alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9804)

#### L. Batlin & Son, Inc., by Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L.A. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1068.

(Decided October 6, 1960)

*Brooks & Brooks*for tbe plaintiff.

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

Johnson, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between tbe parties hereto, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, that the merchandise marked “A” and checked and initialed CCP (Examiner’s initials) by Examiner Cecil C. Pratt (Examiner’s name) on the invoice covered by this appeal to reappraisement was freely offered for sale, for exportation to the United States to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, at a price equal to the invoice unit values, net, and that such or similar merchandise was not offered for home consumption in Japan.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the reappraisement appeal herein may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts, I find that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the, *506Customs Simplification Act of 1956,70 Stat. 943, effective February 27, 1958, T.D. 54521, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise represented by the items marked with the letter “A” and the initials of the examiner on the invoice covered by this appeal for reappraisement and that such value consists of the invoice unit values, net.

J udgment will be rendered accordingly.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-15-00753- CV
In re Jer ry Coner ly
ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I ON Relator J err

y Conerly has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss his petition for writ of mandamus, stating that the parties have settled the underly ing proce eding and he no longe r wishes to pursue the issues asser

ted in the petition for writ of mandamus. We g rant the motion and dismiss the petition for wr it of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) (1).

__________________________________________ Cindy Olson Bour land, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Bour land Filed: January

8, 2016
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 17, 2022

No. 04-22-00435-CR

Eric WILLRICH,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR11728A

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due on November 15, 2022. This deadline reflects the Court’s 

granting of Appellant’s first motion for extension of time, which allowed for a seventy-six-day 

extension. Appellant now files a second motion for extension of time and seeks a fifteen-day 

extension. After consideration, we GRANT IN PART the motion and ORDER appellant to file 

his brief by November 28, 2022. Further requests for extension of time will be disfavored absent 

extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz

Clerk of Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK A. CORBY,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:13-cr-41

Judge Peter C. Economus

ORDER

There being no objections, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Dkt. 14) that the plea agreement and Defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. 

The Court accepts the plea agreement and Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the 

indictment, on which Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case: 2:13-cr-00041-PCE-TPK Doc #: 16 Filed: 05/09/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JULIUS GREEN, Jr., Basic Airman, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

7 USCMA 616, 23 CMR 80

No. 9051

Decided February 21, 1957

*Lieutentnt Colonel Stanley S. Butt, Captain Richard C. Bochen,*and *Captain Norman J. Nelson*were on ,the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Francis P. Murray, Major John M. Rankin,*and *Major Fred C. Vowell*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

*617Opinion of the Court

GEORGE W. Latimer, Judge:

The accused pleaded guilty before a special court-martial to the offense of absence without leave, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886, and was found guilty in accordance with his plea. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, partial forfeitures, and confinement for six months. The sentence was approved by both the convening authority and the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. The board of review affirmed, and we granted review to determine the sufficiency of the staff judge advocate’s review in this case.

This case arose within the same overall command as did the cases of United States v Hammock, 7 USCMA 614, 23 CMR 78, and United States v Hankerson, 7 USCMA 615, 23 CMR 79. Everything that we said in those cases applies here as well. Once again, counsel for the parties stipulated that we might consider certain affidavits, and also stipulated as to the truth of their contents. When these affidavits are considered, once again it must be said that there can no longer be any question as to the propriety of what was done in this case.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.
No. 50656.

#### Protests 103785-K, etc., of Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd., et al. (New York).

*317Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 12.1

UAL Corporation and Subsidiary Companies    Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges    and Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements

Six Months Ended June 30,(In millions)

2008

2007Earnings (loss):Earnings (loss) before income taxes & adjustments for minority interest and equity earnings in affiliates

$
(3,300
)
$
229Add (deduct):Fixed charges, from below


409


469Interest capitalized


(10
)

(9
)Minority interest


(1
)

(1
)Earnings (loss) as adjusted

$
(2,902
)
$
688Fixed charges:Interest expensed and capitalized and amortization of debt discounts and issuance costs(a)

$
261

$
345Portion of rental expense representative of the interest factor


148


124Fixed charges, as above


409


469Preferred stock dividend requirements (pre-tax)(b)


2


10Fixed charges including preferred stock dividends

$
411

$
479Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


(c
)

1.47Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred dividend requirements


(c
)

1.44


---

---



QuickLinks
APPENDIX A-1 

PLAN AND PROFILE DRAWINGS 

SEGMENT 7 

VICTORVILLE TO LAS VEGAS

PLAN AND PROFILE

STA 9940+00 TO STA 10010+00

2300

2250

2150

2100

2050

2000

2200

2300

2250

2150

2100

2050

2000

2200

SEGMENT 7, ALTERNATIVE A

SEGMENT 6 SEGMENT 7

C-186A

L = 2000’


