alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wilkins *versus*Babbershall.

In order to discredit an opposing witness, by proving, that be bad made declarations in conflict witb bis testimony, it is not requisite, that be should be previously interrogated as to such declarations.

Exceptions. Writ of entry. Plaintiff claimed under a levy against Fowles & al. Defendant claims under a conveyance from Fowles, made prior to the plaintiff’s attachment. To show the conveyance fraudulent, plaintiff read the deposition of Fowles. The defendant then called one Doane to show that Fowles had made a contradictory statement. To such proof the plaintiff objected, until Fowles, *185upon inquiry, should have opportunity to explain the statements which he had made. But the proof was admitted, and the plaintiff excepted, the verdict having been against him.

*J.*Appleton, for plaintiff.

The proof was inadmissible. It was of mere out-door conversation, and on irrelevant matter. The defendant, at the taking of the deposition, should have inquired of Fowles as to any of his declarations, which he intended to prove. Such are the English and American decisions. Not to have done so, was a trap upon Fowles, and a wrong to the plaintiff. Greenl. on Ev. § 462 ; 2 Phil. Ev. 244; 3 Starkie’s Ev. 1753.

The case of *Ware*v. *Ware,*8 Greenl. 42, *contra,*was an uncalled for *dictum,*and wrong in principle. *State*v. *Blake,*25 Maine, 350.

*Peters,*for defendant.

Howard, J.,

orally.—The plaintiff contends that it was not competent for defendant to prove the out-door statements of Fowles, till, upon inquiry, Fowles had had opportunity to explain. Such is the rule in England and in some of the other States. It was never so in Maine. It has always been understood that the declarations of a witness may be proved, without such previous inquiry. The rule is well known. It is a salutary one, and we see no reason for changing it.

*Exceptions overruled.*
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsProceedings of the 3rd Annual SCOLE WorkshopTopics addressed include: modeling and controlling the Spacecraft Control Laboratory Experiment (SCOLE) configurations; slewing maneuvers; mathematical models; vibration damping; gravitational effects; structural dynamics; finite element method; distributed parameter system; on-line pulse control; stability augmentation; and stochastic processes.Document ID19870008388Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference ProceedingsAuthorsTaylor, Lawrence W., Jr.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1987Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-89075NAS 1.15:89075Accession Number87N17821Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-46-11-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19870008388.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsIDRelationTitleN87-17822 through N87-17837Workvisibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
No. 51173.

#### Protests 41772-K, etc., of Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of oatmeals or oatmeal saucers and chowder cups or puree cups the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Copeland & Thompson, Inc.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 85, C. D. 833) and *Johnson Bros.*v. *United States*(15 id. 113, C. D. 955), In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
```

[113th Congress Public Law 64]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 127 STAT. 668]]

Public Law 113-64
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt fire hydrants from the 
 prohibition on the use of lead pipes, fittings, fixtures, solder, and 
              flux. <<NOTE: Dec. 20, 2013 -  [H.R. 3588]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Community 
Fire Safety Act of 2013. 42 USC 201 note.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Community Fire Safety Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. EXEMPTING FIRE HYDRANTS FROM PROHIBITION ON USE OF LEAD.

    Section 1417(a)(4)(B) of the Safe Drinking Water Act <<NOTE: 42 USC 
300g-6.>>  is amended by inserting ``fire hydrants,'' after ``shower 
valves,''.
SEC. 3. <<NOTE: 42 USC 300g-6 note.>>  EVALUATION OF SOURCES OF 
                    LEAD IN WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS AND 
                    ALTERNATE ROUTING SYSTEMS.

    The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall--
            (1) consult with and seek the advice of the National 
        Drinking Water Advisory Council on potential changes to the 
        regulations pertaining to lead under the Safe Drinking Water Act 
        (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.); and
            (2) request the Council to consider sources of lead 
        throughout drinking water distribution systems, including 
        through components used to reroute drinking water during 
        distribution system repairs.

    Approved December 20, 2013.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3588:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 159 (2013):
            Dec. 2, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 17, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
No. 53750.

protests 145274-K, etc. (New York).

#### Simon Import Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399); the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           106,598,864
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     623,894
<MORTGAGE>                                     0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 107,227,758
<CASH>                                         346,010
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             2,518,271
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         4,603,662
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,769,274
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                41,455,649
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            17,954,466
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 2,484,460
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,895,726
<OTHER-SE>                                     50,842,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,769,274
<PREMIUMS>                                     7,491,528
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            1,481,259
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (625)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 1,628,435
<BENEFITS>                                     3,379,802
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    2,217,491
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           2,093,675
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,909,628
<INCOME-TAX>                                   877,866
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,031,762
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,031,762
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.32
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0
        


</TABLE>
Johnson, Dastina - Boise, ID

From: Johnson, Dastina - Boise, ID

Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:13 AM

Subject: 'eNewsbytes'- Idaho NRCS Hydrologist Attends Snow Survey School with Chief 

Page 1 of 1

2/13/2007

 

Hydrologist Attends Snow Survey School with Chief

 

Most Idaho NRCS employees have not yet had the pleasure of talking

with NRCS Chief Arlen Lancaster. However, Hydrologist Julie 

Koeberle and 60 students from national, state and municipal 

agencies attended snow survey school in California with Chief 

Lancaster to learn proper snow sampling and snow survival 

techniques. 

Koeberle learned that re-sampling is sometimes necessary to provide

accurate snow measurements. “Usually, if snow densities are more 

than five percent from each other, then re-sampling is 

needed. It could be a sign that we did not fully measure the snowpack due to an 

obstacle, such as a log or ice lens.”

To pass the course, all participants had to build a snow cave 

and stay the night. Students spent nearly four hours 

shoveling, piling and packing snow for their individual caves—

their survival source in case of inclement weather. During the 

night, temperatures dipped into the 20s, but the insulated 

cave kept temperatures in the low 30s. “I’m struck by the 

dedication of our employees who decide the risk is worth it 

because of the help this work provides farmers, ranches and others,” said Chief 

Lancaster.
Exhibit 12

United Air Lines, Inc. and SubsidiaryCompanies
Computation of Ratio of Earningsto Fixed Charges    Six Months Ended June 30    20012000 (In Millions)Earnings:    Earnings (loss) before income taxes and     cumulative effect of accounting change$   (973)$   730   Fixed charges, from below460 519   Undistributed (earnings) losses of affiliates(3)3   Interest capitalized    (45)    (40)         Earnings$   (561)$ 1,212  ===== =====    Fixed charges:       Interest expense$   262 $   198   Portion of rental expense representative        of the interest factor   198   321         Fixed charges$   460 $   519  ===== =====    Ratio ofearnings to fixed charges       (a)           2.34  ===== =====       
________
(a) Earnings were inadequate tocover fixed charges by $1.0 billion in 2001.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

R & D FILM 1, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:12-cv-1112

v. Judge Michael H. Watson

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

DOES 1-84,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this action on December 4, 2012. On July 12, 2013, the

Court ordered Plaintiff to amend its Complaint within thirty days to substitute in the real names

for its Doe Defendants and to perfect service on those named partes as required under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) or to alternatively show cause why the Court should not dismiss

this action pursuant to Rule 4(m). (ECF No. 6.) On July 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended

Complaint naming only four Defendants. (ECF No. 7.) To date, however, Plaintiff has not

effected service of process over the named Defendants. Nor has Plaintiff responded to the

Court’s Show Cause Order. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss this action

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process. 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in

Case: 2:12-cv-01112-MHW-EPD Doc #: 8 Filed: 08/21/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district

court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed,

appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d

981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to

specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation

omitted)).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: August 21, 2013 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

 United States Magistrate Judge 

2

Case: 2:12-cv-01112-MHW-EPD Doc #: 8 Filed: 08/21/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                 SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                           827,000
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 42,072,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                   39,234,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               1,649,000
<PP&E>                                                         6,322,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                (5,035,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               107,339,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         72,580,000
<BONDS>                                                       17,085,000
<COMMON>                                                         150,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                    16,251,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 107,339,000
<SALES>                                                       80,963,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              80,963,000
<CGS>                                                         22,193,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 22,193,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              20,643,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             3,590,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (2,040,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    (101,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (1,939,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  522,000
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (1,417,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2017038EN.01003001.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Keil v EUIPO — NaturaFit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktion (BasenCitrate)

(Case T-330/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark BasenCitrate - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 038/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rudolf Keil (Grevenbroich, Germany) (represented by: J. Sachs, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, D. Walicka and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: NaturaFit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktions GmbH (Röttenbach, Germany) (represented by N. Reber, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2015 (Case R 1541/2014-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between NaturaFit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktions GmbH and Mr Keil.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Rudolf Keil to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Rudolf Keil to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

1

---
# Official Journal L 54/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 54 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5825 February 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 54

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5825 February 2015

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/281 of 26 November 2014 replacing Annexes I and II of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/281 of 26 November 2014 replacing Annexes I and II of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# C_2015398EN.01001301.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2015 — TMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH v Finanzamt Kassel II — Hofgeismar

(Case C-412/15)

(2015/C 398/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Hessisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Kassel II — Hofgeismar

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 132(1)(d) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the supply of human blood also encompasses the supply of blood plasma obtained from human blood? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 132(1)(d) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the supply of human blood also encompasses the supply of blood plasma obtained from human blood?

1

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does this also apply to blood plasma that is not intended to be used directly for therapeutic purposes, but exclusively for manufacturing medicinal products? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does this also apply to blood plasma that is not intended to be used directly for therapeutic purposes, but exclusively for manufacturing medicinal products?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the negative: is classification as blood solely dependent on the intended purpose of the blood plasma, or also on the uses to which the blood plasma may theoretically be put? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative: is classification as blood solely dependent on the intended purpose of the blood plasma, or also on the uses to which the blood plasma may theoretically be put?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---