alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8748)

#### J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc. (Swift & Anderson, Inc.) v. United States

Entry No. 791350, etc.

(Decided February 14, 1957)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiffs.

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

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the reappraisement appeals listed in the attached Schedule A, which Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, are limited to the binoculars and leather cases specified in the said attached Schedule A.

> That at the time of exportation binoculars and leather cases such as or similar to those identified in the attached Schedule A, were being 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 at the per piece prices specified in the attached Schedule A net packed, which prices were higher than the foreign values as defined in Section 402 (e), Tariff Act of 1930.

> The reappraisement appeals listed in the attached Schedule A are submitted for decision upon this 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 cases specified in said schedule *“A,”*and that such values were the per piece prices specified in said schedule *“A,”*net, packed.

Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-30545

_______________________

ALVIN C. COPELAND,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AMERICA'S FAVORITE CHICKEN COMPANY, ET AL.,

Defendants,

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(92-CV-3961-S)

_________________________________________________________________ January 9, 1996

Before JONES, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Responding to a motion to enforce a settlement agreement

signed in June, 1994 among Copeland, AFCC and CIBC, the district

court entered judgment dismissing Copeland's comp l aint in the

instant "Recipe Royalty" suit with prejudice in favor of AFCC and

CIBC. As to co-defendant Merrill Lynch, the court granted judgment

"dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice but reserving any2

and all rights of Alvin C. Copeland to prosecute the matter

entitled [the Lender Liability suit]." This language is ambiguous

as to whether or not it dismisses all claims that Copeland asserted

against Merrill Lynch in the Recipe Royalty suit, or whether it

allows even those claims to be pursued in the lender liability

action pending under another cause number. The district court's

ruling on the impact of the settlement agreement on the Lender

Liability suit was premature in this case. Because of the

ambiguity, we reverse and remand for entry of a new judgment.

Having considered the record, as well as the briefs and

arguments of counsel, we conclude that the parties' settlement

agreement compelled dismissal with prejudice of all claims asserted

by Copeland against Merrill Lynch in the Recipe Royalty suit. We

do not decide, however, what effect, if any, the settlement

agreement or judgment in this case may have upon the pending Lender

Liability case between Copeland and Merrill Lynch.

The judgment is REVERSED , and the case is REMANDED , for

entry of judgment in favor of Merrill Lynch dismissing plaintiff's

complaint in this Recipe Royalty lawsuit with prejudice.

REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of judgment as stated.
No. 42968.

Suit 4217.

#### New *York Merchandise Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

Abstract 39335 affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 3, 2014

t0930

Order 

Clerk

October 3, 2014

148928-9

DOUGLAS LATHAM,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148928

COA: 312141 

Oakland CC: 2004-059653-NO

BARTON MALOW COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

DOUGLAS LATHAM,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148929

COA: 313606 

Oakland CC: 2004-059653-NO

BARTON MALOW COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). 

The parties shall submit supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order 

addressing whether a significant number of workers were exposed to the high degree of 

risk identified by this Court in Latham v Barton Malow Co, 480 Mich 105, 114 (2008) 

(“the danger of working at heights without fall-protection equipment”). The parties 

should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
#### Gristede Bros., a Division of Southland Corporation, Plaintiff, v Carl M. Leeds et al., Defendants.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Special Term, New York County,

January 3, 1979

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Masor & Masor*for plaintiff. *Raoul Lionel Felder*for defendants.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Herman Cahn, J.

Plaintiff brings this action to recover the sum of $403.97 representing groceries sold and delivered by it to defendant Alice B. Leeds between April 1, 1977 and October 1, 1977. In 1971, while defendant Alice B. Leeds was still married to the codefendant, she applied for, and was granted, a charge account by the plaintiff. Plaintiff states that it had information that the parties were separated when the purchases in issue herein were made, and that for the last six years, defendant Carl M. Leeds has been residing out of State. Incidentally, said defendant has not been served herein.

*805Defendant Alice B. Leeds, in opposition to this motion, states that the within purchases were "necessaries” for which her husband, the codefendant, is liable. Furthermore, she points to the existence of a temporary order of support issued in the Supreme Court, which order her husband has evidently not complied with.