VICTORVILLE TO LAS VEGAS

PLAN AND PROFILE

STA 9880+00 TO STA 10010+00

2300

2250

2150

2100

2050

2300

2250

2150

2100

2050

2200

SEGMENT 7, ALTERNATIVE B

2200

2350 2350

SEGMENT 6 SEGMENT 7

C-186B

L = 600’

L = 600’


VICTORVILLE TO LAS VEGAS

PLAN AND PROFILE

2350

2300

2250

2200

2150

2100

2050

2350

2300

2250

2200

2150

2100

2050

SEGMENT 7, ALTERNATIVE C

STA 10040+00 TO 10140+00

SEGMENT 6 SEGMENT 7

C-187C
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v CHARLES T. LISH, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 582, 40 CMR 294

No. 22,121

September 19, 1969

*Captain Jeffery W. Maurer,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Captain Patricia A. Murphy,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

*583Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

. The inquiry made by the law officer into the providence of accused’s guilty plea to absence without leave, escape from custody, assault, and attempted escape, in violation of Articles 86, 95, 91, and 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 886, 895, 891, and 880, respectively, is comparable to that found in United States v Care, 18 USCMA 535, 40 CMR 247. In addition, the accused’s written mitigating statement in explanation of his conduct relative to the assaults and attempted escape buttresses our determination that his plea is provident. However, the procedure followed ■ in this case would not meet the standard that must apply to cases triéd thirty days after the decision in United States v Care, supra.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Ferguson, Judge:

I concur in the result. See my dissent in United States v Care, 18 USCMA 535, 40 CMR 247.
# C_2017070EN.01000701.xml

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 — Toshiba Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-623/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, customer allocation and output limitation - Concept of ‘economic unit’ between two companies - Concept of ‘decisive influence’ - Joint control by two parent companies - Distortion of evidence))

(2017/C 070/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J.F. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, J. Jourdan, avocat, and A. Kadri, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

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 Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

1

---
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 112 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas approximately 63 percent of the Nation’s children 

under 5 are in nonparental care during part or all of the 

day while their parents work; 

Whereas the early care and education industry employs more 

than 2,300,000 workers; 

Whereas the average salary of early care and education workers is $18,180 per year, and only 1⁄3 have health insurance and even fewer have a pension plan; 
2 

•HCON 112 EH 

Whereas the quality of early care and education programs is 

directly linked to the quality of early childhood educators; 

Whereas the turnover rate of early childhood program staff 

is roughly 30 percent per year, and low wages and lack 

of benefits, among other factors, make it difficult to retain high quality educators who have the consistent, caring relationships with young children that are important 

to children’s development; 

Whereas the compensation of early childhood program staff 

should be commensurate with the importance of the job 

of helping the young children of the Nation develop their 

social, emotional, physical, and cognitive skills, and to 

help them be ready for school; 

Whereas providing adequate compensation to early childhood 

program staff should be a priority, and resources may be 

allocated to improve the compensation of early childhood 

educators to ensure that quality care and education are 

accessible for all families; 

Whereas additional training and education for the early care 

and education workforce is critical to ensuring high-quality early learning environments; 

Whereas child care workers should receive compensation commensurate with such training and experience; and 

Whereas the Center for the Child Care Workforce, a project 

of the American Federation of Teachers Educational 

Foundation, with support by the National Association for 

the Education of Young Children and other early childhood organizations, recognizes May 1 as National Child 

Care Worthy Wage Day: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the Congress supports the goals and 
3 

•HCON 112 EH 

1 ideas of National Child Care Worthy Wage Day, and urges 

2 public officials and the general public to honor early child3 hood care and education staff and programs in their com4 munities and to work together to resolve the early child5 hood care and education staff compensation crisis. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 1, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 112 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideas of a National Child 

Care Worthy Wage Day.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 98-30576

Summary Calendar

_________________

RAY JETER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL L. PHILLIPS, Warden; SUSAN BARBO, RN;

MOORE, Captain; CONN, RN; COLEMAN, LPN; CARLO

WILLIAM, Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(98-CV-503)

December 15, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ray Jeter, Louisiana prisoner # 153917, appeals the dismissal

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e). He alleges that he received inadequate medical

treatment, that Barbo made a false report about him, that Williams

failed to list witnesses in a disciplinary report, that Moore

denied him the opportunity to call witnesses at a disciplinary
-2-

hearing and that he was denied medical treatment during the time he

was in isolation/disciplinary detention as punishment for a

disciplinary violation. We review the dismissal of claims as

frivolous for abuse of discretion. See Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d

174, 176 (5th Cir. 1994). 

