alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:11-cr-128-8

John P. Hike, Jr. 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 297) that the

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

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, 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: September 27, 2011 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cr-00128-JLG-TPK Doc #: 320 Filed: 09/27/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ARTHUR STROZEWSKI,

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:10-cv-1128

v. Judge Algenon L. Marbley

 Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

ROD’S WESTERN

PALACE, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In response to this Court’s May 13, 2011 Show Cause Order (ECF No. 30), Plaintiff

represents that its attempts to obtain service upon Defendant Olia Jewelry in China have been

unsuccessful and it has not objection to this Court’s dismissal of Olia Jewelry without prejudice

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 31.) Accordingly, the undersigned

RECOMMENDS that this Court dismiss Defendant Olia Jewelry without prejudice pursuant to

Rule 4(m). 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.

Case: 2:10-cv-01128-ALM-EPD Doc #: 32 Filed: 05/23/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district

court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate

review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994

(6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to specify the

issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: May 23, 2011 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

 United States Magistrate Judge 

2

Case: 2:10-cv-01128-ALM-EPD Doc #: 32 Filed: 05/23/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 54775.

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 152900-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

JERRY GOLDSTEIN, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

CASE NO. C2-10-1000

JOHN E. RAYL, ET AL., JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE E.A. PRESTON DEAVERS

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or

trial.

Pursuant to the ORDER filed January 4, 2012, JUDGMENT is hereby entered

DISMISSING this action.

Date: January 4, 2012 JAMES BONINI, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:10-cv-01000-EAS-EPD Doc #: 92 Filed: 01/04/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
----

| · | Servicing Criterion 1122(d)(1)(iii) is applicable only with respect to the Company’s continuing obligation to act as, or locate a, successor servicer under the circumstances referred to in certain transaction agreements. It is management’s interpretation that the Company has no other active back-up servicing responsibilities in regards to Servicing Criterion 1122(d)(1)(iii) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| · | Servicing Criterion 1122(d)(1)(v) is applicable only to the activities the Company performs related to the mathematically accurate aggregation of information received from servicers and the accurate conveyance of such information within reports to investors. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| · | Servicing Criterion 1122(d)(4)(iii) is applicable to the activities the Company performs with respect to the Platform only as it relates to the Company’s obligation to report additions, removals or substitutions on reports to investors in accordance with the transaction agreements. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A1 64 8 . W . HENRY SCHW AB v . J ENNI FER A. KI R SCH et a l

.

J en n i fer Ki rs ch an d Th e W y cl i ff Co n d om i n i u m As s o ci at i o n , In c. s u e d W

. Hen ry Sch wab fo r co n d om in i u m as so ci at i o n fees an d o th er cl ai m s

. On Oct o b er 1 4,

2 0 1 4

, t h e t ri al co urt en t ered fi n al ju dg m en t i n fav o r o f t h e p l ai nt i ffs

. Sch w ab f i l e d

m o ti o n s fo r reco n s i d erat i o n an d fo r a s t ay of t h e j u d gm en t

, wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt

d en ied

. H e t h en fi l ed a m o t i on fo r reco ns i d erat i o n o f t h e co u rt ’ s ru l i n g o n h i s t wo

p rev i o u s m o t i on s

. Th e t ri al co u r t l i k e w i s e den i ed t h at m o t io n

. On Feb ru ary 1 3,

2 0 1 5

, Sch wab fi led a n o t i ce o f ap p eal t o t h i s Co urt

. W e, ho wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n.

A n o t i ce o f ap p eal m

u s t b e fi l ed wi th i n 3 0 d a ys aft er en t ry o f an ap p eal ab l e

o rd er. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). A tri al co u rt ’ s d en i al of a m o t i o n fo r reco ns i d erat i o n i s

n o t s ub ject t o d i rect ap p eal

. Bel l v. Co h r a n , 2 4 4 G a. Ap p. 5 1 0

, 5 1 1 (5 3 6 SE2 d 1 8 7 )
(2 0 0 0). In ad d it i o n , t h e fi l i n g o f s u ch a m o t i on d o es n o t ex t en d t he t im e fo r ap p eal i n g

t h e u n derl y i ng ju d g m en t

– i n t h i s cas e, t he Oct o b e r 1 4

, 2 0 1 4 fi nal j u g m en t

. See i d.

