alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8898)

Entry No. 745036, etc.

#### Cosmos Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided July 10, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “B,” 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, subject to the approval of the Court, that

> (1) Said merchandise consists of microscopes and 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, the foreign value of such or similar merchandise being no higher, is as set forth in the schedule attached hereto marked schedule “A” and made a part hereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the case 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 microscopes and carrying cases here involved, and that such values were as set forth in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof.

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

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2007211EN.01000501.xml

| 8.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, France) — Société thermale d'Eugénie-les-Bains v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

(Case C-277/05) (1)

1

(VAT - Scope - Deposits, paid in the context of contracts relating to supplies of services subject to VAT, which are retained by the provider in the event of cancellation - Classification)

(2007/C 211/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société thermale d'Eugénie-les-Bains

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'Etat (France) — Interpretation of Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Scope — Deposits paid in the context of contracts for supplies of services subject to value added tax, which are retained by the service provider on cancellation — Classification as remuneration for a reservation service or as a cancellation payment.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment are to be interpreted as meaning that a sum paid as a deposit, in the context of a contract relating to the supply of hotel services which is subject to value added tax, is to be regarded, where the client exercises the cancellation option available to him and that sum is retained by the hotelier, as a fixed cancellation charge paid as compensation for the loss suffered as a result of client default and which has no direct connection with the supply of any service for consideration and, as such, is not subject to that tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
  1.
    
    The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NeuStar, Inc. for the quarter ended June
30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    Information contained in such quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NeuStar,
Inc.
 August 4, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Jeffrey E. GanekJeffrey E. GanekChief Executive OfficerAugust 4, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Paul S. LalljiePaul S. LalljieChief Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 9228)

#### T. D. Downing Company v. United States

Entry No. 2181.

(Decided October 7, 1958)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (E. Thomas Honey*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

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

> Mb. Honey: If the court please, I offer to stipulate that the entered value of the imported saxophones covered by this appeal represents the correct foreign value ,of said merchandise and that there is no higher export value.

> Mb. Austee: May it please your Honor, I have discussed this with the appraiser and with the examiner and I find that the stipulation that has just been proffered is in good order and I consent to the stipulation and approve it.

> Judge Wilson: Let it appear of record as a 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, to be the proper basis for the determination of the involved merchandise and that such value is represented by the entered value herein.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 EASTERN DIVISION

Jermaine Artis, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:11-cv-321

 v. JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST

 Magistrate Judge Kemp

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of 

Social Security, 

 

Defendant. 

ORDER

This case is before the Court to consider a Report and Recommendation issued by the

Magistrate Judge on April 9, 2012. The time for filing objections has passed, and no objections

have been filed to the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report

and Recommendation. The plaintiff’s statement of errors is overruled. This case is

DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:11-cv-00321-GLF-TPK Doc #: 21 Filed: 05/04/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2007155EN.01002402.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 2007 — Kronberger v Parliament

(Case T-18/07 R)

(Interim proceedings - Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament - Application for interim measures - Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 155/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans Kronberger (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: W. Weh, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, N. Lorenz and M. Windisch, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for interim measures seeking to obtain, first, a provisional declaration that the award of a seat in the European Parliament to its current holder is invalid, and second, a provisional award of that seat to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
# C_2007192EN.01000202.xml

| 18.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 192/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4705 — Blackstone/Klöckner Pentaplast)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 192/04)

On 28 June 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4705. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4705. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [CO-923-1430-ET; COC-70704] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice; Correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Bureau of Land Management published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 23, 2007, concerning a notice of proposed withdrawal. The document contained errors in the land description.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew J. Senti, BLM Colorado  State Office, 303-239-3713. 

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 23, 2007, in FR Doc. E7-3085, on page 8200, in the third column, make the following corrections to the land description:                     

                        Sec. 4, the sixth and seventh lines should read “a metes and bounds parcel within lot 1 and the NW                        1/4                        NW                        1/4                        ;”                     

                        Sec. 15, the ninth and tenth lines should read “a metes and bounds parcel within the SW                        1/4                        SE                        1/4                        .”                     

Andrew J. Senti, 

Acting Chief,  Branch of Lands and Realty.

 [FR Doc. E7-6013 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
SCWC-11-0000586 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. TEVITA UNGOUNGA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-11-0000586; CR. NO. 09-1-1295) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, and McKenna, JJ. Circuit Judge Nakasone, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge To # oto # o in place of Pollack, J., recused)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s application for writ of certiorari filed on April 12, 2013, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, May 23, 2013. Walter J. Rodby for petitioner Debbie L. Tanakaya for respondent /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Karen T. Nakasone /s/ Fa# auuga To # oto # o Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000586 23-MAY-2013 08:17 AM
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8496 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the definition 

of protection determination and protection merits interview. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2024 

Mr. GALLEGO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect 

to the definition of protection determination and protection merits interview. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COMBINED SCREENINGS. 