As to the allegations of inadequate medical treatment, the

record demonstrates that the medical care Jeter received was not in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. See id. (applying deliberate

indifference standard to Eighth Amendment claim alleging inadequate

medical care). That the care was unsuccessful or perhaps even

negligent or that Jeter disagreed with his treatment is not

cognizable under § 1983 as a matter of law. See Norton v.

Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997); Varnado v. Lynaugh,

920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).

As to the other allegations, Jeter has not identified a

liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See Sandin

v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477-78, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2297, 132 L. Ed.

2d 418, ___ (1995). The sanction of twenty days of

isolation/disciplinary detention, which lies at the root of the

remaining charges, does not reflect the type of atypical,

significant deprivation in which a state might create a liberty

interest. It reflects only a change in the condition of

confinement. See Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 767-68 (5th Cir.

1997) (holding that thirty days of cell restriction fails to

implicate due process concerns). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
-3-

Jeter’s claims as frivolous. Therefore, we AFFIRM. Jeter’s motion

for production of documents is DENIED.
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:       May 6, 2011           |   | /s/ RONALD L. SMITH                                       |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                              |   | Ronald L. Smith                                                |   |
|                                                                                                              |   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                     |   |
|                                                                                                              |   | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal |   |
|                                                                                                              |   | Accounting Officer)                                            |   |
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v FREDRIK A. DELPRADO, Lance Corporal, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

19 USCMA 489, 42 CMR 91

No. 22,855

June 5, 1970

*Lieutenant Peter M. Frank,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keener,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

DARDEN, Judge:

There is little likelihood that inadmissible evidence of Article 15 punishment (absence without leave) adversely-affected the military judge’s determination of a sentence in this case after the accused had been convicted of wrongfully possessing marihuana on or about March 25, 1969. United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970), and United States v Mainard, 19 USCMA 488, 42 CMR 90 (1970). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Military Review.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970).
FORM 10-Q

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

(Mark One)

[x] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004

OR

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ____________ to ___________

Commission file number 0-2666

250 WEST 57th ST. ASSOCIATES L.L.C.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

A New York Limited Liability Company 13-6083380

(State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer

incorporation or organization) Identification No.)

60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10165

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)

(212) 687-8700

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

N/A

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [ X ]. No [ ] .

An Exhibit Index is located on Page 14 of this Report. Number of pages (including exhibits) in this filing: 14 

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements.

250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C.

Condensed Statements of Income

(Unaudited)

For the Three Months For the Six Months

Ended June 30, Ended June 30,

2004 2003 2004 2003
141 Prosperous Place, Suite 26  ̃ P.O. Box 23220  ̃ Lexington, KY 40523 (859) 252-3445  ̃ fax (859) 245-2941  ̃ http://dennisbadger.com

Dennis Badger & Associates, Inc. is an Equal Opportunity Employer November 30, 2012

Mr. Peter Gillispie Appraisal Subcommittee 1401 H Street, NW, Suite 760 Washington, DC 20005

RE: Proposed Policy Statements (Doc ket No. AS12-16) follow-up comment

Mr. Gillispie and Members of the Appraisal Subcommittee:

Once again, I sincerely appreciat e the opportunity you have afforded the public comment on the proposed Policy Statements. While I understand the official comment period has expired, I would like to offer one additional, minor sugges tion for increased clarity and understandability.

In the proposed section entitled, “Policy Stat ement 1, D. Federally Recognized Appraiser Classifications, 3. Trainee Appraiser and Supervisory Appraiser,” it states:

“Any State or Federal agency may impose a dditional appraiser qualification requirements for State licensed, certified resi dential or certified general cl assifications, or for trainee and supervisor classifications, if they consid er such requirements necessary to carry out their responsibilities under Fe deral and/or State statutes a nd regulations, so long as the additional qualification requirements do not conflict with AQB Criteria.” [emphasis added]

In order to avoid future debate s over meaning and intent of the term “conflict,” perhaps an alternate word or phrase, such as, “pr eclude compliance” would be more direct?

A similar substitution may also be beneficial in the section entitled “Policy Statement 1, F. Appraisal Standards” where it states:

“Any State or Federal agency may impose additi onal appraisal standards if they consider such standards necessary to car ry out their responsibilities, so long as additional appraisal

standards do not conflict with USPAP for work performed for federally related transactions.” [emphasis added]

Again, thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,

Dennis Badger