Sch w ab ’ s n o t i ce o f ap p eal

, t h erefo re, i s i n val i d as t o t h e o rd er d en y i n g h i s m o t i o n fo r

reco n s i d erat i on an d u n t i m el y as t o t he Oct o b er 1 4 , 2 0 1 4 fi nal ju d g m en t

. Acco rd i ng l y , we l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n to co n s i d er t hi s ap p eal

, w h i c h i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED. May 05, 2015C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 05/05/2015
No. 47977.

#### Protests 69685-K/12446, etc., of Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the refinery gases in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 237, C. D. 471) the protests were sustained
(Reap. Dec. 9307)

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

Entry Nos. 904840; 732762; 732764.

(Decided February 3, 1959)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of this decision, were *478submitted for determination upon the following stipulation of the parties:

> 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 appeals for reappraisement consists of 30 gallon and 50 gallon drums of iron or steel, imported from Norway, filled with duty-free cod liver oil.

> That the merchandise and issues involved in the said appeals for reappraisement are similar in all material respects to the merchandise and issues involved in *Charles L. Huisking Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 8633, wherein the Court held that the steel drums were properly dutiable on the basis of export value, as that value is defined in Section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or price, at the time of exportation of the involved drums to the United States, at which such or similar drums were freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Norway, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of 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, was as follows:

> 30 gallon drums_$1.70 (U.S. Cy) each

> 50 gallon drums_ 2.00 (U.S. Cy) each

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar drums at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in said Reap. Dee. 8633 may be incorporated into the records of the above reappraisement appeals, and that said appeals may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(d)), is the proper basis for determination of the value of tbe iron or steel drums in issue and that such value is as follows:

> 30 gallon drums_$1.70 (U.S. Cy) each

> 50 gallon drums_ 2.00 (U.S. Cy) each

As to any other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Opinion issued June 25 , 2013 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 0 0 4 1 3
- C V

——————————— IN RE RAYMOND SCOTT PRIMEA UX , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Raymond Scott Primeaux filed a petition f or writ of mandamus seeking relief from the trial court’s order s in the underlying divorce proceeding, which require him to pay temporary spousal support and interim attorney’s fees to2 his wife. 1 We deny t he petition for writ of mandamus. We dismiss Primeaux’s motion for temporary relief as moot. PER CURIAM Panel co nsists of Justices Jennings, Brown, and Huddle

.

1 The underlying suit is Karen Lynn Lewis v. Raymond Scott Primeaux

. , No. 20 13

- 18708 , in the 30 8 th District Court of Harris County, Texas. The respondent is the Honorable James Lombardino

.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-630]



[[Page 2326]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5674]


Determination Pursuant to the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act 
Related to the Provision of Military Assistance in Support of a 
Southern Sudan Security Sector Transformation Program (SST)

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the laws of the United 
States, including Section 8(d) of the Darfur Peace and Accountability 
Act (Pub. L. 109-344) and the Presidential Delegation of Authority in 
E.O. 13412, I hereby:

--Determine that the provision of non-lethal military equipment and 
related defense services (hereafter ``assistance'') to the 
Government of Southern Sudan for the purpose of constituting a 
professional military force is in the national security interests of 
the United States; and

--Authorize, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for Fiscal 
Years 2007 and 2008, the provision of any such items 15 days after 
notification of this determination.

    This determine covers the provision of all such non-lethal 
assistance, including vehicles and communications equipment; power 
generation; facilities construction/renovation; training and technical 
assistance; recommendations for force structure, training, equipment, 
infrastructure and resource management; military advisers; and the 
provision of other non-lethal defense articles and related defense 
services in support of military reform in Sothern Sudan, including 
support to the Sudan People's Liberation Movement, appropriate for the 
aforementioned purpose.
    You are hereby authorized and directed to report this determination 
to Congress and publish it in the Federal Register.

