alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9308)

#### E. Sidney Stockwell Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 11883.

(Decided February 3, 1959)

*Henry L. Ziegel*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGibbon,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for a reap-praisement presents the question of the proper dutiable value of four 1-meter lengths of quartz tubes, imported from England.

At the call of this case for hearing, the parties hereto entered into an oral stipulation of fact whereby it was agreed as to the four 1-meter lengths of quartz tubes that, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal market 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, at a price of 63 shillings per foot, plus cost of packing and case, and that the export value was no higher for such or similar merchandise.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis of value for the merchandise in issue and that said value is 63 shillings per foot, plus cost of packing and case. As to any other merchandise, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### Alfred H. Porter *v.*United States

No. 7526.

Entry No. 700958.

Invoice dated Leigh, England, June 3, 1946.

Certified June 17, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 3, 1946.

(Decided February 3, 1948)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Kincheloe, 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, by and between counsel, in the matter of the above appeal for reappraisement, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, at which such or similar mer*375chandise was freely offered for sale for exportation to the United States to all purchasers in the principal markets of Great Britain, 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, is 97.76 pence per pound, plus 2.2471% for shrinkage, less 2%; and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher..

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the said above appeal for reappraisement may be 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 merchandise here involved, and that such value was 97.76 pence per pound, plus 2.2471 per centum for shrinkage, less 2 per centum.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
SERVED: February 19, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

GENE HARRISON 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2014.-0860 

ORDER ON AGENCY'S MOTION TO DISMISS RESPONDENT'S UNTIMELY 

APPEAL OR 

IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCEPT COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Admi.nistration (hereinafter "FAA" or "Complainant") filed 

a Motion to Dismiss Respondent's Untimely Appeal or in the Alternative to Accept 

Complaint. The FAA alleges it issued a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty to Gene 

Harrison (herein after "Respondent") on March 26, 2013. On September 18, 2014, the 

FAA issued an Amended Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty. Respondent received 

the Amended Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty on September 22, 2014. On 

November 20, 2014, Respondent left a voicemail message for the undersigned FAA 

counsel inquiring as to whether the FAA had received his appeal. On November 24, 

2014, FAA counsel attempted to contact Respondent to no avail. On November 24, 

2014, FAA counsel contacted the Hearing Docket and was advised that it received an 

appeal from Respondent on October 21, 2014. 

Respondent filed a Request for Hearing dated September 30, 2014. Respondent 

provides no explanation for his untimely filing. In the interest of fundamental Due 

Process, we will deny the FAA's Motion to Dismiss and grant its prayer for alternative 

relief. 

WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

1. The FAA's Motion to Dismiss Respondent's Untimely Appeal· be and is hereby 

DENIED; and 
2. The FAA's Motion to Accept Complaint be and is hereby GRANTED. 

3. The FAA should file its Complaint within thirty (30) days ofthis Order. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment- Service List 

2 
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 2W1 000 1 

Gene Harrison, Respondent 

3705 Arctic Blvd. Apt. 543 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

TEL: 907-727-4719 

Jeanine Gotimer, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ONE COPY 

Office ofRegional Counsel, Eastern Region 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3272 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.K (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-20 14-0860 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

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 2W I 000, Washington, 

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

3
Case: 2:11-cv-00097-EAS-EPD Doc #: 20 Filed: 05/29/12 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00097-EAS-EPD Doc #: 20 Filed: 05/29/12 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T16:52:16-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

I, Daniel J. Gardetto, certify that:

 

(a)                                 A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)                                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.

 

 

Dated March 19, 2013
|   |                                  |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Daniel J. Gardetto                |
|   | Daniel J. Gardetto                    |
|   | Assistant Treasurer of                |
|   | Ford Motor Credit Company LLC,        |
|   | as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner |
|   | Trust 2010-B                          |

 

----
p.1 

OAR Box 1878 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

126) ll-E-9 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 11/28/20081:21:26 PM Sheet 126 of 145 
P.2 

A-90-19 

RADII 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

• incoming Call 

Qoutgolng C*ll 

Person Calling 

n 

Person Called 

Central Subject 

mr- A: A. A 

l l 

3 - z 

•be. .^ 

1 

, • *1.?vo 

ic~ A 

Project No. ' 

2V; -o. 

Project Has* 

hZ \\) 

Date 

A!oh; 

Acdvlcy 

Activity 

["••' tTV,-ih'' . s 

z - ll-E-9 

J' 

Tiat 

VL p,.,, v . 

