alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8315)

#### United States *v.*Isbrandtsen Company, Inc.

Entry No. 825127.

(Decided June 3, 1954)

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

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Rao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation by the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the court, that at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States as follows:

> Quantities & Pull Description of Goods Unit Price Packed

> POB Keelung, Formosa

> Two (2) bales of Seagrass Mats 1' square packed 324 pcs. per bale_ $48.60 per bale

> Two (2) bales of Seagrass Mats 2' square packed 90 pcs. per bale___ $27.00 per bale

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value as defined in section 402 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 .(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows:

> *648United States dollars per bale

> 2 bales seagrass mats 1' square packed 324 pcs. per bale- 48.60

> 2 bales seagrass mats 2' square packed 90 pcs. per bale_ 27.00

> Packed

> f. o. b. Keelung, Formosa

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 53772.

protests 48392-K, etc. (Boston, Ogdensburg, and Pembina).

#### T. D. Downing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 566 

Expressing the sense of the Senate concerning the importance of preventing 

child abuse and neglect before they occur and achieving permanency 

and stability for children who must experience foster care. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 

Mrs. CLINTON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate concerning the importance of preventing child abuse and neglect before they 

occur and achieving permanency and stability for children who must experience foster care. 

Whereas in 2004, authorities received reports that an estimated 3,000,000 children suffered child abuse or neglect, 

and the reports of abuse or neglect were substantiated 

for approximately 872,000 of the children; 

Whereas in 2004, 1,490 children died tragically as a result 

of abuse; 

Whereas research from the United States Children’s Bureau 

of the Department of Health and Human Services shows 

that a greater amount of caseworker contact with children and parents results in better outcomes for families; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 566 IS 

Whereas child protective service agencies throughout the 

country have set goals in order to improve service quality, 

including the agencies in New York, whose goal is to 

maintain caseloads at an average of 12 cases per caseworker, with a maximum of 5 new cases per caseworker 

each month; 

Whereas research on child welfare service staff suggests the 

need for staff that have formal social work education, especially education obtained through specialized child welfare programs; and 

Whereas research on child welfare service staff has shown a 

link between a supportive and flexible organizational environment and reduced staff turnover: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) Congress should increase funding to provide 

3 for additional child welfare service caseworkers and 

4 associated administrative costs; 

5 (2) Congress should encourage States to set 

6 goals for decreasing caseloads of child welfare serv7 ice caseworkers, in order to ensure quality service 

8 for the most vulnerable children; and 

9 (3) Congress should encourage States to imple10 ment policies with increased educational and profes11 sional development expectations for caseworkers in 

12 child welfare service agencies. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
May 7, 1952

No. 56646.

Suit 4694.

#### United States *v.*F. W. Hagemann.

Reap. Dec. 8007 affirmed March 18, 1952. C. A. D. 484.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1954

NICOLE RENA MCCREA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITIES, Office of Institutional Equity 

Vice Provost of Institutional Equity; JOHNS HOPKINS 

UNIVERSITIES, Office of the Vice President and General 

Counsel; DEXTER SMITH; EILEEN HAASE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. 

(1:15-cv-00579-JKB)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicole Rena McCrea, Appellant Pro Se. Elena D. Marcuss, Adam 

Thomas Simons, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nicole Rena McCrea seeks to appeal three of the magistrate 

judge’s discovery orders and the district court’s order denying 

her motion to certify an interlocutory appeal and for a stay 

pending appeal in her civil rights action. After McCrea filed 

her notice of appeal, the district court granted summary 

judgment for all Defendants and closed the case.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

46 (1949). When a notice of appeal is premature, the entry of 

final judgment can cure the resulting jurisdictional defect 

under the doctrine of cumulative finality, but only if the 

appealed order could have been certified for intermediate appeal 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89

(4th Cir. 2005); Equip. Fin. Grp. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 

973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992).

The orders McCrea seeks to appeal are neither final orders

nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Further, 

because the district court could not have certified these orders 

for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b), the cumulative finality 

doctrine cannot apply. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 
3

We deny McCrea’s motion for transcript at government expense and 

Defendants’ motion to place the case in abeyance. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
(logo) BERKADIA®

 

 

Annual Statement as toCompliance

For the Year Ended December31, 2016 

 

*Citigroup CommercialMortgage Trust,*

*Series 2016-GC36*

 

Pursuant to Section 3.06 ofthe Subservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction (the“Servicing Agreement”), I hereby attest that:

 

i. A review of the activitiesand performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the Reporting Period has beenmade under my supervision.

 

ii. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled, in allmaterial respects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughoutthe period and no default by the Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreementhas occurred and is continuing.

 

Berkadia,

 

/s/ Mark E. McCool

Mark E. McCool

President

February 10, 2017
November 22, 2011



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DANNY MCBRIDE , Appellant

NO. 14

- 10

- 00975

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED and that this decision be certified below for
observan ce.
#### Tobias & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6757.

