alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 53768.

protests 117073-K, etc. (New York).

#### Equitable Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
AVS

Quality Management

System

Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with 56

QPM#

AIR-ANM-030-F7

Date: December 17, 2008

Revision

1

Record of Contacts

FDMS DockelNo. FAA-W6:2010--.D..9_5_?>__

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Persop Contactc.d Date

Boeing Commercial Airplane Co. Sodayoshi Takara December 14,2009

Mark Lopez Air Transport Association December 23, 2009

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED

Check the Master List to Verify Thai This is the Correct Revision Before Use
Exhibit 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-178271) of China Zenix Auto International Limited of our report dated April 10, 2013
relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of China Zenix Auto International Limited and its subsidiaries (the Group) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph relating to the convenience translation of Renminbi amounts into United States dollar amounts) and the effectiveness of the Groups internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of China
Zenix Auto International Limited for the year ended December 31, 2012.



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
|                            
|Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu    
|Hong Kong                   
|April 10, 2013
# C_2015198EN.01002601.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/26

---

Action brought on 16 April 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-172/15)

(2015/C 198/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and J. Rius, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

Forms of order sought

| — | To declare, pursuant to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that having not yet approved all of the assessments and port security plans for all Spanish ports included in the scope of European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/65/EC (1) of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(3) and Articles 6 and 7 of that directive, that provide respectively, that Member States are to define the boundaries of each port, and are to approve relevant port security assessments and plans; |
| --- | --- |

—

To declare, pursuant to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that having not yet approved all of the assessments and port security plans for all Spanish ports included in the scope of European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/65/EC (1) of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(3) and Articles 6 and 7 of that directive, that provide respectively, that Member States are to define the boundaries of each port, and are to approve relevant port security assessments and plans;

1

| — | Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 5 September 2014, the Kingdom of Spain acknowledged that, out of the 67 ports affected by the legislation in question, 3 port security assessments and 18 port security plans were still awaiting approval.

From that date until the present, the Spanish authorities have continued to send updates regularly on the progress of the practical implementation of Directive 2005/65/EC. The latest of such reports, received on 14 April 2015, shows that, out of the 67 ports affected by the legislation in question, one assessment and eight port security plans are still awaiting approval.

Consequently, the Commission notes that on the date of the latest report received, the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations to define the relevant boundaries of each port affected by Directive 2005/65/EC, or its obligations to establish and approve a security assessment for all the ports to which Directive 2005/65/EC applies, and establish and approve port security plans for these ports.

---

(1)  OJ L 310, p. 28.

1

---
* 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

FILED

August 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10591

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAUL RAMIREZ-BENAVIDEZ, also known as Freddy Ramirez

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-78

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Raul Ramirez-Benavidez has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ramirez-Benavidez has not filed a response.

Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to
No. 06-10591

2

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
No. 56150.

protest 171570-K (New York).

#### Vintage Wines, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Lancers Rose Wine in bottles or jugs similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 53224, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

Appellate case name: In the Interest of K.M., Jr., A Child;

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 285

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 1 7

- 04805J

Trial court: 3 1 5 t h District Court of Harris County

On April 9 , 2019, appellant, D.M., through counsel, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s April 8, 2019 final decree for termination in the underlying trial court cause number 2017

- 04805J, involving K.M., Jr., a male child, whi ch was assigned by the Clerk’s Office to appellate cause number 01

- 19

- 00285

- CV. On that same day, D.M. also filed a notice of appeal , through counsel, from the trial court’s April 8, 2019 final decree for termination in the t rial court cause number 2018

- 0 1409J, involving K.M., a female child, which was assigned by the Clerk’s Office to appellate cause number 01

- 19

- 00286

- CV. On April 22, 2019, Steven B. Frazier, counsel for a ppell ant, D.M., filed this unopposed motion for c onsolidat ion . Appellant seek s to consolidate this appellate cause number 01

- 1 9

- 00 285

- CV with t he related appellate cause number 01

- 1 9

- 00 286

- CV because they are companion cases and were tried together on March 18 and 20, 2019. However, even though these appeals were filed by the same app ellant, D.M., they involve different trial court cause number s and different children , a nd the clerk’s records were already filed in this Court on April 18, 2019, for each case

. Furthermore, because both of the reporter’s records are scheduled to be filed by the same reporter on April 29, 2019, app ellant’s counsel may file one brief for both appeals and t his Court may decide to submit the t wo appeals together and, if this Court permits argument , they may be argued together , all without the need for consoli dation

. Accordingly , the Court DENIES appell ant’s motion f o r consolidat ion

.

