alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8363)

#### United States *v.*Solo Products Corp.

Entry No. 754295.

(Decided December 1, 1954)

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

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the defendant.

Mollison, 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, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the involved corrugated rubber tubing at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, is as follows:

> Austrian schillings

> 13,955 *ft.*— %"___62.40

> 44,182 ft. — #'_70.20

> both per 100 ft., net, packed

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher export value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof

> *556IT IS FURTHER AGREED that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as' amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows:

> Austrian schillings per 100 feet

> 13,956 *ft.*— fi"_62.40

> 44,182 ft __70. 20

> net, packed

> Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32

                           Section 1350 Certifications

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
     the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of
     TransNet Corporation (the "Company") hereby certify to such officer's
     knowledge that:

1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter
     ended March 31, 2004, 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 the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the
     Company.

      /s/ Steven J. Wilk
     -------------------------------
     Steven J. Wilk
     Chief Executive Officer

     Date:  May 13, 2004



      /s/ John J, Wilk
     -------------------------------
     John J. Wilk
     Chief Financial Officer

     Date:  May 13, 2004


                                       16
# C_2008117EN.01000502.xml

| 14.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5031 — ACE/CICA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 117/04)

On 11 March 2008, 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 32008M5031. 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 32008M5031. 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 Homeland Security

###### Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 

          - [CBP Dec. 07-21] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice of re-approval of Amspec Services LLC of Linden, New Jersey, as a commercial gauger and laboratory. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13, Amspec Services LLC, 360 East Elizabeth Avenue, Linden, New Jersey 07036, has been re-approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils, and to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analysis or gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific tests or gauger services this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *http://www.cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​org_​and_​operations.xml.*

      ( print page 18486)    

# DATES:

The re-approval of Amspec Services LLC as a commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on August 3, 2005. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene J. Bondoc, Ph.D, or Randall Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060. 

Dated: April 6, 2007. 

Ira S. Reese, 

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

 [FR Doc. E7-6898 Filed 4-11-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
SCWC-12-0001121 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

RAYMOND S. DAVIS, 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

(CAAP-12-0001121; CASE NO. 1DTA-12-01623) 

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) 

 

 Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Raymond S. Davis’s 

Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed on September 24, 2015, 

is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The 

parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding 

scheduling. 

 DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, November 6, 2015. 

John M. Tonaki and 

Phyllis J. Hironaka 

for petitioner 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-12-0001121

06-NOV-2015

02:15 PM
**EXHIBIT 10.4.1**

 

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

 

This First Amendment to Employment Agreement is made this 29th day of March 2004, by Highland Hospitality, L.P., a Delawarelimited partnership (the “Company”), and Highland Hospitality Corporation, a Maryland Corporation (the “REIT”), each with its principal place of business at 8405 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500, McLean, VA 22102 and Tracy M.J.Colden, residing at 1501 Van Buren Street, N.W., Washington, District of Columbia 20012 (the “Executive”). 

 

**WHEREAS,** the Company and the REIT entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated October 24, 2003 (the “Employment Agreement”) withthe Executive; 

 

**WHEREAS,** the parties have agreed toamend the Employment Agreement to reflect the fact that the REIT is the employing entity regularly paying the compensation to the Executive and the employing entity with primary responsibility for taking action with respect to Executive’semployment under the Employment Agreement; and 

 

**WHEREAS,**the parties desire to correct a reference in Section 6(d)(vii)(C) of the Employment Agreement. 

 

**NOW THEREFORE,** the parties agree as follows: 

 

1. References in Sections 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the Employment Agreement to actions required or permitted to be taken by the “Company” shall berequired or permitted to be taken by the “Company Group”. 

 

2. The word “Company” in Section 6(d)(vii)(C) shall be replaced with the word “REIT”. 

 

3. Section 11(d) is amended to read as follows: 

 

“(d) Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by a written instrument executed by both the REIT and the Executive, whichamendment or modification is consented to by the Company.” 

