alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ERVEN A. EDGE, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

16 USCMA 529, 37 CMR 149

No. 19,796

February 24, 1967

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent*and *Captain Frank J. Martin, Jr.,*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper*was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Kilday, Judge:

Appellant was arraigned before a general court-martial convened at Fort Carson, Colorado, charged with absence without leave and larceny, in violation of Articles 86 and 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 886 and 921, respectively. He pleaded guilty to the former and not guilty to the latter. He was found guilty of absence without leave as charged. Of the larceny, he was found guilty with substitution and exception in relation to the value of the monies and personal property stolen. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, total forfeitures, confinement at hard labor for one year, and reduction to the grade of Private E-l. The convening authority approved the sentence. A board of review in the office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.

On this appeal, the appellant questions the adequacy of that portion of the law officer’s instruction on reasonable doubt that reads:

> “A reasonable doubt may arise from the insufficiency of circumstantial evidence, and such insufficiency may be with respect either to the evidence of the circumstances *530themselves or to the strength of the inferences drawn from them.”

This same issue was raised and resolved adversely to the appellant in the ease of United States v Kirby, 16 USCMA 517, 37 CMR 137. Our opinion in that case is here controlling.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.
Before the First Division,

August 5, 1943

No. 48628.

#### Protests 88297-K, etc., of Fish-Schurman Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 45423 the glass in question was held dutiable as sheet glass at 1-26/64 cents per pound under paragraph 219, by virtue of T. D. 45313, and in addition thereto 5 percent ad valorem under paragraph 224 as colored. Protests sustained to this extent.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

# AGENCY:

Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor. 

# ACTION:

Notice; amendment. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Employment and Training Administration published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of April 5, 2007, announcing the availability of funds and solicitation for grant applications for small grassroots organizations with the ability to connect to the local One-Stop Delivery System. The document is hereby amended.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Forman, Grants Management Specialist, Telephone (202) 693-3416. 

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of April 5, 2007, in FR Volume 72, Number 65:                     

—On page 16825, starting in the middle column, Part II (1) Award Information stated the following: The agency expects to award approximately 40 grants. The grant amount for each “grassroots” organization will range between $50,000-$75,000. 

## Amendment 

The solicitation is amended to read: The agency expects to award approximately 50 grants. The grant amount for each “grassroots” organization will be up to $60,000. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of April, 2007. 

Eric Luetkenhaus, 

Grant Officer, Employment & Training Administration.

[FR Doc. E7-8258 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Kenneth Kittleson *v.*United States

No. 6246.

Appraisement Entry No. 27, etc.

Entered at Tampa, Fla., April 15, 1944, etc.

(Decided January 3, 1946)

*John H. Higgins, Jr.,*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney),for the defendant.

Eewall, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or price, at the time of exportation of the hard candy in the above-cases at which such or similar hard candy was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of Cardenas, Cuba, in usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade was $0.15 per pound, net, packed, less the percentage of allowance for damage as found by the appraiser in. each case.

It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher export value for said! merchandise at the time of exportation thereof.

It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted upon the-foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find that the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the-*311Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis for determination of the value of the hard candy here involved, and that such value is $0.15 per pound, net, packed, less the percentage of allowance for damage as found by the appraiser in each case.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132136 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132136 

 COA: 270248 

Wayne CC: 04-010893-01

DONALD RAY JONES, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 11, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
# C_2015178EN.01002802.xml

| 1.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/28

---

Action brought on 10 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-42/15)

(2015/C 178/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the salary statement of May 2014, in so far as it applies Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union, itself unlawful since it does not provide for a weighting of the remuneration of officials who work in Luxembourg, where the cost of living is appreciably higher than in Brussels.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision fixing his pay for May 2014, in so far as it does not provide for him to benefit from any weighting; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision fixing his pay for May 2014, in so far as it does not provide for him to benefit from any weighting;

| — | Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

---
```

[House Report 110-662]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     110-662

======================================================================

 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY THE 
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION (S. CON. RES. 70) SETTING FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL 
   BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND 
 INCLUDING THE APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2008 AND 
                           2010 THROUGH 2013

                                _______
                                

May 20, 2008.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. McGovern, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                      [To accompany H. Res. 1214]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 1214, by a voice vote, report the same to the 
House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution waives all points of order against the 
conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 70, setting forth 
the congressional budget for the United States Government for 
fiscal year 2009 and including the appropriate budgetary levels 
for fiscal years 2008 and 2010 through 2013, and against its 
consideration. The rule provides that the conference report 
shall be considered as read. The rule provides one hour of 
debate on the conference report, equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
the Budget.

                         EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

    The waiver of all points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration includes a waiver of 
clause 8 of rule XXII (requiring a three-day layover of 
conference reports and the accompanying joint explanatory 
statement). Although the rule waives all points of order 
against the conference report and against its consideration, 
the conference report does not violate either clause 9 or 10 of 
rule XXI.

                                  

```
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RICHARD G. FRIES, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1242

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00758-TCW, Judge Thomas C. 

Wheeler. 

.................................................................... 

RICHARD G. FRIES, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1304

______________________ 
2 FRIES v. US

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00647-TCW, Judge Thomas C. 

Wheeler. 

______________________ 

Decided: August 12, 2016

______________________ 

RICHARD G. FRIES, JR., Atlantic Beach, FL, pro se.