It is clear that the plaintiff sold and delivered the goods involved herein to defendant Alice B. Leeds. She accepted them, and consumed them. The basic issue is whether she can raise the claim that it is her estranged husband who is responsible for payment, as against the plaintiff. Plaintiff acted in good faith in delivering the goods to defendant Alice B. Leeds, and should not be required to become involved in the matrimonial dispute between the codefendants. If defendant Alice B. Leeds wishes to cross-claim against the defendant Carl M. Leeds, or to otherwise assert a claim against him, she may do so. However, she should not and will not be heard to require plaintiff to do so. To hold otherwise would be to discourage merchants from selling goods to married individuals on credit, for fear that the merchants will become involved in their customers’ matrimonial litigation upon attempting to collect the price of the goods.

It is clear that a husband’s support obligations may be enforced by a wife’s action for reimbursement where she has been compelled by the husband’s default to pay for necessaries out of her separate estate. *(De Brauwere v De Brauwere,*203 NY 460; *York Towers v Bachmann,*73 Misc 2d 214.) The burden of enforcing such obligation will not be imposed upon an innocent third party.

Plaintiff is therefore entitled to summary judgment against defendant, Alice B. Leeds.
#### ZEPP et ux. *v.*STATE ROADS COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

[No. 369,

September Term, 1968.]

*Decided October 8, 1969.*

*107The cause was submitted on brief to Hammond, C. J., and Marbury, Barnes, McWilliams, Finan, Singley and Smith, JJ.

Submitted by *Robert J. Cooke*for appellants.

Submitted by *Francis B. Burch, Attorney General, Joseph D. Buscher, Special Assistant Attorney General, Carl Harrison Lehmann, Special Attorney*and *Thomas S. Glass, Special Attorney,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

This is clearly an appeal which never should have been brought.

In October 1964 a condemnation case was filed by the State Roads Commission in the Circuit Court for Carroll County at the request of the landowners to “quick-take” some 16 acres of land for highway purposes. The Commission deposited in court $22,350, which the owners withdrew. In February 1966 the clerk of the Circuit Court put the case on the “Stet Docket” under a rule of the Circuit Court.

In December 1967 the Commission, at the request of the owners, filed an amended petition for condemnation, seeking to condemn only some 10 acres of the property involved. On April 3, 1968, the owners, in response to the amended petition, filed this pleading:

> “The consent of the Defendants to the Petition for Leave to Amend heretofore filed by the Plaintiff on the 12th day of December, 1967, in this Honorable Court, repectfully shows unto your Honors:

> 1. That the amendment set forth in the Plaintiff’s Petition for Leave to Amend has been made at the request of the property owner, and as a result the property owner is agreeable thereto and joins with the Plaintiff in request*108ing this Honorable Court to grant the Leave to Amend prayed for in said Petition.

> 2. It is stipulated and agreed that the date of taking and the date of valuation shall remain unchanged as a result of filing the Amended Petition.”

Thereupon the court granted formal consent to the Commission to proceed under the amended petition. Trial was had and the jury returned an inquisition for $20,000, on which judgment was entered. The owners’ appeal relies on two alleged errors below.

> 1. The trial court erred in allowing a case on stet docket to be tried.

> 2. The court erred in setting the date as of which the property was to be valued as the time of the original taking in 1964 rather than as of December 1967 when the amended petition was filed or in October 1968 when the case was tried.

It is apparent that the appellants, the property owners, stipulated themselves out of the right to raise the contentions they now seek to make. Whatever the status of the case on the stet docket would be otherwise, the owners without doubt either consented to removal of the case from the stet docket or agreed bindingly to treat the amended petition as a new proceeding. Further, the owners bindingly agreed that the date of the taking and the date of valuation should “remain unchanged as a result of the filing of the Amended Petition.”

*Judgment affirmed, with costs.*
|   | (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 of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 14, 2011 |  By:               Timothy P. Halter                |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |  Timothy P. Halter                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|                 |  Chief Executive and                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|                 |  Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                             |

----
#### Henry Holthausen, Resp’t, *v*John Pondir, App’lt.

*Henry Huffman Browne,*for resp’t; *C. C. Shelton,*for app’lt.

*997Judgment affirmed, with, costs.

All concur, except Haight, J., not voting.

Affirming 18 N. Y. State Rep., 360.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2010-1 for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby
certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 26, 2010, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables
LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2010-1 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period
that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  |  |                                |  |                
| |  |  |  | ------------------------------ |  | ---------------
| |  |  |  | SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.   
| |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | By:                            |  | /s/ Jason Kulas
| |  |  |  | Name: Jason Kulas             
| |  |  |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer
| |  |  |  | Date: March 30, 2012
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-QSB
filed by New Century Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in
that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



NEW CENTURY BANCORP, INC.



|Date: November 13, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/ John Q. Shaw, Jr.                
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|                        |  |     |  | John Q. Shaw, Jr.                    
|                        |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Glen Dale SHELVIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INLAND WELL SERVICE, INC., et al., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 81-3752.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 3, 1984.

