alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

June 17, 1958

No. 62084.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 292049-K and 292050-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is. similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked “A” at 15 percent under the provision in paragraph 1551, as modified by T. D. 52739, supplemented by T. D. 52820, *supra,*for photographic cameras; the items marked “B” at 25 percent under the provision in paragraph 228, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802), for photographic lenses; and the items marked “C” at 20 percent under paragraph 1551 of the tariff act as photographic cameras, not specially provided for.
(Reap. Dec. 9390)

#### American Precision Drawing Inst. Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 801099.

(Decided April 8, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a re-appraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

Rule 5(a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> Tbe submission for decision of any case shall be made- in open court by tbe parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to tbe court, or by tbe court on its own motion. Where tbe plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or bis attorney, in a case does not appear when tbe same is called, and after tbe opposite party has bad opportunity to present evidence on tbe issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by tbe court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 9 Committee Discharged Senate (CDS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 9

 Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding designation of the month 
           of November as ``National Military Family Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2005

    Mr. Inouye (for himself and Mr. Salazar) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                           November 10, 2005

        Committee discharged; considered, amended, and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding designation of the month 
           of November as ``National Military Family Month''.

Whereas military families, through their sacrifices and their dedication to our 
        Nation and its values, represent the bedrock upon which our Nation was 
        founded and upon which our Nation continues to rely in these perilous 
        and challenging times: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate--
            (1) that the month of November should be designated as 
        ``National Military Family Month''; and
            (2) to request that the President--
                    (A) designate the month of November as ``National 
                Military Family Month''; and
                    (B) issue a proclamation calling upon the people of 
                the United States to observe the month with appropriate 
                ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
[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:****Focus, Florida outreach and conservationupdates
 
2011: Winter | Spring | Summer
2012: Fall/Winter | December
 
SuDoc Number:A 57.81/9:
Item Number:0120-C-08 (online)
CGP System Number:000615111
 
October 4, 2017
 
 **
# C_2016111EN.01002501.xml

| 29.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/25

---

Order of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Hispasat v Commission

(Case T-36/15) (1)

1

((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Correction of that decision after the action had been brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 111/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hispasat, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Balcells Cartagena, and, subsequently, J. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, P. Němečková and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 6846 final of 1 October 2014 concerning State aid SA.27408 (C 24/2010) (ex NN 37/2010, ex CP 19/2009) granted by the authorities of Castilla-La Mancha for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on SES Astra’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on SES Astra’s application for leave to intervene.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Hispasat, SA. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Hispasat, SA.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 85 (Thursday, May 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24653-24654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8476]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5788]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``The Baroque World of Fernando Botero''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``The Baroque World of Fernando Botero'', 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a 
loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine 
that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the San 
Antonio Museum of Art, San Antonio, Texas, from on or about May 26, 
2007, until on or about August, 19, 2007, the Oklahoma City Museum of 
Art, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, from on or about September 15, 2007, 
until on or about December 9, 2007, the Society of the Four Arts, Palm 
Beach, Florida, from on or about January 18, 2008, until on or about 
February 24, 2008, the Delaware Art Museum, Wilmington, Delaware, from 
on or about March 15, 2008, until on or about June 7, 2008, the New 
Orleans Museum of Art, New Orleans, Louisiana, from on or about June 
28, 2008, until on or about September 21, 2008, the Memphis Brooks 
Museum of Art, Memphis, Tennessee, from on or about October 18,

[[Page 24654]]

2008, until on or about January 11, 2009, the Colorado Springs Fine 
Arts Center, Colorado Springs, Colorado, from on or about May 23, 2009, 
until on or about August 15, 2009, the Crocker Art Museum, Sacramento, 
California, from on or about September 12, 2009, until on or about 
December 6, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet 
to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these 
Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 
453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: April 26, 2007.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E7-8476 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
No. 46353.

#### Protests 946060-G (B), etc., of Irwin-Harrisons-Whitney, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of ginger root, not preserved or candied, the same as that the subject of *Wilson*v. *United States*(28 C. C. P. A. 63, C. A. D. 126). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1768 was therefore sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 82 (Monday, April 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 21298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8132]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances Notice of Application

    This is notice that on October 18, 2006, Noramco Inc., 500 Swedes 
Landing Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, made application by renewal 
to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as an 
importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in 
schedule II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raw Opium (9600)...........................  II
Concentrate of Poppy Straw (9670)..........  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to 
manufacture other controlled substances.
    As noted in a previous notice published in the Federal Register on 
September 23, 1975, (40 FR 43745), all applicants for registration to 
import a basic class of any controlled substances in schedule I or II 
are, and will continue to be, required to demonstrate to the Deputy 
Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 
Administration, that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 
21 U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), 
(e) and (f) are satisfied.

    Dated: April 17, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
 [FR Doc. E7-8132 Filed 4-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Union
Carbide Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1998, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000100790
<NAME> UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              45
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      920
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        602
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1851
<PP&E>                                            8209
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4144
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    7075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1408
<BONDS>                                           1703
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           155
<OTHER-SE>                                        2217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      7075
<SALES>                                           4370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4370
<CGS>                                             3284
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   395<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  84
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    541
<INCOME-TAX>                                       168
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                336
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       336
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.47<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.41<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Other expenses ae equal to research and development of 107 and depreciation and
amortization of 288.
<F2>The EPS-PRIMARY amount represents basic earnings per share and the EPS-DILUTED
amount represents diluted earnings per share, computed in accordance with
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, "Earnings Per Share."
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v LAWRENCE L. SHOMLER, Staff Sergeant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

10 USCMA 555, 28 CMR 121

*556No. 12,997

Decided July 24, 1959

*Lieutenant Colonel James L. Kilgore*and *Captain Norman J. Nelson*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Michels*and *Lieutenant Colonel Francis R. Coogan*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

George W. Latimer, Judge:

Accused was convicted for absence without leave and wrongful appropriation, violations of Articles 86 and 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 886 and 921, respectively. Intermediate authorities have approved the findings and sentence, and we granted accused’s petition for review on a single instructional issue.

