alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9369)

#### Waldbaum, Cipes, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 45656.

(Decided March 30, 1959)

*Eugene R. PieJcrell*for the plaintiff.

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

Ford, Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement listed above has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the involved merchandise consists of rayon-silk scarves imported from Japan; that the market value or price of the merchandise at the time of exportation at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including all costs and charges specified in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, was $2.30 per dozen, net packed; and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis of value of the merchandise in question, and that such statutory value is $2.30 per dozen, net packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

August 6 , 2021 

# Order

Clerk August 6 , 2021

1 54821 ( 78 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 154821

v COA: 3 24157

Kent CC: 10

- 002810

- FC

MIKE TORRES ZUNIGA

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendant

- appellant to file a supplement

to his application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The supplement su bmitted on August

2 , 2021 , is accepted for filing

.
Exhibit
10.7


 


FAHL
Related Party Loans


 


Certain
parties affiliated with FAHL hold outstanding loans issued to FAHL (the “FAHL Related Party Loans”), which, in the aggregate,
equaled $15,268,986 and $8,683,693 as of December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively. The FAHL Related Party Loans are interest-free
loans with no maturity date: As of December 31, 2021, the outstanding amounts held under the FAHL Related Party Loans were as follows:


 


●
the Seller in the amount of $708,578;


 


●
Lighthouse Settlement (the shareholder of the Seller) in the amount of $6,631,951;


 


●
Michael Elbaz, a director FAHL and the Seller, in the amount of $4,926,915; and


 


●
Yariv Elbaz, a beneficiary of the discretionary trust which is the sole shareholder of the Seller, in the amount of $3,001,542.


 


The
FAHL Related Party Loans are not documented. Pursuant to the Business Combination Agreement, FAHL may incur additional FAHL Related Party
Loans up to an aggregate of $20 million. Upon consummation of the Business Combination, all FAHL Related Party Loans will be paid off
or novated to New Forafric and converted into Ordinary Shares of New Forafric at a price of $10.50 per share.
No. 39039.

#### Protest 684913-G of W. X. Huber Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of *Woolworth*v. *United States*(T. D. 47647) and Abstract 34216 the merchandise in question was held free of duty under paragraph 1703 as claimed.
EXHIBIT 11 -  Computation of Earnings Per Share



Item 6(a)
Exhibit 11
Computation of Earnings per Share
United Industrial Corporation and Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Three Months Ended            Nine Months Ended
                                              September 30                  September 30  
                                           ------------------            -----------------

                                            1998         1997           1998          1997
                                            ----         ----           ----          ----
<S>                                     <C>          <C>            <C>          <C>

Net income                               $2,361,000   $6,678,000     $6,982,000   $10,111,000
                                         ==========   ==========     ==========   ===========

Basic earnings per share:
   Weighted average shares               12,369,381   12,181,843     12,316,425    12,177,743
                                         ==========   ==========     ==========    ==========

Effect of dilutive securities:
   Employee and non-employee
     director stock options                 295,832      263,271        326,404       263,271
                                            =======      =======        =======       =======

Diluted earnings per share:
   Adjusted weighted-average
     and assumed conversions             12,665,213   12,445,114     12,642,829    12,366,374
                                         ==========   ==========     ==========    ==========


Basic earnings per share                     $  .19       $  .55         $  .57        $  .83
                                             ======       ======         ======        ======
Diluted earnings per share                   $  .19       $  .54         $  .55        $  .82
                                             ======       ======         ======        ======


</TABLE>









                                       13
# C_2016038EN.01001901.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/19

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — María Pilar Plaza Bravo v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal Dirección Provincial de Álava

(Case C-137/15) (1)

1

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4(1) - Equal treatment of male and female workers - Part-time workers, primarily female - National legislation providing for a maximum amount of unemployment benefit - Legislation referring, for the calculation of that amount, to the relationship between the working hours of the part-time employees concerned and the working hours of full-time employees))

(2016/C 038/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María Pilar Plaza Bravo

Applicant:

Defendant: Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal Dirección Provincial de Álava

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, does not preclude, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a provision of national law under which, in order for the amount of the benefit for total unemployment to be received by an employee following the loss of her only part-time employment to be calculated, a reduction coefficient for part-time work that corresponds to the percentage represented by the part-time working hours in relation to the hours completed by a comparable worker employed full-time is applied to the maximum amount of unemployment benefit generally laid down by law.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.

1

---
# C_2016260EN.01000701.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v National Exhibition Centre Limited

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

National Exhibition Centre Limited

(Case C-130/15) (1)

1

((Preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemption - Article 13B(d)(3) - Transactions in respect of payments and transfers - Concept - Purchase of tickets for shows or other events - Payment by debit or credit card - ‘Card processing’ services’))

(2016/C 260/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Applicant:

Defendant: National Exhibition Centre Limited

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax which is provided for in that article in respect of transactions concerning payments and transfers does not apply to a service described as ‘processing of payment by debit or credit card’, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, carried out by a taxable person, the provider of that service, where an individual buys, via that provider, a ticket for a show or other event which the provider sells in the name and on behalf of another entity, which that individual pays for by debit or credit card.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

1

---
No. 50257.