4 Section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

5 Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following: 

7 ‘‘(53) The term ‘protection determination’ 

8 means— 

9 ‘‘(A) a screening conducted pursuant to 

10 section 235(b)(1)(B)(v); or 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8496 IH

1 ‘‘(B) a screening to determine whether an 

2 alien is eligible for— 

3 ‘‘(i) withholding of removal under sec4 tion 241(b)(3); or 

5 ‘‘(ii) protection under the Convention 

6 against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman 

7 or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 

8 done at New York December 10, 1984, 

9 which includes the regulations imple10 menting any law enacted pursuant to Arti11 cle 3 of such convention. 

12 ‘‘(54) The term ‘protection merits interview’ 

13 means an interview to determine whether an alien— 

14 ‘‘(A) meets the definition of refugee under 

15 paragraph (42), in accordance with the terms 

16 and conditions under section 208; 

17 ‘‘(B) is eligible for withholding of removal 

18 under section 241(b)(3); or 

19 ‘‘(C) is eligible for protection under the 

20 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, 

21 Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punish22 ment, done at New York December 10, 1984, 

23 which includes the regulations implementing 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8496 IH

1 any law enacted pursuant to Article 3 of such 

2 convention.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                  PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Vantage Health (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lisa Ramakrishnan, Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: October 15, 2012                /s/ Lisa Ramakrishnan
                                      ---------------------------------------
                                      Lisa Ramakrishnan
                                      President, Chief Executive Officer, and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibits      No. 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 1.     | Such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007,                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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                period ended June 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of 355,                Inc. |

| Dated: | August                  17, 2007 |
|--------|----------------------------------|

| By:    | */s/*   *Alex                Jen*                                                                       |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |  Alex              JenChief                Executive OfficerChief                Financial                Officer |
EXHIBIT  32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the quarterly report HEALTHMED SERVICES LTD. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Morland, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








By:
/s/ William MorlandDate: December 20, 2010

William MorlandChief Executive Officer
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. v. United States

No. 7517.

Entry No. 762491, etc.

Invoices dated Hanley, England, April 16, 1946, etc.

Certified April 23, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 22, 1946, etc.

(Decided January 21, 1948)

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

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

Johnson, Judge:

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

*359In view of the aforesaid stipulation and accepting same as a statement of fact, and in view of the decision cited, I find and hold that tbe export values of the merchandise are the values found by the appraiser, less any additions on entry by the importer by reason of advances by the appraiser in similar cases to equal the British purchase tax, so-called.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### BYRD *v.*EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.

No. 11605.

January 14, 1937.

Adhered to on rehearing, March 24, 1937.

*Robert B. Blackburn,*for plaintiff in error.

*Alston, Alston, Poster •& Moise*and *W. H. Sibley,*contra.

Bussell, Chief Justice.

Mrs. Cora M. Byrd filed her petition against the Equitable Life Assurance Society and its attorneys, Alston, Alston, Foster and Moise. The defendants filed answers. The defendant insurance company filed its cross-action against the plaintiff, and made her husband a party thereto. It sought judgment against them and extraordinary equitable relief. Upon the death of the plaintiff’s husband, the insurance company dismissed its cross-action as to him. The plaintiff demurred to the cross-action, and on the judgment overruling her demurrer she assigned error in the present bill of exceptions.

There is no provision of law by virtue of which the overruling of a demurrer to a cross-action filed by the defendant may be reviewed by direct bill of exceptions before final disposition of plaintiff’s case in the court below. *Bellinger*v. *Eblin,*158 *Ga.*657 (124 S. E. 137); *Knights of the Ku-Klux Klan*v. *Terrell,*155 *Ga.*374 (116 S. E. 793); *White*v. *Chisolm,*160 *Ga.*177 (127 S. E. 140); *Thomas*v. *Berry,*151 *Ga.*7 (105 S. E. 478); *Daniel*v. *Chastaine,*177 *Ga.*730 (171 S. E. 373); Code, § 6-701. Accordingly, since the original petition of the plaintiff is still pending in die trial court, and the only assignment of error being on *179the overruling of plaintiffs demurrer to the answer and cross-action of the defendant insurance company, the writ of error is premature, and this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the same. *Writ of error dismissed. All the Justices concur.*

On rehearing the original judgment dismissing the writ of error is adhered to.

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 63183.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 225258-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wall plaques or plates the same as those the subject of *United China & Class Co.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 167, C.D. 1920), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                            | Summit Hotel Properties, Inc.                                                      |
|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |                                                                               |
| Date:  March 31, 2011 | By: /s/  Daniel P. Hansen                                                |
|                            | Daniel P. HansenPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |