alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 94-30411.

In the Matter of Lawrence W. STOULIG, Jr. and Adine Gray Stoulig,

Debtors.

Lawrence W. STOULIG, Jr., and Adine Gray Stoulig, Appellees,

v.

Cynthia Lee TRAINA, Appellant.

Feb. 27, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Cour t for the Eastern

District of Louisiana.

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, GARWOOD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this case the debtors filed under Chapter 7 of the

Bankruptcy Code on December 3, 1993, claiming certain of their

properties to be exempt from distribution to creditors. 11 U.S.C.

§ 522( l ). An interim trustee was appointed December 9, 1993. On

January 13, 1994, the meeting of creditors under section 341 of the

Bankruptcy Code was held, and at the meeting the debtors furnished

the trustee with all requested information concerning the debtors'

claimed exemptions. Two days before the expiration of the

thirty-day period provided fo r in Bankruptcy Rule 4003(b), the

trustee moved for an extension of the deadline for filing

objections to the claimed exemptions. On April 8, 1994, the

bankruptcy court granted the trustee's mot ion to extend the

deadline for fili ng objections to exemptions. The debtors

appealed, and the district court reversed, holding that under rule2

4003(b) the bankruptcy court was without jurisdiction to grant an

extension of time to file objections to exemptions after the

expiration of the thirty-day period prescribed by rule 4003(b).

Lawrence W. Stoulig, Jr., et al. v. C ynthia Lee Traina, 169 B.R.

597 (E.D.La.1994). The trustee brings this appeal. We affirm,

essentially for the reasons stated in the district court's careful

and well considered opinion.

AFFIRMED.
No. 46804.

#### Protests 12435-K, etc., of Stone & Downer Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel as to the method used by the licensed public weighers and the weight certificates issued by them, which were received in evidence, the court held that the weight as determined by the public weighers should be used by the collector as a basis for *438determining the value upon which duty should be assessed. The protests were therefore sustained following Abstracts 38465 and 41115.
##### 



Exhibit
10.7.2
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO
COMMON SHORT CODE LICENSE AGREEMENT  Extension of Number Range for 6-Digit CSCs
 st th
 
        NEUSTAR, INC.
    
    
    
    CTIABy:
    
    /s/ Steven Boyce
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Robert B. MesirowName: Steven Boyce
    
    
    
    Name: Robert B. MesirowTitle: V.P. Controller
    
    
    
    Title: Vice PresidentDate: Oct 4, 2006
    
    
    
    Date: September 21, 2006
 Page 1 of 1
Order entered July 20, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00396-CR

EX PARTE JOHN MORGAN STAFFORD

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 001-00466-2022

ORDER

The Court GRANTS appellant’s July 18, 2022 second motion for extension 

of time to file his brief. We ORDER appellant to file his brief on or before August 

17, 2022. The State’s brief shall be due on or before September 8, 2022. 

This is an accelerated pretrial appeal governed by rule 31. Briefing is at the 

discretion of the Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1(b). In the event appellant fails to 

file a brief by August 17, 2022, the Court may deny any further requests for 

extension and order this case submitted without appellant’s brief. See id.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
No. 51118.

#### Protests 51327-K, etc., of Galvanoni & Nevy Bros., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following' the decisions cited the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) 2)4 percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269; and' (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained to this extent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BHM HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

,

Plaintiff

,

v.

URAC, Inc.

, Defendant. Case No. 1:1 8

- cv

- 01119 (TNM)

ORDER

Upon consideration of Plaintiff BHM’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

, Defendant

URAC’s Motion to Dismiss , the pleadings, relevant law, and related legal memoranda in

opposition and in support, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion,

it is hereby

ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED and

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED

.

SO ORDERED

.

This is a final, appealable Order.

Dated: July 20 , 201 8 TREVOR N. MCFADDEN

United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Michael D. Lenoir, 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v. Case No. 2:11-cv-0342 

 

Warden, Richland Correctional JUDGE PETER C. ECONOMUS

Institution, Magistrate Judge Kemp

 

Respondent. 

 

OPINION AND ORDER

This habeas corpus action was dismissed on March 1, 2012. On April 5, 2012, the Court

denied petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability. On April 17, 2012, the Court

received a notice of appeal, which, according to the certificate of service, was placed in

petitioner’s institutional mailbox on March 23, 2012. Assuming the notice of appeal to be

timely, the Court notes that petitioner has not paid a filing fee for his appeal or submitted a

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, if petitioner were to establish his

financial inability to pay the filing fee, the Court would, for the same reasons set forth in the

order denying a certificate of appealability, certify that any appeal is not taken in good faith. See

28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3). The Court so certifies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

/s/ Peter C. Economus 

PETER C. ECONOMUS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:11-cv-00342-PCE-TPK Doc #: 24 Filed: 04/23/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:11-cr-217

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP

JEFFREY A. CORRY

Defendant.

ORDER

On September 22, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant Jeffrey A. Corry’s guilty

plea to Count One of the Information charging him with one count of Conspiracy to Commit Money

Laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1956(h).

Defendant, represented by counsel, waived his right to appear on the matter before a District

Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted the colloquy required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, free from coercion, and had a basis

in fact. 

Defendant was specifically informed of his right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 10 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

not file any objections. 

Case: 2:11-cr-00217-GCS Doc #: 13 Filed: 10/17/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS 

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Information. Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty

of Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1956(h).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

Case: 2:11-cr-00217-GCS Doc #: 13 Filed: 10/17/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
NO. 03-15-000301-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

AUSTIN SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

EX PARTE JOSE C. LOREDO,

Appellant

APPEAL FROM

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1

HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 095790

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNTIMELY APPELLEE'S BRIEF

Ralph Guerrero

First Assistant Criminal District Attorney

712 S. Stagecoach Trail, Suite 2057

San Marcos, Texas 78666

Ph: (512) 393-7600 / Fax: (512) 393-2246

State Bar No. 24048407

ralph.guerrero@co.hays.tx.us

Attorney for the State ofTexas

ACCEPTED

03-15-00301-CR

7353683

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

10/13/2015 2:42:18 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/13/2015 2:42:18 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

Now comes Appellee, the State ofTexas, and files this Motion for Leave to

File an Untimely Appellee's Brief, and in support states the following:

1. Appellee's Briefwas due on October 12, 2015.

2. This Motion is not sought for delay, but so justice may be served.

3. For the foregoing reason, the undersigned attomey hereby requests leave to

untimely file this Appellee's Briefpursuant to Texas Rules ofAppellate

Procedure, Rule 38.6, which provides modifications offiling time.

Respectfully submitted,

Ralph Guerrero

First Assistant Criminal District Attomey

712 S. Stagecoach Trail, Suite 2057

San Marcos, Texas 78666

Ph: (512) 393-7600 /Fax: (512) 393-2246

State Bar No. 24041021

ralph.guerrero@co.hays.tx.us

Attomey for the State ofTexas
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certifythat on October 13, 2015,1 servedthe abovemotionby email to David

A. Mendoza at attomeydavidmendoza@gmail.com, in accordance with the Texas

Rules ofAppellate Procedure.

Ralph Guerrero

First Assistant Criminal District Attorney
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1061

CAROLYN J. MELVIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusCITY OF GREENVILLE; DAVID BEST, in his individual and official capacity; HOWARD CONNER, in his individual and official capacity; CECILHARDY, in his individual and official capacity; CHARLES HINMAN, in his individual and official capacity; JOSEPH M. SIMONOWICH, in his individual and official capacity; JOHN TEEL, in his individual and official capacity; CITY OF GREENVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-66-4-H) Submitted: June 29, 1999 Decided: July 15, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carolyn J. Melvin, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Holec, M. Blair Carr, CITY OF GREENVILLE, Greenville, North Carolina; David Powell2 Stillerman, Jr., Laurence S. Graham, GRAHAM & STILLERMAN, P.A., Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Carolyn J. Melvin appeals the district court’s order acceptingin part a magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in an action brought for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 (1994), for constructive discharge, and for violation of the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act and public policy, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. We have reviewed the record, the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation, and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Melvin v. City of Greenville , No. CA96-66-4-H (E.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2007155EN.01000301.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Winfried L. Holböck v Finanzamt Salzburg-Land

(Case C-157/05) (1)

1

(Free movement of capital - Freedom of establishment - Income tax - Distribution of dividends - Income from capital originating in a non-member country)

(2007/C 155/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Winfried L. Holböck

Appellant:

Respondent: Finanzamt Salzburg-Land

Respondent:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC and 57 EC — National legislation relating to taxation of dividends issued — Natural person residing in the territory of that State holding two thirds of the shares in a company established in the territory of a non-member country (Switzerland) — Taxation of dividends at the ordinary rate of income tax, in contrast to the reduced rate at which dividends originating inland are taxed

Operative part of the judgment

Article 57(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that Article 56 EC is without prejudice to the application by a Member State of legislation which existed on 31 December 1993 under which a shareholder in receipt of dividends from a company established in a non-member country, who holds two thirds of the share capital in that company, is taxed at the ordinary rate of income tax, whereas a shareholder in receipt of dividends from a resident company is taxed at a rate of half the average tax rate.

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.

1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 21

- 00489

- CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Ruben ELIZONDO

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 15

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 657461

Honorable Melissa Vara , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consis tent

with this court’s opinion.

SIGNED August 3, 2022.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
(Reap. Dec. 9732)

#### Eugene Dietzgen & Co., Inc. National Carloading Corp. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 713531, etc.

(Decided June 28, 1960)

*Eugene B. Pielcrell*for the plaintiffs.

*George Gochran DouT),*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

Certain instruments and polished wooden cases therefor comprise the subject merchandise of the appeals for a reap-*419praisemexit enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of the decision herein.

By stipulation of the parties hereto, it has been agreed as follows:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for tbe Plaintiff [síe] and tbe Assistant Attorney General for tbe United States, tbat tbe items described below, consist of instruments and polished wooden cases wbieb in tbe principle of law as set forth in tbe decisions of *Keuffel & Esser Co.*vs. *United States,*Abstract No. 59557, and *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*vs. *United States,*C.D. 1519, are separately dutiable; tbat tbe cases and instruments, in accordance with tbat principle, should be appraised separately instead of as an entirety; and tbat tbe max-bet value or price at tbe time of exportation of tbe instruments and cases covered by tbe above appeals for reappraisement at which such or similar mex-cbandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in tbe principal markets of Western Germany in usual wholesale quantities and in tbe ordinary course of trade for export to tbe United States, plus tbe cost of all containers and all coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing tbe merchandise in question packed ready for shipment to tbe United States was as set forth below:

> Instrument Value Value of case

> #195321-A/05748-50

> Pantograph #100 $152. 80 $20.00

> Pantograph #300 89. 80 19.00

> Crane Standards 19.20 12.80

> Column Standards 31. 80 19.20

> #201751-A/10933-50

> Compensating Polar Planimeters

> PAMIS #16 $11. 05 $2.20

> PARAM #30 17.40 2.50

> PARUS #33 20.90 2.50

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED tbat on or about tbe dates of exportation of the said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in tbe principal markets of Western Germany.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED tbat tbe above appeals for reappraisement 'be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts 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 of value for the instruments and cases in issue and that said value is as set forth in the tabulation above.

As to any other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Be sensitive environmentally acceptable commodity production : its the right way to go

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Be sensitive environmentally acceptable commodity production : its the right way to go 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Forest Service 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Shipping list no.: 92-128-P. "January 1992." "FS-504." 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  156 × 44 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Zeutschel OS 12000 Scanner at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu. 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
(Reap. Dec. 8914)

Entry No. 756197.

#### Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided July 17, 1957)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

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

*577Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain merchandise, described on the invoice as “BiNocular Glasses with Leather Straps,” that was exported from Paris, France, and entered at the port of New York.

The case is before me on a stipulation reading as follows:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows concerning the merchandise referred to below:

> 1) The issues in this appeal are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *Friedberg*v *US,*36 Cust. Ct. 596, RD 8590, and the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> 2) The appraised value of the merchandise involved herein, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for home consumption, and the export value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> 3) This case is submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

In the incorporated case, the court held that a so-called French sole or unique tax was not a part of foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

On the stipulated facts and following the cited decision on the law, I hold statutory foreign value to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and that such statutory value is the appraised value, less the additions made by the importer on entry, because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 45090.

#### Protests 987470-G (A), etc., of Austin Nichols *&*Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by-

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 23

- 00354

- CV

RUBEN TADEO GARCIA AND VICTOR ORTEGA NUNEZ , Appellant s

v.

GEICO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 1 Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 23

- C

- 3050

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal was referred to mediation on December 6, 2023. Pursuant to the order
referring the appeal to m ediation, a ppellants were ordered to file a notice with the Clerk
of this Court within 14 days from the date of the referral o rder which either identified an
agreed

- upon mediator or stated that the parties were unable to agree upon a mediator.

Because no notice had been received, the Court request ed a status report from appellantsGarcia v

. GEICO Sec

. Ins

. Co

. Page 2 within 14 days from the date of th e Order. The Court warned that i f no status report was
timely received, this appeal w ould be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b),(c)

. In response, appellants’ motion to dismiss was filed on February 26, 2024. In the

motion, appellants assert the parties resolved the underlying dispute, and a Release of
Judgment has been filed in the trial court . Thus, they further assert, the appeal i s no
longer necessary and should be dismissed.
Accordingly, appellants’ motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. T EX

. R.

A PP

. P . 42.1(a)

TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Motion granted Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed March 7 , 2024 [CV 0 6]