Gibbens & Blackwell, John Blackwell, Iberia, La., for defendant-appellant.

Richard R. Kennedy, Lafayette, La., Albert L. Boudreau, Jr., Abbeville, La., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BROWN, REAVLEY, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The parties, through counsel, have filed a joint motion to vacate previous action by this Court, 711 F.2d 581, and to remand this case to the district court so a judgment of dismissal in accordance with the settlement and compromise can be entered.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all previous action in this cause is hereby vacated and it is further ORDERED that this cause be remanded to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
#### Tiffany & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6332.

Entry No. 706407, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, July 30, 1942, etc.

Certified July 30, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 15, 1942, etc.

(Decided August 23, 1946)

*Sharretts & Hillis*for the plaintiffs.

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

Keefe, Judge:

Tbe appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon tbe following stipulation of counsel for tbe parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise consisting of earthenware and chinaware involved in each of the cases enumerated in tbe attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchaseis in the principal markets *294of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted 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 earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
SERVED: APRIL 3, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

In The Matter Of: 

PRO FORM PRODUCTS LTD. 

Respondent 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1122 

Case No. 2011S0700264 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On April2, 2015, the Respondent filed its Motion to Withdraw Request for Hearing and 

Answer "for the reason that Respondent has executed a Settlement Agreement with Federal 

Aviation Administration ... that settles all issues in this matter." 

After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, 

statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the Respondent has withdrawn its Request for Hearing 

and Answer, and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. · 

Attachment: Service List 
; 

'; 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

. Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI0001 

Mr. Robert B. Dixon 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAJ(: 404-305-5223 

ONE COPY 

President 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1122 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Mr. Stuart A. Laven, Jr. 

Respondent's Counsel 

Cavitch, Farnilo & Durkin 

Twentieth Floor 

Pro Form Products, Ltd., Respondent 

604 McGeachie Drive · 

1300 East Ninth Street 

Cleveland, OH 44114 

TEL: 216-621-7860 

FAJ(: 216-621-3415 

E-MAIL: slaven@cavitch.com 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

Milton, Ontario Canada L9T3Y5 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
1

Perez, Idalia

From: Hicks, Austin@ARB <Austin.Hicks@arb.ca.gov>

Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:58 PM

To: Perez, Idalia

Subject: Responses to Follow-up Questions

Idalia, 

Here are the responses to the follow-up questions: 

PM10 to PM2.5 conversion ratio – 

As referenced on pg. B-6 in the ARB Review of San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 State Implementation Plan dated May 21, 2015, 

staff applied a PM2.5 to PM10 emission ratio of 0.92 to the PM10 totals of exhaust. 

Carl Moyer Program emission reduction calculations for S-1301 – 

The annual hours of operation for the two engines with project number S-1301 were provided as 1800 hours. However, 

the annual hours of operation for S-1301 equipment identifier number 3 should be 2500 hours. 

Austin Hicks 

Air Quality Planning and Science Division 

Air Resources Board 

(916) 322-8279
Before the First Division,

April 23, 1945

No. 50136.

#### Protest 73278-K of Jacob H. Brodsky & Son, Inc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

From the record as now presented it was held that the clean content of the imported wool on skins was in fact 5,724 pounds, not 8,368-pounds, as estimated by the appraiser and upon which the collector’s assessment was based. The protest was therefore sustained to this extent.
#### The Metropolitan Concert Co., Limited, App’lt, *v.*Howard A. Sperry *et al.,*Resp’ts.

*John S. Davenport,*for app’lt; *James L. Bishop,*for resp’ts.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute rendered against the appellant, with costs.

All concur, except Haight, J., not sitting.

Affirming 9 N. Y. State Rep., 342.
No. 53670.

protests 122757-K, etc. (Cleveland).

#### Harmar Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Stephen Paul Patel, * From the 91st District Court

of Eastland County,

Trial Court No. 24348.

Vs. No. 11-17-00211-CR * December 14, 2017

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Dauphinot, 

sitting by assignment)

(Bailey, J., not participating)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal 

is dismissed.