In the course of his charge to the members of the court-martial, the law officer instructed *inter alia:*

> “The rule as to reasonable doubt extends to every element of the offense. It is not necessary that each particular fact advanced by the prosecution be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; it is sufficient to warrant conviction if, on the whole evidence, the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Prima facie proof of an essential element of an offense does not preclude the existence of a reasonable doubt with respect to that element. The court may decide, for instance, that the prima facie evidence presented does not outweigh the presumption of innocence. In law, prima facie evidence of fact is sufficient to establish the fact, unless rebutted.”

This is the same instruction with which we were concerned in United States v Simpson, 10 USCMA 543, 28 CMR 109, this day decided. See also United States v Smith, 10 USCMA 549, 28 CMR 115; United States v Blackwell, 10 USCMA 550, 28 CMR 116; United States v Davault, 10 USCMA 551, 28 CMR 117; United States v Tisdall, 10 USCMA 553, 28 CMR 119. As we indicated in the first mentioned case, it was error for the law officer to so instruct. However, we conclude, as we did there, that accused was not prejudiced. The law officer instructed in accordance with Article 51(c) of the Code, 10 USC § 851, and he repeatedly charged that unless the court members were convinced accused’s guilt had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, they must acquit him; that the rule extended to every element of the offense; that reasonable doubt could arise either from the evidence or the lack thereof; and he properly instructed on the burden of proof and presumption of innocence. Taken by their four corners, there can be no doubt but that the court members were apprised of the correct yardstick for use in their deliberations.

The decision of the board of review is, therefore, affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting);

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Simpson, 10 USCMA 543, 28 CMR 109, decided this day.
| USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS                                 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigations Series Map I-2791 |

# Regional Seismic Lines across the Rome Trough and Allegheny Plateauof Northern West Virginia, Western Maryland, and Southwestern Pennsylvania 

2005
Exhibit 10.8


 


Administrative
Services Agreement


 


This
Administrative Service Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated this 19th day of April, 2022 is between Yotta Investment
LLC, herein referred to as “Service Provider” and Yotta Acquisition Corporation, herein referred to as “Customer”.


 


Service
Provider has agreed to provide services to the Customer on the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement, while Customer
is of the opinion that Service Provider has the proper and necessary qualifications, experience and abilities to provide services
to Customer.


 


Therefore
in consideration of the matters described above, the receipt and sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, the
Customer and the Service Provider agree as follows:


 


	1.	Scope
    of Work


 


The
Service Provider is to provide the Customer with the following services (the “Services”): general and administrative
services, including office space, administrative and support services, as may be reasonably required by the Company.


 


The
services will include any other tasks which the Customer and the Service Provider may agree on.


 


	2.	Term
    of Agreement


 


This
Agreement will begin on April 19, 2022 and will remain in full force and effect until the earlier of the consummation by
the Company of an initial business combination or the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration
Statement for the Company’s initial public offering) unless terminated earlier pursuant to the terms hereof. This Agreement
may be extended by mutual written agreement of the parties.


 


	3.	Trust
    Waiver


 


Yotta
Investment LLC hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may
be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”) that may be established upon the consummation of the IPO and
will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


	4.	Termination
    


 


If
either party seeks termination of this Agreement, the terminating party must provide a 30 days written notice to the other party.


 


	5.	Compensation
    


 


The
Customer will provide compensation to the Service Provider of $10,000 per month for the services rendered by the Service Provider
as required by this Agreement. Compensation is payable at the completion of services.


 






     


     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly affixed their signatures under hand on this 19th day of April, 2022.


 

	 	Yotta Investment
    LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Chen Chen
	 	Name: 	Chen Chen
	 	Title:	Authorized Representative


 


	 	Yotta Acquisition Corporation
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Hui Chen
	 	Name: 	Hui Chen
	 	Title:	Chief Executive
    Officer



 


Signature
Page to Administrative Services Agreement
# C_2016251EN.01004901.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/49

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 May 2016 — GW v Commission

(Case F-111/15) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Social security - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Concrete and detailed examination))

(2016/C 251/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: GW (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. S. Bohr and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant and his spouse reimbursement of the costs concerning three invoices for medical treatment and treatment relating to the cancer from which she is suffering.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1) | Annuls the European Commission’s decision refusing to consider the costs in itemised accounts Nos 67 and 68 of 7 February 2014 and No 72 of 12 March 2014 relating to Mrs T’s healthcare to be reimbursable; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the European Commission’s decision refusing to consider the costs in itemised accounts Nos 67 and 68 of 7 February 2014 and No 72 of 12 March 2014 relating to Mrs T’s healthcare to be reimbursable;

| 2) | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by GW. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by GW.

---

(1)  OJ C 354 of 26/10/2015, p. 55.

1

---