Entry Nos. 716948; 729212.

Invoices dated London, England, August 28, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 1, 1941, etc.

(Decided January 14, 1947)

*Lane & Wallace*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

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

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts-1 find the export value as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by importer because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

J udgment will be rendered accordingly.
|  EXHIBIT 10.7.4                                   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
|  Union Carbide Corporation and Subsidiaries  |

|   | 1. | To delete the current Definition 1.14 “TDCC Refinance Rate” in the Loan Agreement and replace it with the following: |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | No Other Amendment or Waiver.  Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Loan Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | Execution in Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed will be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together will constitute one and the same agreement.  Signature pages may be detached from multiple separate counterparts and attached to a single counterpart so that all signature pages are attached to the same document. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | Governing Law.  This Amendment and the rights and obligations of the parties to this Amendment will be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY  By: /s/ ANDREAS UNTERSTE           Name:    Andreas UntersteTitle:      Director of Financial Operations, Compliance               and Technology | UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION  By: /s/ EUDIO GIL                Name:    Eudio GilTitle:      Chief Financial Officer, Vice President               and Treasurer |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
# C_2016462EN.01002001.xml

| 12.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — CW v Parliament

(Case T-309/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Duty of the administration to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Provisional distancing measures - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Responsibility - Claim for damages - Decision rejecting the administrative complaint - Distortion of the evidence - Error of law))

(2016/C 462/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: CW (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015, CW v Parliament (F-124/13, EU:F:2015:23), seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

CW

Parliament

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015, CW v Parliament (F-124/13); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015, CW v Parliament (F-124/13);

| 2. | Refers the case to a chamber of the General Court other than that which ruled on the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case to a chamber of the General Court other than that which ruled on the present appeal;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                               UGI UTILITIES INC.
        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES - EXHIBIT 12.1
                             (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three
                                                    Months
                                                     Ended              Year Ended September 30,
                                                 December 31,   ----------------------------------------
                                                     2005         2005       2004       2003       2002
                                                 ------------   --------   --------   --------   -------
<S>                                              <C>            <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
EARNINGS:
Earnings before income taxes                        $36,590     $ 84,953   $ 83,098   $100,212   $73,665
Interest expense                                      5,574       18,079     17,698     17,412    16,365
Amortization of debt discount and expense                62          247        233        244       287
Estimated interest component of rental expense          412        1,568      1,477      1,434     1,563
                                                    -------     --------   --------   --------   -------
                                                    $42,638     $104,847   $102,506   $119,302   $91,880
                                                    =======     ========   ========   ========   =======

FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense                                    $ 5,574     $ 18,079   $ 17,698   $ 17,412   $16,365
Amortization of debt discount and expense                62          247        233        244       287
Allowance for funds used during construction
   (capitalized interest)                                20           22         11          7        19
Estimated interest component of rental expense          412        1,568      1,477      1,434     1,563
                                                    -------     --------   --------   --------   -------
                                                    $ 6,068     $ 19,916   $ 19,419   $ 19,097   $18,234
                                                    =======     ========   ========   ========   =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                     7.03         5.26       5.28       6.25      5.04
                                                    =======     ========   ========   ========   =======
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



             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 Trinity Learning Corporation (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Douglas D. Cole, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities and 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: November 15, 2005            /S/ DOUGLAS D. COLE
                                   ----------------------------------
                                       Douglas D. Cole
                                       Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Trinity Learning Corporation and will be retained by it
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 155]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ155.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 1829]]

Public Law 110-155
110th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Providing for the reappointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer as a citizen 
           regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
         Institution. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 2007 -  [S.J. Res. 8]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Effective date.>> That, 
in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), 
the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in 
the class other than Members of Congress, occurring because of the 
expiration of the term of Patricia Q. Stonesifer of Washington, is 
filled by the reappointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer, for a term of 6 
years, effective December 22, 2007.

    Approved December 21, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 8:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            July 31, considered and passed Senate.
            Dec. 5, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2017014EN.01001302.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Austria) — Wolfgang Schmidt v Christiane Schmidt

(Case C-417/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Scope - First subparagraph of Article 24(1) - Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property - Article 7(1)(a) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Action seeking the avoidance of a contract of gift of immovable property and the removal of an entry in the land register evidencing a right of ownership))

(2017/C 014/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolfgang Schmidt

Defendant: Christiane Schmidt

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that an action seeking the avoidance of a gift of immovable property on the ground of the donor’s incapacity to contract does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated, provided for under Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, but within the special jurisdiction provided for under Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation.

An action seeking the removal from the land register of notices evidencing the donee’s right of ownership falls within the exclusive jurisdiction provided for under Article 24(1) of the same regulation.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.

---