 

4. Section 11(g) is amended to read as follows: 

 

“(g) Waiver. No delays or omission by the Company, the REIT or the Executive in exercising any right under this Agreement shall operate as a waiver of that or any other right. A waiver or consent by the REIT shall not beeffective unless consented to by the Company. A waiver or consent given by the Company Group or the Executive on any one occasion shall be effective only in that instance and shall not be construed as a bar or waiver of any right on any otheroccasion.” 

 

-1- 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the parties have executed this First Amendment to Employment Agreement as ofthe day and year first above written. 

 

HIGHLAND HOSPITALITY, L.P.
By: 
HHC GP Corporation, its general

partner
By: 
/s/    James L. Francis
    
James L. Francis

President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer

TRACY M.J. COLDEN

/s/    Tracy M.J. Colden

HIGHLAND HOSPITALITY CORPORATION
By: 
/s/    James L. Francis
    
James L. Francis

President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer

 

-2-
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

JEFFREY A. WOODS, et al.,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

vs.

 CASE NO. 2:12-cv-00231

CAROL CROCKETT-HARRIS, et al., JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH P. 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 February 15, 2013, JUDGMENT is hereby entered

DISMISSING this case.

Date: February 15, 2013 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:12-cv-00231-EAS-EPD Doc #: 28 Filed: 02/15/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

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

# Viking: across the threshold to Mars: Viking/Mars display package

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Viking: across the threshold to Mars: Viking/Mars display package 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1970-1980 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  Mars (Planet) 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  11101 × 76 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  11 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus 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 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  004141725.jpg 
                    -           OCLC Collection Number        
                    -  429489521 

                - 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
                -
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 932 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 932

  To repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 2023

Ms. Lee of California (for herself, Mr. Roy, Ms. Spanberger, Mr. Cole, 
  Mr. McGovern, Ms. Hageman, Mr. Meeks, and Mr. Ogles) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST 
              IRAQ RESOLUTION.

    The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 
(Public Law 102-1; 105 Stat. 3; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby 
repealed.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ 
              RESOLUTION OF 2002.

    The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 
of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is 
hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
#### Inter-Maritime Fwdg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6379.

Entry No. 718967, etc.

Invoices dated Hawick, Scotland, December 1942, etc.

Certified January 1943, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 13, 1943, etc.

(Decided September 26, 1946)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*(/. *Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff-.-

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

Cole, Judge

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

A written stipulation of fact, submitting these cases, is sufficient to show that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.
# C_2007199EN.01000901.xml

| 25.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Giovanni Dell'Orto

(Case C-467/05) (1)

1

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Directive 2004/80/EC - Concept of ‘victim’ in criminal proceedings - Legal person - Return of property seized in the course of criminal proceedings)

(2007/C 199/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Party in the main proceedings

Giovanni Dell'Orto

joined party: Saipem SpA

joined party:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Milano — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 9 of Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings and Article 17 of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15) — Definition of victim including ‘any other persons affected by crime’ — Right to compensation of such persons

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that, in criminal proceedings and, in particular, in enforcement proceedings following a judgment which resulted in a final criminal conviction, such as those in the main action, the concept of ‘victim’ for the purposes of the Framework Decision does not include legal persons who have suffered harm directly caused by acts or omissions that are in violation of the criminal law of a Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

1

---
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000381 26-OCT-2017 09:56 AM
FIFTH DIVISION

MCFADDEN, P. J.

GOBEIL and LAND, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be

physically received in our clerk’s office within ten

days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

January 16, 2024

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

A22A1499. BRIXMOR NEW CHASTAIN CORNERS SC, LLC v.

JAMES.

MCFADDEN, Presiding Judge.