It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: __

/s/ Laura C. Higley

_____ x Acting individually Acting for the Court Date: _ April 2 5, 2019

_____________________
(Reap. Dec. 8374)

Entry Nos. 1956-E; 80-E.

#### Border Brokerage Co. v. United States

(Decided December 28, 1954)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

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

> 1) The merchandise covered by these appeals consists of firebrick imported from Canada and invoiced with descriptions the same as those set forth in paragraph 2 below.

> 2) At the time of exportation neither a foreign value, an export value, nor a United States value existed for such or similar merchandise, and the cost of production for the imported merchandise, in Canadian dollars per 1,000 pieces, was as given below less 10 percent:

> Jan. 1, 1943, to Nov. 18, 1946

> Straights or squares_ 61. 00

> Side arch, end wedge, necks, soaps, jambs, keys, feather edge, splits 1)4, 1% and 2"_61. 00

> Tongue and groove, groove only_:_ 63. 50

> Splits *}{, %*and 1"_ 64. 00

> Circles and skews_70. 00

> Large straights, large end wedge, “E” blocks, flatbacks_91. 50

> 3)The appeals are abandoned as to all merchandise except that invoiced under the descriptions given in paragraph 2, and upon this stipulation the appeals enumerated in attached schedule may be deemed to be submitted.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise described below, and that such values, for the merchandise exported during the period from January 1, 1943, to November 18, 1946, were as follows:

*430Canadian dollars per 1,000 pieces

Straights or squares___61.00

Side arch, end wedge, necks, soaps, jambs, keys, feather edge, splits *l}í, 1%,*and 2"_ 61. 00

Tongue and groove, groove only_i_63. 50

Splits, *Y, %,*and 1"_64. 00

Circles and skews_ 70. 00

Large straights, large end wedge, “E” blocks, flatbacks_91. 50 All less 10 per centum

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 167 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 167

 Expressing the sense of Congress that Lena Horne should be recognized 
 as one of the most popular performers of the 1940s and 1950s and for 
        her outspoken opposition to racial and social injustice.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2007

  Mr. Rangel submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of Congress that Lena Horne should be recognized 
 as one of the most popular performers of the 1940s and 1950s and for 
        her outspoken opposition to racial and social injustice.

Whereas Lena Horne was born on June 30, 1917, in Brooklyn, New York;
Whereas Horne left school at the age of 14 and took her first stage job in order 
        to help contribute to the family during the Depression;
Whereas Horne began singing at Harlem's famed Cotton Club at age 16 and began 
        performing on Broadway soon after;
Whereas Horne was 21 when she performed in her first feature role, ``The Duke is 
        Tops'', after having taken a number of smaller roles that were often all 
        that was available to blacks in Hollywood at the time;
Whereas Horne was eventually signed with MGM studios, making her the first 
        African-American to be signed to a long-term film contract, only to find 
        that she was edited out of films that were distributed in the South;
Whereas Horne performed in ``Cabin in the Sky'' in 1943, which is often regarded 
        as the premier performance of her career; and
Whereas Lena Horne continues to represent elegance, Hollywood glamour, wisdom, 
        and the strength and determination of an entire generation of performers 
        who struggled through racism and prejudice during the height of their 
        careers: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That it is the sense of Congress that Lena Horne should be recognized 
for her achievements as a singer and Hollywood actress, for her 
contributions to the struggles for equality, and for using her 
celebrity as a catalyst for change.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1
------------

                              UNITED-GUARDIAN, INC.
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  United-Guardian,  Inc. (the
"Registrant")  on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal  quarter  ended June 30,  2004,  as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Alfred R.  Globus,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Registrant,
hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) the Report 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  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.

Date:  August 9, 2004                    /s/ Alfred R. Globus
                                         --------------------------
                                         Alfred R. Globus
                                         Chief Executive Officer
No. 49398.