#### Protests 61227-K, etc., of Manhattan Novelty Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Case: 2:12-cv-00742-GCS-EPD Doc #: 29 Filed: 07/16/14 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T14:17:27-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1019

CARL L. LIVESAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-97-834)

Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl L. Livesay, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Robert William Flynn,

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Carl Livesay appeals the district court’s order granting the

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Livesay’s action for

disability benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Livesay v. Apfel, No. CA-97-

834 (E.D. Va. Oct. 29, 1998). We also deny Livesay’s request in

his informal brief for a summary of the district court’s “SS Disability Decisions” for the past fifteen years. 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
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title: Takingstock [electronic resource]: North American pollutant releases and transfers.
 
1999: Summary | Sourcebook
2000: Summary | Sourcebook
2001 | 2002| 2003 | 2004| 2005 | 2005-2010 | 2006
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.EN 8:16
Item Number:1105-A-02 (online)
CGP System Number:000613533
 
September 28, 2017
 
 **
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FABIAN VAKSMAN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL B. DONLEY, Secretary,

Department of the Air Force,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-35771

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00225-FVS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Fabian Vaksman appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

for defendant in his action under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 791, et seq.,

FILED

DEC 14 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
/Research 2 08-35771

alleging that he was unlawfully terminated based on his disability. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Walton v. U.S. Marshals

Serv., 492 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Vaksman failed to demonstrate

that he was “otherwise qualified” for his job because the record shows that he did

not receive a passing score in a required course, and he did not request any

accommodation until after his employment was terminated. See id. (“To state a

prima facie case under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1)

[he] is a person with a disability, (2) who is otherwise qualified for employment,

and (3) suffered discrimination because of [his] disability.”); Lucero v. Hart, 915

F.2d 1367, 1372 (9th Cir. 1990) (“An individual is not ‘otherwise qualified’ if [he]

cannot perform the essential functions of [his] job.”); Brown v. Lucky Stores, Inc.,

246 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th Cir. 2001) (concluding that employer was under no

affirmative obligation to provide an accommodation for employee who never

requested an accommodation). 

 Vaksman’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Vaksman’s motion to expedite is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
| (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 United                Air                Lines, Inc. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/              Glenn F. Tilton      |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Glenn                F. Tilton              |   |
| Chairman,                President and      |   |
| Chief                Executive Officer      |   |
|                                        |   |
|                                        |   |
|  /s/              Frederic F. Brace    |   |
| Frederic                F. Brace            |   |
| Executive                Vice President and |   |
| Chief                Financial Officer      |   |
|                                        |   |
|                                        |   |
# C_2016211EN.01001901.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2016 — Netherlands Maritime Technology Association v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-100/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Spanish scheme of early depreciation of certain assets acquired through financial leasing - Decision finding no State aid - Formal investigation procedure not initiated - Insufficient and incomplete examination - Obligation to state reasons - Selectivity))

(2016/C 211/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Netherlands Maritime Technology Association (represented by: K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt, and G. Forwood, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P. Němečková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Netherlands Maritime Technology Association to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Netherlands Maritime Technology Association to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

---
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

WATER HEATERS, DIRECT HEATING EQUIPMENT AND POOL HEATERS

U.S. Department of Energy

Room 1E-245

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

January 16, 2006

Purpose: The Department will present its methodology for conducting the energy conservation

standards rulemaking for residential water heaters, direct heating equipment and pool heaters. The

Department also will seek input from stakeholders on its planned methodologies, assumptions,

and data sources.

Agenda

9:00 - 9:05 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks

9:05 - 9:25 a.m. Introductions and Agenda Review

9:25 - 9:40 a.m. Introduction and Analytical Methodology

9:40 - 10: 00 a.m. Brief Stakeholder Statements

10:00 - 11:15 a.m. Market and Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis, and

Engineering Analysis

11:15 - 11:30 a.m. Break

11:30 - 12:00 p.m. Market and Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis, and

Engineering Analysis (continued)

12:00 - 1:00 p.m. Break for Lunch

1:00 - 2:15 p.m. Energy and Water Use, Markups for Equipment Price

Determination, and Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

Analysis

2:15 - 2:55 p.m. Shipments Analysis, National Impact Analysis, and LCC

Subgroup Analysis

2:55 - 3:15 p.m. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

3:15 - 3:30 p.m. Break

3:30 - 4 :00 p.m. Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis,

Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory Impact Analysis

4:00 - 4: 45 p.m. Other Issues and Comments / Closing Remarks

4:45 p.m. Adjourn

 EE-2006-STD-0129 COMMENT 02.5
# C_2017168EN.01001402.xml

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/14

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic

(Case C-668/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin - Directive 2000/43/EC - Article 2(2)(a) and (b) - Credit institution requiring persons applying for a loan to purchase a car who have produced a driving licence indicating a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association as a form of identification to provide additional proof of identity in the form of a copy of a passport or residence permit))

(2017/C 168/17)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jyske Finans A/S

Applicant:

Defendant: Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin is to be interpreted as not precluding the practice of a credit institution which requires a customer whose driving licence indicates a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association to produce additional identification in the form of a copy of the customer’s passport or residence permit.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.

1

---