alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8503)

#### Chas. L. Huisking Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 892315.

(Decided December 14, 1955)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

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

Laweence, Judge:

The proper value for duty purposes of certain steel drums exported from Iceland during the year 1954 is the subject of the present appeal for a reappraisement.

It has been stipulated and agreed by the parties hereto that the issues involved in said appeal are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Chas. L. Huisking Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*34 Cust. Ct. 511, Reap. Dec. 8442, wherein it was held that the steel drums are properly dutiable in their condition as imported on the basis of United States value, as defined in section 402 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (e)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, and that the record in said case may be incorporated into the record herein.

The parties have further stipulated and agreed that the value or price, at the time of exportation of the involved steel drums to the United States, at which such or similar drums were freely offered for sale for domestic consmnption, packed ready for delivery, in the principal market of the United States to all purchasers in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, was 75 cents per drum during the year 1954. Plaintiff waives and claims no allowance for cost of transportation, insurance, expenses from the place of shipment to the place of delivery, commission, profit, or general expenses.

It was also stipulated and agreed that, on or about the date of exportation of the steel drums herein involved, such or similar drums were not freely offered for sale in Iceland either for home consumption or for exportation to the United States.

Upon the uncontroverted facts of record, the court holds that the proper basis for determining the value of the imported drums in issue is United States value, as that value is defined in section 402 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, and that such value was 75 cents each for the drums exported during the year 1954, less the item of duty.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 7330.

Invoice dated Longton, England, March 1, 1941.

Certified March 3, 1941.

Entered at San Francisco, Calif., May 12, 1941.

Entry No. 6213-1/2.

(Decided July 11, 1947)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto: (Stipulation omitted.)

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 values are the unit invoice values, plus the cost of packing.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

January 15, 1942

No. 46824.

#### Protests 26590-K, etc., of Canadian White Pine Co., Ltd., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that no addition should have been made to the imported quantity for planing, tonguing, and grooving. The protests were therefore sustained.
Exhibit 31.4

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

I, Paul W. Hoelscher, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 3 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Horizon Pharma plc; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 26, 2017                               
|                                                 
|/s/ Paul W. Hoelscher                            
|Paul W. Hoelscher                                
|Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)
No. 50157.

#### Petition 6426-R of Leonelo Gonzalez (Laredo).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

At the trial petitioner testified that this was his first experience with the importation of merchandise and that he had no knowledge of the value of chewing gum either in Mexico or in this country. He accepted the consular invoice, prepared by the foreign exporter, and gave it to his customs broker to prepare the necessary entry papers. The broker testified that in entering the merchandise the purchase price set forth on the consular invoice was overlooked, the oversight being due to the location of the statement in an unusual space at the bottom of the said document. On the record presented it was held that there was no attempt to defraud the Government or deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8568

MICHAEL LESANE, a/k/a Michael B. Lesane, a/k/a Michael 

Bernard Lesane, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

ANTHONY PADULA, Warden Lee Correctional Institution, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:08-cv-02231-HMH) 

Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 4, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael B. Lesane, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., SOUTH 

CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Lesane seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Lesane has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8644 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8644

    To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 to expand 
 eligibility for underserved community harbor projects, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2024

 Mr. Steil (for himself, Mr. Moolenaar, Mrs. McClain, Mr. Bergman, and 
 Mr. Miller of Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 to expand 
 eligibility for underserved community harbor projects, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL PROJECTS FOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITY HARBORS.