#### Protests 104757-K, etc., of M. Pressner & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The record showed that wood is the component of chief value in the darts in question and that they are similar to those involved in Abstract 49053, the record in which was incorporated herein. They were therefore held dutiable at 33J4 percent under paragraph 412 as claimed.
# C_2016038EN.01006101.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/61

---

Order of the General Court of 17 November 2015 — Certuss Dampfautomaten v OHIM — Universal for Engineering Industries (Universal 1800 TC)

(Case T-329/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceeding - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 038/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Certuss Dampfautomaten GmbH & Co. KG (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Sroka, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Universal for Engineering Industries SAE (Giza, Egypt)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 April 2015 (Case R 1303/2014-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Universal for Engineering Industries SAE and Certuss Dampfautomaten GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

| 2. | Certuss Dampfautomaten GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Certuss Dampfautomaten GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

1

---
<PAGE>

Date: August 13, 1999
Amount: $50,000.00

                        Ultimate Sports Entertainment, Inc.
                              (A Delaware Corporation)

                                  Promissory Note

     Ultimate Sports Entertainment, Inc., a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, for value received, hereby
promises to pay the following registered holder hereof at the address stated,

     Roger Tichenor
     1749 Bridgewater Drive
     Heathrow, FL 32746

the principal sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) in such lawful money
of the United States of America as at the time of payment shall be legal
tender for the payment of public and private debts, on the terms and at the
time hereinafter provided.

This Note is subject to the following terms and provisions:

1. Pavment and Interest. The principal amount of this Note together with all
interest then accrued shall be due and payable in six months from the date
hereof (the "Due Date"). Interest on the outstanding principal shall accrue
at the rate of twelve percent ( 12%) per annum from the date hereof. All
interest shall be calculated on the basis of a 365-day year, counting the
actual number of days elapsed from the date of this Note to the Due Date.
Interest on any overdue payments of principal and interest due hereunder
shall accrue and be payable at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum,
based on the actual number of days elapsed from the date such principal or
interest payment was due to the date of actual payment.

2. Negotiability and Transferability. This Note is negotiable and
transferable.


                                       Ultimate Sports Entertainment, Inc.


                                       By /s/ Frederick R. Licht
                                          -----------------------------
                                          Frederick R. Licht, President
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

People of MI v Carvin Levelle Bailey 

Docket No. 344779 

LC No. 17-004518-FC 

Christopher M. Murray 

Presiding Judge 

Patrick M. Meter 

Kirsten Frank Kelly 

Judges 

The Court orders that the March 17, 2020 opinion is hereby AMENDED to correct a 

clerical error: removal of footnote 1. 

In all other respects, the March 17, 2020 opinion remains unchanged. 

Presiding Judge 

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., Chief Clerk, on 

MAR 2 3 2020 

Dale
| OPM: Labor Agreement Information Retrieval SystemClick here to skip navigationOPM.gov Home  |  Subject Index  |  Important Links  |  Contact Us  |  Help
This page can be found on the web at the following url: http://www.opm.gov/directors_desk/index.asp
U.S. Office of Personnel Management - Ensuring the Federal Government has an effective civilian workforceAdvanced SearchLabor Agreement Information Retrieval System     Information       Negotiability Determinations       Bargaining Units       Bargaining Agreements       Case Listings      Case Listings    Help  Case Listing 1090Case Listing 1091Case Listing 1092Case Listing 1093Case Listing 1094Case Listing 1095Case Listing 1096Case Listing 1097Case Listing 1098Case Listing 1099Case Listing 1100Case Listing 1101Case Listing 1102Case Listing 1103Case Listing 1104Case Listing 1105Case Listing 1106Case Listing 1107Case Listing 1108Case Listing 1109Case Listing 1110Case Listing 1111Case Listing 1112Case Listing 1113Case Listing 1114Case Listing 1115Case Listing 1116Case Listing 1117Case Listing 1118Case Listing 1119Case Listing 1120Case Listing 1121 Return to Labor Management Relations Home**U.S. Office of Personnel Management** 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415 | (202) 606-1800 | TTY (202) 606-2532 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|