' P.CI&AY-JOW 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

l~£-K.im. Charles j L/+ lCLO:iJl ClC Jt "Mm XkJAA ••vV,, -m i K Cc<ti<.?'i*Z '-cf^iZ r Ofsh-.A^ 

J ^ g i t I Siitra.a,-J 

J e r / 

(. u T N ' 

^$>A 

\\ - ?.* 

£AAe^ ' Jt 7? A* 

\A P.'W-^-l W ^teC) ^ ^.i-y^/v-, - M? ^ch< 

4& 

b ytna cure A / LX*-'
# C_2007212EN.01001701.xml

| 11.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/17

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4871 — KPN/Getronics)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 212/15)

| 1. | On 3 September 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Koninklijke KPN N.V. (‘KPN’, The Netherlands) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Getronics N.V. (‘Getronics’, The Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 3 September 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Koninklijke KPN N.V. (‘KPN’, The Netherlands) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Getronics N.V. (‘Getronics’, The Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for undertaking KPN: telecommunications services, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for undertaking KPN: telecommunications services,

| — | for undertaking Getronics: ICT services. |
| --- | --- |

—

for undertaking Getronics: ICT services.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4871 — KPN/Getronics, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4871 — KPN/Getronics, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2007170EN.01003201.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/32

---

Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Anvil Knitwear v OHIM — Aprile e Aprile (Aprile)

(Case T-179/07)

(2007/C 170/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Anvil Knitwear, Inc. (New York, USA) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, T. Wittmann, lawyers, and R. Kunze, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aprile e Aprile Srl (Frazione Funo, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 22 March 2007 in Case R 1076/2006-2 concerning the opposition based on German trade mark registration No 30 011 766 ‘ANVIL’ against Community trade mark application No 3 800 232 ‘Aprile’ & device be annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 22 March 2007 in Case R 1076/2006-2 concerning the opposition based on German trade mark registration No 30 011 766 ‘ANVIL’ against Community trade mark application No 3 800 232 ‘Aprile’ & device be annulled;

| — | the opposition against Community trade mark application No 3 800 232 ‘Aprile’ & device be granted and application for registration of Community trade mark No 3 800 232 ‘Aprile’ & device be rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

the opposition against Community trade mark application No 3 800 232 ‘Aprile’ & device be granted and application for registration of Community trade mark No 3 800 232 ‘Aprile’ & device be rejected;

| — | defendant pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

defendant pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Aprile e Aprile Srl

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Aprile’ for goods in classes 18 and 25 — application No 3 800 232

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘ANVIL’ for goods in class 25

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1), 73 and 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal did not evaluate the aspects of the partial identity and partial similarity of the goods in question as well as the increased distinctiveness of the earlier mark. Furthermore the Board of Appeal did neither objectively nor without prejudice state the reasons on which its decision was based, nor did it take the uncontested facts of the proceedings properly into account.

Pleas in law:

---
(Reap. Dec. 9298)

#### Joseph Victori *&*Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 749167.

(Decided January 20, 1959)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the above appeal for reappraisement consists of white meat tuna fish in tins, exported from Spain on or about August 16, 1958.

> That on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise hereinbefore described, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Spain, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and *448expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, at $17.50 per case; and that there was no higher foreign value.

> That the above appeal for reappraisement is limited to merchandise herein-before described and is abandoned as to all other merchandise; and that said appeal may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value is $17.50 per case, net.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
---

EXHIBIT 31

CERTIFICATIONS

|I, Yang Lin, certify that:
|--------------------------
|                          
|1.                        
|                          
|2.                        
|                          
|3.                        
|                          
|4.                        
|                          
|                          
|                          
|                          
|                          
|                          
|                          
|                          
|                          
|5.                        
|                          
|                          
|                          
|                          

Date: June 29, 2011

/s/ Yang
LinYang Lin Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

---
Before the Second Division,

July 7, 1938

No. 38967.

#### Protests 507620-G, etc., of S. Blumenthal & Co. et al. (New York)

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was found from the record that certain items consist of articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore-sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:11-cr-163

David J. Chakeres 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 11) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the information, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: August 3, 2011 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cr-00163-JLG-EPD Doc #: 14 Filed: 08/03/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 31.1


RULE 13a-14(d) Certification





I, In-Young Chase, certify that:





1.           I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10–K of SATURNS Trust No. 2010-01 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2.           Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3.           Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4.           Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer, The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee of SATURNS Trust No. 2010-01, has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement, which is the Trust Agreement relating to SATURNS Trust No. 2010-01; and





5.           All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as an exhibit to this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon and its officers and agents.








By:           /s/ In-Young Chase
 Name:     In-Young Chase
 Title:       Vice President
 Date:       March 26, 2013
Exhibit 32.3

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as

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

Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Digital Realty Trust, L.P. (the Operating Partnership) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Operating Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2010
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Operating Partnership at the dates and for the periods indicated.

Dated: February 25, 2011

/S/    MICHAEL F. FOUSTMichael F. FoustChief Executive Officer Digital Realty Trust, Inc., sole general partner of Digital Realty Trust,
L.P.


Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Release 33-8238, dated June 5, 2003, this
certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Operating Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the
Operating Partnership filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Operating Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.01

                  CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &
                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Michael Pacult, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
White Oak Financial Services, Inc. as general partner of Providence Select
Fund, L.P., certify that (i) the Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2007 of Providence Select Fund, L.P. 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Providence Select Fund, L.P.


PROVIDENCE SELECT FUND, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By:	White Oak Financial Services, Inc., General Partner


By: /s/ Michael Pacult
Michael Pacult
Chief Executive Officer &
Chief Financial Officer

Date:	August 23, 2007


<page>