alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8763)

#### Heusch United Industrials, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 44301; 44544.

(Decided March 15, 1957)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeals for a reappraisement were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff and the cases were ordered submitted by the court.

*607Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that — ■

> The submission for decision of any ease shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF CONTINUING ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: Latrice Williams v. Dana Lee

Appellate case number: 01-10-00296-CV

Trial court case number: 0827802

Trial court: 309th District Court of Harris County

This appeal has been abated since August 28, 2012 so that the trial court can make 

findings regarding certain documents requested to be included in the record by appellant.

On January 4, 2013, the Clerk of this Court received a fax from the trial court, containing 

a letter from the trial court judge regarding the various hearings that had been scheduled and held 

and the findings of the trial court regarding the documents. The fax indicated that the trial court 

had requested that certain documents be sent by the Post Judgment Division as a supplement to 

the record that was previously sent to this Court. However, no supplement has been received, 

and the Clerk of this Court was informed that the district clerk’s office would not send a 

supplemental record without a written order from the court.

Accordingly, we direct the trial court to enter a written order within 5 days of the date of 

this order directing that a supplemental record be sent to this Court with the documents that the 

trial court has requested within 5 days of the date of the trial court’s order. We further direct the 

trial court to require in the written order that a copy of the trial court’s January 4, 2013 letter be 

included in the supplemental record.

The appeal continues in abatement and will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket 

when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed in this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 24, 2013
Before the First Division,

August 8, 1939

No. 41896.

#### Protests 829074-G/85445, etc., of Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of binocular cases in chief value of leather similar to those involved in Abstract 39805. The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1531 was therefore sustained.
#### Bonwit Teller, Inc. (Globe Shipping Co., Inc.), et al. *v.*United States

No. 6637.

Entry No. 735362, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, April 25, 1945, etc.

Certified May 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 11, 1945, etc.

(Decided December 17, 1946)

*James W. Bevans*for the plaintiffs.

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

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (e)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

An agreed set of facts shows export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement of *227the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles'in question are the appraised values less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar cases.
Case: 2:10-cv-01173-EAS-MRA Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/13/12 Page: 1 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01173-EAS-MRA Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/13/12 Page: 2 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01173-EAS-MRA Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/13/12 Page: 3 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01173-EAS-MRA Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/13/12 Page: 4 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01173-EAS-MRA Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/13/12 Page: 5 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01173-EAS-MRA Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/13/12 Page: 6 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01173-EAS-MRA Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/13/12 Page: 7 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01173-EAS-MRA Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/13/12 Page: 8 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01173-EAS-MRA Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/13/12 Page: 9 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01173-EAS-MRA Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/13/12 Page: 10 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-01173-EAS-MRA Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/13/12 Page: 11 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T14:34:59-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 15, 2016 522978 

________________________________

In the Matter of CARL 

MACEDONIO, 

Petitioner, 

v

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting 

Commissioner of Corrections 

and Community Supervision, 

et al., 

Respondents.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 25, 2016

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Rose, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Carl Macedonio, Ossining, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondents.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Shawangunk

Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating

certain prison disciplinary rules. 

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to

challenge a tier II determination finding him guilty of violating

certain prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has

advised this Court that the determination has since been

administratively reversed, all references thereto have been

expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory

$5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. 
-2- 522978 

In view of this, and given that petitioner has been granted all

the relief to which he is entitled, the petition must be

dismissed as moot (see Matter of Ballard v Racette, 140 AD3d

1428, 1428 [2016]).

McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Rose, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ.,

concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
(Reap. Dec. 8492)

#### Spratt’s Patent (America), Ltd. v. United States

Entry No. N-91.

(Decided November 18, 1955)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

This appeal for a reappraisement presents for the court’s determination the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain metal bird cages and stands.

*428Said, appeal has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation by the respective parties to the effect that the metal bird cages and stands, and the issues, are the same in all material respects as those before the court in *Spratt’s Patent America, Ltd.*v. *United States,*32 Cust. Ct. 583, Reap. Dec. 8285, the record in which case has been incorporated herein. It has been further agreed that there is no foreign, export, or United States value, as those values are defined in section 402 (c), (d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c), (d) and (e)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, for such or similar merchandise, and that the statutory cost of production of the articles here involved is equal to the invoice price, less discounts of 2 per centum and *2/*per centum.

On the agreed facts, I find that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the metal bird cages and stands here involved, and that such value is equal to the invoice price, less discounts of 2 per centum and *2%*per centum.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Exhibit 10.3

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made effective as of the 24th day of March, 2015, by and between ERNIE R. KRUEGER (the “Executive”) and MACKINAC FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation (the “Company”).

 

BACKGROUND

 

On August 10, 2012, the Company and the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”).  The Company and the Executive now wish to amend the Employment Agreement as provided herein.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the terms and conditions set forth below, the parties agree as follows:

 

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

 

1.                                      AMENDMENT TO DEFINED TERM.  The term “Commencement Date” as used in the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to be March 24, 2015.

 

2.                                      AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2(B)(I).  The first sentence of Section 2(b)(i) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and amended to read as follows:

 

“During the Employment Period, the Executive shall receive an annual base salary at least equal  to Two Hundred Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty 10/100 ($215,250.10) (the “Annual Base Salary”), which shall be paid in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices for senior executive officers of the Company as in effect from time to time.”

 

3.                                      CONSTRUCTION.  Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in the Employment Agreement.  The terms of this Amendment amend and modify the Employment Agreement as if fully set forth in the Employment Agreement.  If there is any conflict between the terms, conditions and obligations of this Amendment and the Employment Agreement, this Amendment’s terms, conditions and obligations shall control.  All other provisions of the Employment Agreement not specifically modified by this Amendment are preserved.  This Amendment may be executed in counterparts (including via facsimile or .pdf), each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same document.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.