    Section 8132 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 
U.S.C. 2238e) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (g)--
                    (A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
            ``(1) Project.--The term `project' means--
                    ``(A) a single cycle of maintenance dredging of an 
                underserved community harbor, and any associated--
                            ``(i) placement of dredged material at a 
                        beneficial use placement site or disposal site; 
                        or
                            ``(ii) expansion of a confined disposal 
                        facility; or
                    ``(B) maintenance of a breakwater associated with 
                an underserved community harbor.''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, regardless 
                of whether the harbor is federally authorized,'' before 
                ``for which''; and
            (2) by amending subsection (h)(2) to read as follows:
            ``(2) Special rule.--Not less than 25 percent of the 
        amounts made available to carry out this section for each 
        fiscal year shall be used for projects for underserved 
        community harbors located in the Great Lakes Navigation System 
        (as defined in section 210(f) of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238(f))).''.
                                 <all>
```
January 7, 1942

No. 46815.

Suit 4346.

#### *Whitehall Shipping Co.*v. *United States.*

C. A. D. 181.
<PAGE>


                   AMENDMENT 1 TO THE REINSURANCE AGREEMENT
                                   BETWEEN
                   LINCOLN MEMORIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
                                     AND
                   MEMORIAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
                                     AND
                NORTH AMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS


The above described reinsurance agreement (numbered Nalre9001) is hereby
amended in accordance with the terms and conditions contained herein. Such
amendment shall have the full force of the original terms, to the extent such
amendment does not conflict with any other provisions contained in such
reinsurance agreement.

1. Article 1(B) is hereby replaced by: "Coinsurance Percentage shall mean 100%."

2. Exhibit A is hereby amended by deleting Item 5 which reads "2% times the
face amount issued during the month" from the monthly Expense Allowance
calculation.

The effective date of this Amendment is November 30, 2000.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lincoln Memorial Life, Memorial Service Life and North
America Life have caused this Amendment to be executed by their respective
officers duly authorized to do so on this 5th day of January, 2001.

LINCOLN MEMORIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

By: /s/ Randall K. Sutton
   ---------------------------------------

Title: President
      ------------------------------------

Attest: /s/ Darci L. Green
       -----------------------------------

MEMORIAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

By: /s/ Randall K. Sutton
   ---------------------------------------

Title: President
      ------------------------------------

Attest: /s/ Darci L. Green
       -----------------------------------

NORTH AMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS

By: /s/ Clifton Mitchell
   ---------------------------------------

Title: Chief Executive Officer
      ------------------------------------

Attest: /s/ Rita C. Partlow
       -----------------------------------
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2610

_____________________________

DEAVIS NATHANIEL SAULSBERRY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

J. Scott Duncan, Judge.

September 25, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Deavis Nathaniel Saulsberry, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# ATTACHMENT 8

# 3DR Y6 CHECKLIST

PREFLIGHT 1.	Controller	charged 2.	Props	and	landing	gear secured	to	UAV 3.	Airframe	is	nominal	–	no damage 4.	Engine	mounts	secure	and aligned 5.	Arms	tightened 6.	Wind,	temperature,	and takeoff	altitude	within	UAV tolerances ARMING 1.	Controller	powe r	on	and	flight mode	confirmed 2.	UAV	battery	connected	– power	applied 3.		Sensor	package	on	and running/Fat	Shark	confirmed mode 4.	Telemetry	antenna	in	line	of sight/Telemetry	link	established to	MP	device 5.	GPS	position	locked 6.	Upload	Mission	Waypoints 7.	Visual	confirmation	of	secure battery	and	sensor	package TAKEOFF 1.	Auto	mode	switch	to	‘OFF’ 2.	Master	flight	mode	switch	to ‘STABILIZED’ 3.	Loiter	mode	disable	switch	to ‘OFF’ 4.	Arm/Start	motor 5. Takeoff 6.		Master	flight	mode	switch	to ‘LOITER’ 7.	Hover	at	3	meters/Confirm battery	status 8.	Clear	to	engage	auto	mode switch	to	‘ON’ 9.	Confirm	controller	throttle	at 50% CONTINUOUSLY MONITOR ALTITUDE, AIRSPEED, AND POWER LEVELS. DISENGAGE AUTONOMOUS MISSION MODE (APPROACH) 1.	UAV	at	Approach	Waypoint (last	mission	waypoint) 2.	Controller	throttle	at	60% 3.	Takeoff/Landing	area	clear 4.	Master	flight	mode	in “RETURN	TO	LAND” 5. Land 6.	Disarm	immediately DISARM 1.	Visually	confirm	motor shutdown 2.	Disconnect	battery	–	UAV disarmed 3.	BEFORE	CONTROLLER	IS	OFF log	flight	time	and	ending battery	voltage POSTFLIGHT 1.	External	modules,	landing gear,	sensor	package,	flight sensors	all	secure 2.	Airframe	nominal 3.	Controller	power	off
Exhibit
      23.1


**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





We
      have
      issued our report dated August 25, 2008, (which report expressed an unqualified
      opinion and contains an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of
      Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48 in 2007 and the
      adoption of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R) in 2006, and an
      explanatory paragraph relating to substantial doubt about Protalex, Inc.’s
      ability to continue as a going concern) with respect to the financial statements
      included in the Annual Report of Protalex, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended
      May 31, 2008. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report
      in the Registration Statements of Protalex, Inc. on Form S-l (File No.
      333-136098, effective August 15, 2007) and Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-130998,
      effective January 12, 2006; 333-130997, effective January 12, 2006; and
      333-125919, effective June 17, 2005).








/s/
      Grant
      Thornton LLP


Philadelphia,
      Pennsylvania




August
      25,
      2008
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-588]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee of the 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee of 
the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) 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 Tuesday, February 6, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Coffman at 1-888-912-1227, or 
206-220-6096.

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 Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee of the 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, February 6, 2007 from 9 
a.m. Pacific Time to 10:30 a.m. Pacific Time via a telephone conference 
call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, 
please call 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096, or write to Dave Coffman, 
TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or you can 
contact us at http://www.improveirs.org. Due to limited conference 
lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone 
conference call meeting must be made with Dave Coffman. Mr. Coffman can 
be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: January 9, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E7-588 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
(Reap. Dec. 8732)

#### Dale Products Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 766966.

(Decided January 17, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*579Wilson, Judge:

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

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that

> (1) Said merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying cases which in *Herber*v. *United States,*C. D. 1519, this Court held to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of articles.

> (2) At the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, 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 in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States was 100 pieces of Binoculars in leather cases

> The Binoculars_1_$15.80 each

> The Leather cases_ 2.90 ”

> plus cost of packing as invoiced and proportion of dutiable charges of invoice.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher domestic value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal to Re-appraisement enumerated above 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 binoculars and leather carrying cases here involved, and that such values were as follows:

> Binoculars_$15.80 each

> Leather cases_ 2.90 each

> plus cost of packing, as invoiced, and proportion of dutiable charges, as invoiced.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 49291.

#### Protest 795438-G of Herbst Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial counsel for the plaintiff moved in evidence the appraiser’s answer to the protest and the report of the customs inspector. The appraiser reported that the onion seed in question was in tin cans inside of wooden cases; that the outside cases were legally marked, but that the tins, which were the immediate containers of the seed, were marked in the Spanish language. The report of the customs inspector appeared to be a carbon copy of a letter showing that the contents of the cases were marked “Canary Island, Spain” after importation. Since it has been held in numerous cases that the marking in a foreign language does not comply with the provisions of section 304 the protest was overruled. Abstracts 39754 and 48561 cited.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Trowery, Petitioner.

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

*G. Barry Buckley,*for petitioner.

*587
      *'William H. Lamb,*Assistant District Attorney, with, him *Norman J. Pine,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

November 4, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Petitioner was convicted of robbery and he appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed. A petition for allocatur followed. The petition was prepared by petitioner; counsel has merely furnished a backer and a typist. This is clearly not the “representation in the role of an advocate” which we require. *Commonwealth v. Stancell,*435 Pa. 301, 256 A. 2d 798 (1969).

The record is remanded to the hearing court so that counsel can file a proper petition for allocatur.
Before the First Division,

January 2, 1941

No. 45085.

#### Protest 898340-G of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise in question was held dutiable as follows: (1) Metal pipe kazoos at 45 percent under paragraph 397, Abstract 44122 followed; (2) squawker balloons in part of bamboo at 45 percent under paragraph 409, Abstract 40493 followed; (3) wooden cabinets similar to those the subject of Abstract 37636 at 33)4 percent under paragraph 412; and (4) novelties in chief value of fur similar to those the subject of Abstract 41823 at 50 percent under paragraph 1519 (e).