    Dated: January 2, 2007.
Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of State, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E7-630 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-26-P
# C_2007140EN.01002403.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 4 May 2007 — Icuna.Com v Parliament

(Case T-71/07 R)

(Public procurement - Community tendering procedure - Procedure for interim relief - No urgency)

(2007/C 140/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Icuna.Com SCRL (Braine-le-Château, Belgium) (represented by: J. Windey and P. de Bandt, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and M. Ecker, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 31 January 2007 annulling invitation to tender EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/0003, in so far as concerns lot No 2, pending the decision of the Court of First Instance in the main action.

Operative part of the order

| 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.

---
Exhibit 35.1





Statement of Compliance of The Bank of New York Mellon,
as Trustee.

I, James W. P. Hall, Vice President of The Bank of New
York Mellon, a New York corporation (the “Trustee”), states:

(a) A review of the Trustee’s activities for the period
from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”) and of the Trustee’s performance under
the Standard Terms for Trust Agreements dated July 15, 2010 between MS Structured Asset Corp. as depositor (the “Depositor”)
and the Trustee, as trustee and securities intermediary, in each case amended by a series supplement between the Depositor and
the Trustee (as amended in each such case, the “Trust Agreement”), has been made under my supervision.

(b) To the best of my knowledge and based on such review,
the Trustee has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Trust Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period
for CMT Linked Trust Units Series 2010-01.



|                     |  | The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|                     |  |                                        
|                     |  |                                        
|Date: March 02, 2015 |  | By: /s/ James W. Hall                  
|                     |  | Name:  James W. Hall                   
|                     |  | Title: Vice President
No. 51122.

#### Petition 6435-R of E. J. Stanton & Son (Los Angeles).

Ekwall, Judge:

This is a petition for remission of additional duty filed under authority of section 489, Tariff Act of 1930. The merchandise consists of mahogany lumber imported from Nicaragua. It was entered free of duty under paragraph 1803 of the Tariff Act of 1930, but subject to the imposition of internal revenue taxes at the rate of $1.50 per thousand board feet under Internal Revenue Code 3425 (a). The customs officials found the lumber to be of a type subject to ad valorem duty at the rate of 7)4 percent ad valorem under paragraph 404, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the trade agreement with Mexico (T. D. 50797), and 3,452 feet thereof were appraised at $90 per 1,000 feet instead of $60 per 1,000 board feet, as entered. By reason of this undervaluation additional duty was assessed.

Prom the evidence, consisting of the testimony of the traffic and office manager of the owner of the lumber, together with a report of a customs agent at the port of entry, it is apparent that the owner instructed his customs broker to enter this lumber free of duty as it was his understanding that it was lumber sawn and planed on one side. Inasmuch as it was purchased as being planed on one side, he considered it free of duty under the Tariff Act of 1930 the same as earlier ship» ments and gave no instructions to the customs broker as to the price to be used on entry. This firm hacl an understanding with the shipper that the purchases should consist of sawn mahogany with one side planed, and the owner’s representative was not careful as to the value for he considered such merchandise free of duty.

While this indicates carelessness on the part of the broker and importer, the report of the customs agent introduced in evidence by Government counsel states it to be the belief of said customs agent that there was no intention on the part of anyone connected with the importation to conceal or to misrepresent the dutiable value of the merchandise.

Our appellate court has held, in substance, that carelessness in entering merchandise at a lower value than that found on final appraisement is not in itself sufficient to justify the court in denying a petition for the remission of additional duties incurred by reason of such undervaluation. (See *United States*v. *Fish,*268 U. S. 607; *Linen Thread Co.*v. *United States,*13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 395, T. D. 41322.) We find upon this record that the entry of the merchandise in this case was without intent to deceive or to defraud the Government or its officials. The petition is therefore granted.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Nathaniel F. Bradley IV, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Asset Acceptance Capital Corp.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date: August 1, 2005 /s/ Nathaniel F. Bradley IV         Nathaniel F. Bradley IV    President & Chief Executive Officer    (Principal Executive Officer)