In Brixmor New Chastain Corners SC, LLC v. James, 367 Ga. App. 235 (884

SE2d 393) (2023), we affirmed the trial court’s denial of Brixmor’s motion for

summary judgment in Arlene James’s premises liability action. Id. at 236-239 (2). We

vacated the trial court’s ruling on spoliation, holding that the trial court applied an

incorrectlegal standard in granting James’s motion for spoliation sanctions.Id. at 239-

241 (3). We also rejected Brixmor’s argument that “the trial court erred by failing to

apply the subsequent remedial measure rule to [the spoliation] analysis.” Id. at 240

(3).
In Brixmor New ChastainCorners SC, LLC v. James, __ Ga. __ (__ SE2d __)

(Case No. S23G0795, decided Dec. 19, 2023), our Supreme Court held that once we

had “concluded that the trial court applied the incorrect standard on spoliation and

remanded the case to the trial court to apply the correct spoliation standard,

consideration of the remedial measure rule was unnecessary to the resolution of the

issues on appeal and [our] determination on the issue was thus dicta.” Id. at __. So

the court vacated Division 3 of our opinion “to the extent that it purports to make

such a legal determination,” noting that there is an “open and difficult legal question

under Georgia law regarding what consideration, if any, must be given to the

subsequent remedial measures rule in addressing the issue of spoliation.” Id.

The following paragraph in Division 3 of our opinion is the holding that the

Supreme Court has vacated:

Brixmor argues that the trial court erred by failing to apply the

subsequent remedial measure rule to its analysis. That rule, found at

OCGA§ 24-4-407, generally prohibits the admission incivilproceedings

of evidence of remedial measures taken to make an injury or harm less

likely to recur. Brixmor cites no authority — andwe have found none —

to support its argument that the trial court was required to consider the

doctrine of subsequent remedial measures, a specific evidentiary

2
exclusionary rule, when ruling on spoliation. So it has not shown an

abuse of discretion in this regard.

367 Ga. App. at 240 (3).

Because the Supreme Court did not address our dispositive holdings — that the

trial court did not err in denying Brixmor’s motion for summary judgment and that

the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on James’s motion for

spoliation sanctions — and because those holdings are consistent with the Supreme

Court’s opinion, those holdings become binding upon the return of the remittitur.

Jordan v. Everson, 345 Ga. App. 509, 510 (813 SE2d 600) (2018).

Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part, and case remanded with direction.

Gobeil and Land, JJ., concur.

3
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

59 | Page

Appendix H – Photographs of the Proposed Project Area 

Figure 4 – Proximity to Residential Properties 
North Rail Connector 

Moss Point, Mississippi 

May 2021 1 

Environmental Site Assessment Compton Engineering Project No. 218-051

Photo 1: View looking toward marsh portion of 

proposed project site. 

Photo 2: Another View toward marsh portion of 

proposed North Rail Connector location. 

Photo 3: View of existing rail that NRC will join. Photo 4: View of adjacent properties north side of 

existing rail. 

Photo 5: View of adjacent property, south side of 

existing rail. 

Photo 6: View of Orange Grove Road, at rail 

crossing, looking west. 
North Rail Connector 

Moss Point, Mississippi 

May 2021 2 

Environmental Site Assessment Compton Engineering Project No. 218-051

Photo 7: View of existing rail. Photo 8: View of residential property, south side of 

existing rail. 

 
HWY 63

HWY 63

FIGURE 4

PROXIMITY OF

RESIDENTI$/ PROPERTIES

E-mail: compton@comptonengineering.com

Phone: (228) 762-3970 Fax: (228) 769-9079

Pascagoula, Mississippi 3967

706 Convent Avenue

Southhaven

Tupelo

Meridian

Hattiesburg

Gulfport

Greenville

Biloxi

JACKSON

JACKSON COUNTY Bay St Louis STATE OF MISSISSI33I

OFean Springs3asFagoula

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

COMnONENG~ERmG,mC. Engineering, Surveying, and Environmental Services 

_________,
No. 55422.

#### W .R. Zanes & Co. of La., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 151547-K/ 13047 and 151548-K/13048 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

MÓllison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.