AARON WOODWARD, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee in 16-1242. 

RENEE GERBER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee in 16-1304. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR., DONALD E. KINNER. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Richard G. Fries appeals the dismissal of these actions by the Court of Federal Claims, as not within that 

court’s jurisdiction, or for failure to state a claim on which 

relief can be granted.

Appeal No. 2016-1242 relates to Mr. Fries’ contention 

that an unnamed third party was the victim of a dental 

scam, and requests damages in the amount of 2.5 million 

dollars. Such a cause of action, sounding in tort, is not 

within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.

Appeal No. 2016-1304 concerns various allegations 

regarding drug testing, searches and seizures, and Mr. 

Fries’ credit rating. Again, the Court of Federal Claims 

correctly held that Mr. Fries has not stated a cause within 

the jurisdiction of that court.
FRIES v. US 3

The dismissals are

AFFIRMED. 

No costs.
EXHIBIT 11
TSI Incorporated and Subsidiaries
Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     Three Months                 Six Months
                                  Ended September 30          Ended September 30
                                  1995          1994          1995          1994
                              ____________  ____________  ____________  ____________
<S>                            <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>  
Primary                      
Average shares outstanding     $5,248,380    $5,130,947    $5,232,454    $5,121,046

Net effect of dilutive stock
options, based on the
treasury stock method
using average market price
                                  194,976       175,238       180,478       169,708
                              ____________  ____________  ____________  ____________
Total                          $5,443,356    $5,306,185    $5,412,932    $5,290,754

Net Earnings                     $750,844      $942,177    $1,494,946    $1,878,192

Primary per share amounts            $.14          $.18          $.28          $.36


Fully Diluted

Average shares                 $5,248,380    $5,130,947    $5,232,454    $5,121,046

Net effect of dilutive stock
options, based on the
treasury stock method
using the period-end market
price, if higher than the
average market price              224,225       177,000       232,739       180,557
                              ____________  ____________  ____________  ____________
Total                          $5,472,605    $5,307,947    $5,465,193    $5,301,603

Net Earnings                     $750,844      $942,177     1,494,946    $1,878,192

Fully diluted per share
amounts                              $.14          $.18          $.27          $.35


</TABLE>
PUBLIC LAW 110–129—NOV. 30, 2007 121 STAT. 1357 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3518: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Oct. 9, considered and passed House. 

Nov. 16, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–129 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1430 South 

Highway 29 in Cantonment, Florida, as the ‘‘Charles H. Hendrix Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CHARLES H. HENDRIX POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 1430 South Highway 29 in Cantonment, Florida, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Charles H. Hendrix Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Charles H. Hendrix Post Office Building’’. 

Approved November 30, 2007. 

Nov. 30, 2007 

[H.R. 3518] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION Ill 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

Michael L. Krancer, Secretary 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Rachel Carson State Office Building 

P. 0. Box 2063 

Harrisburg, P A 17105-2063 

Dear Secretary Krancer: 

JAN 3 11013 

On September 27, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a 

Revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection pertaining to the section 110(a)(2) Clean Air Act infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead. EPA has determined 

that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) action. 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Ruth Knapp, 

Office of Air Program Planning, at (215) 814-2191. She is the principal contact for this 

rulemak:ing. 

Sincerely, 

Diana Esher, Director 

Air Protection Division 

cc: Joyce E. Epps, Director Bureau of Air Quality 

Dean Van Orden, Assistant Director Bureau of Air Quality 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

 

I, Cory J. Reed, 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 John Deere Owner Trust 2016 (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.                                      I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; 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, except as otherwise disclosed in 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 party: U.S. Bank National Association (as indenture trustee).

 

 

 

 
| Date: January 25,   2019 | By:    | */s/ Cory J. Reed*                            |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | Cory J. Reed                                  |
|                          |   | President of John Deere   Capital Corporation |
|                          |   | (as Servicer)                                 |

 

----
Before the First Division,

November 14, 1945

No. 50651.

#### Protests 87177-K, etc., of J. H. Baxter & Co. et al. (San Francisco and Seattle).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2016156EN.01002001.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — Naazneen Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Energy Brands, Inc.

(Case C-252/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Revocation proceedings - Article 51(1)(a) - Community word mark SMART WATER - Genuine use - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75))

(2016/C 156/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Naazneen Investments Ltd (represented by: P. Goldenbaum and I. Rohr, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Gája and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents), Energy Brands, Inc. (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and D. Stone and A. Dykes, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Naazneen Investments Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Naazneen Investments Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---
Before the Third Division,

September 19, 1941

No. 46340.

#### Protest 994965-G of Louis Loeser (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff and his wife were married approximately 4 months and 7 days before their household effects were packed for shipment to the United States and that the articles in question were used or readily available for use in their household during that period only, although acquired several years prior to that time. At the second trial the plaintiff submitted the protest without the introduction of further evidence. In view of paragraph 1632, which exempts household effects providing that the same have been used abroad not less than 1 year, and further reviewing the evidence before it, the court was constrained to adhere to its previous decision. The protest was therefore overruled. See *Haas*v. *United States*(1 Cust. Ct. 140, C. D. 37) and decision on rehearing in that case (Abstract 41740) as well as an erratum in connection with the latter decision published in Treasury Decisions, vol. 77, No. 1, page 19. Abstract 41741 also cited.