 

	
THE EXECUTIVE:  
    	
THE COMPANY:  
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
MACKINAC FINANCIAL   CORPORATION  
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ ERNIE R.   KRUEGER  
    	
 
    	
By: 
    	
/s/ PAUL D. TOBIAS  
    
	
ERNIE R. KRUEGER
    	
 
    	
Name: 
    	
Paul D. Tobias  
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title: 
    	
CEO and Chairman
(Reap. Dec. 8892)

Entry No. 707963, etc.

#### Carbons, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided June 27, 1957)

*Fred Bennett; Jordan & Klingaman,*associate counsel; for the plaintiff.

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

Johnson, 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 parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court,

> 1- That all the merchandise on the entries the subject of the above-entitled reappraisement appeals consists of arc light carbons imported from France.

> 2- That the issues in the aforesaid appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *Bert Friedberg & Company*v. *United States,*R. D. 8590, and *560that the record in the said R. D. 8590 may be incorporated in the record in each of the aforesaid appeals.

> 3- That the appraised value of the merchandise in each of the aforesaid appeals, less 14.5 per cent, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption 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, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that, on or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise herein involved, merchandise such as or similar thereto was not sold or offered for sale in the country of exportation for export to the United States.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the reappraisement appeals herein may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less 14.5 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP.


 



 Exhibit 10(i)


 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’

 








To the Board of Directors of




Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company


 



          We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-95851 on Form
N-4 of our report dated February 8, 2001 on our audit of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to the use of statutory accounting practices which
differ from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America) appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading
“Experts” in such Statement of Additional Information.


 



Deloitte & Touche LLP


 



Hartford, Connecticut




April 25, 2001
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, A lphonso 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 appe al 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
##### [Click here to download a zipped		WordPerfect 5.1 version of this report]

# Privacy and Health Research

### A Report to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human		Services

### May 1997

****

#### OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARYFOR PLANNING AND		EVALUATION

##### From:William W. Lowrance, Ph.D.Consultant in		Health Policy18A, Quai du SeujetCH-1201 GenevaSwitzerland+41 22		738-4243 telephone+41 22 738-4288 telefaxlowrance@iprolink.ch

##### Division of Data PolicyOffice of Program		SystemsOffice of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and		EvaluationU.S. Department of Health and Human Services200 Independence		Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20201

----

# Contents

***Preface***

***Executive Summary***

**1. Coupled Societal Goods: Privacy and		Research**

- Current legislative attention
- Heightened public concern
- Privacy, confidentiality, security
- Privacy and confidentiality in health care
- Privacy and confidentiality in health research
- Potential harms from wrongful disclosure
- Some ancillary privacy-rights claims
- Weighing privacy against research need

**2. Health Data and Data		Holders**

- "Data" vocabulary
- The universe of health data
- Especially-sensitive data
- The diversity of data holders
- Databases useful for research
- The international flow of data

**3. Data from Research, Research on		Data**

- Research to advance basic biomedical science
- Research to know patterns of health, disease, and disability 
- Research to reduce public-health threats
- Research to understand utilization of health care
- Research to evaluate and improve practices
- Research to make effective innovations
- Research to analyze economic factors
- Research to appraise markets

**4. Identifiability, Consent, and		Protections**

- Identifiable---key-coded---anonymized
- Anonymized data
- Reasons for retaining identifiability
- Managing key-coded data
- U.S. subjects-protection policy
- Data-subject consent
- Institutional Review Board supervision

**5. New Laws in Europe**

- The European Union Data Privacy Directive
- Legal revisions in some European countries
- New Council of Europe Recommendation on Protection of Medical		  Data
- Dialogue between the U.S. and Europe

**6. The U.S. Legal Context**

- Standard protections
- Certificates of Confidentiality 
- The Federal Privacy Act
- Federal agencies' statutes
- State laws and activities
- The new insurance law
- Proposed new medical privacy laws

**7. Major Current Issue		Clusters**

- Secondary use of data, and data linking
- Research on private-sector health data
- Cybersecurity
- Genetic privacy

**8. Principles**

***Appendix*****: The Author, and		ASPE**

**Endnotes**

----

Data Council Web		Master

 Return to the Data Council home page .

Last updated 7/23/97.
No. 54150.

#### T. H. Lung Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 137325-K, etc. (Boston and St. Albans).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case No. 13,876.

#### THECKER et al. v. MILBURN.

[Hayw. & H. 271.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. 17, 1847.

Actions — Cumulation—Justice of Peace-Jurisdiction.

The holder of several notes, made by the same party, may elect to bring separate action in a justice’s court on each note, and the fact that the amount of all the notes combined exceeds the jurisdiction of the justice will not oust the justice of jurisdiction.

Appeal from Henry Reaves, justice of the peace.

[This was an action on promissory notes by Thomas Milburn against James Thecker and James A. Thecker.]

Robert Ould, for appellants.

Mr. Laurence, for appellee.

The Theekers had given two joint promissory notes, bearing the same date, to T. M. Milburn, each note for $36 with interest, one payable in four and the other in six months. After both of the notes had fallen due, a warrant was issued on each, and Milburn obtained judgment on each. The Theekers appealed, on the ground that both notes ought to have been embraced in one suit, and that then the amount would have exceeded the magistrate’s jurisdiction.

For the appellee, it was contended that each note constituted a separate cause of action, and that the magistrate was right in giving a separate judgment on each.

THE COURT

sustained the appellee’s point, and affirmed the magistrate’s judgment, with costs.