
follows:

1. EXTENSION OF OPTION. Notwithstanding any provision of the Option Agreement to
   -------------------
the contrary, Summit and S&H agree that Summit shall have the option to purchase
the Facility at the Option Price (defined below) at any time on or before
December 1, 2001.

2. OPTION PRICE. Notwithstanding any provision of the option Agreement to the
   ------ -----
contrary, upon Summit's written notice to S&H on or before July 1, 2001, Summit
shall have the right to purchase the Facility at a purchase price of
$3,684,000.00 (the "Option Price"). Any deposits required to be delivered from
Summit to S&H in connection with Summit's exercise of the option to purchase the
Facility shall be in the amounts set forth in the Option Agreement. Closing
shall occur on or before December 1, 2001.

3. Except as expressly modified above the parties agree that the Option
Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the 10th
day of August, 2000.

SUMMIT CARE CORPORATION

By:___________________              By:___________________
Name: William C. Scoff              Name: David Curry
Title: Chairman                     Title: President

Exchange.3 155504.
Comments in Response to 

"Final rule; request for comments" 

Docket: FAA-2015-4381 

Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-009-AD 

Comments have been received in response to: "Final rule; request for comments," 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. 

(Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted. 

Once you have made your determination, please jill in the commenter(s) name(s) and check the 

appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, 

if necessary. Then include your name and the date in the spaces provided, and return it to the 

AD directorate focal. 

The FAA has reviewed comment( s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received from: 

Jean Louis Horcholle 

(Please check one) 

1Z1 These comments have not been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration 

or change of this AD. 

D These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of 

additional regulatory action. (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual 

F AA-IR-M-8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.) 

~ Name: David Haijield 

06/02/2016 

Date: 

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.) 

Rev 0 (9/08)