alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8301)

#### Winsor & Newton, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 826055.

(Decided April 8, 1954)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that the issues in the above entitled appeal for reappraisement is the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *United States*v. *International Expediters, Inc., for Winsor & Newton, Inc.,*Suit No. 4739, C. A. D. 511, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised value of the merchandise here involved, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the cost of materials and fabrication, manipulation, or other process employed in manufacturing or producing such or similar merchandise at a time preceding the date of *608exportation of the involved merchandise which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production therof in the usual course of business, plus the usual general expenses (not less than 10 per centum of such cost) in the case of such or similar merchandise, plus the cost of all containers and coverings, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, and plus an addition for profit (not less than 8 per centum of the costs of materials and fabrication or manipulation and general expenses) equal to the profit which ordinarily is added to the cost of merchandise of the same general character by manufacturers or producers in the cotin-try of manufacture who are engaged in the manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind.

> The aforesaid reappraisement appeal is abandoned as to items advisorily classified and returned on the invoices as books or pamphlets under paragraph 1410, Tariff Act of 1930, where such items are invoiced at unit prices less discounts in excess of *33Yz*per centum.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the reappraisement appeal herein may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

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 here involved, except as to the merchandise covered by the abandonment noted below, and that such values were the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all items advisorily classified and returned on the invoice as books or pamphlets under paragraph 1410, Tariff Act of 1930, where such items are invoiced at unit prices less discounts in excess of *33%*per centum, to that extent the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2015155EN.01001402.xml

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach

(Case C-80/15)

(2015/C 155/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Robert Fuchs AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 555(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (1) laying down provisions for the Customs Code as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003 (2) be interpreted as meaning that remunerated flight training with helicopters in which a trainer and trainee are in the helicopter also amounts to a commercial use of a means of transport?

1

2

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993, L 253, p. 1).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2003, L 343 p. 1).

2

---
No. 49865.

#### Protests 6416-K, etc., of A. W. Fenton Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Total Coliform Rule Monitoring Requirements 

Noncommunity Water Systems Serving 25 - 1,000 People

• You must sample at the sites in your distribution system 

identifi ed in your primacy agency reviewed sampling 

plan.

• Ground water systems serving 1,000 persons or less must 

take 1 sample every quarter, unless your primacy agency 

instructs otherwise. Surface water systems must take 1 

sample every month.

You must take 5 routine samples in the month following 

a total coliform (TC) positive result. For example, if your 

routine sample in June was TC- positive, you must take 5 

routine samples in July.

• You must collect repeat samples whenever you are 

notifi ed of a TC -positive sample. The TC-positive routine 

sample must also be analyzed for either fecal coliform or 

E. Coli.

• At a minimum, you must take 4 repeat samples.

• If you have more than 1 service connection, you must 

collect repeat samples within 24 hours of learning about 

the positive results (unless your primacy agency gives 

you more time).

• If you have only 1 service connection, your primacy 

agency may give you approval to collect repeat samples 

within 4 days of learning of the positive result. 

You must collect at least 1 repeat sample from each of the 

sites identifi ed below:

• The tap where the routine TC -positive was taken.

• A tap within 5 service connections upstream of the tap 

where the routine TC -positive was taken.

• A tap within 5 service connections downstream of the 

tap where the routine TC- positive was taken.

• If a repeat sample is positive, you must continue to collect repeat samples, 

per repeat monitoring instructions, until TC is no longer positive or until there 

is an MCL violation. If a repeat sample is TC -positive, it must also be analyzed for either fecal coliform or E. Coli.

• If you have 2 or more TC -positive samples in 1 month (including both repeat 

and routine samples), your system has a monthly MCL violation.

• If you have any fecal coliform or E. Coli-positive repeat samples or have a 

fecal coliform or E. Coli -positive sample followed by a TC -positive repeat 

sample, your system has an acute MCL violation.

Besides sampling, what else are we required to do?

There are also requirements on what you report to the primacy agency every 

month, and requirements on how and when to notify your customers if you 

have a violation. Contact your primacy agency to make sure you are providing 

them with all the information that is required.

Where can I fi nd more 

information on the Total Coliform Rule? 

You can fi nd more information on the Total 

Coliform Rule by calling EPA’s Safe Drinking 

Water Hotline at: 1.800.426.4791; or you can 

visit EPA’s Total Coliform Rule Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/

tcr/index.html. 

ROUTINE 

MONITORING

REPEAT MONITORING POSITIVE REPEAT SAMPLES AND 

MCL VIOLATIONS

Primacy Agency___________________________

 (contact name and phone number)

Offi ce of Water (4606M) EPA 816-F-08-007 www.epa.gov/safewater January, 2008
# C_2015320EN.01005104.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/51

---

Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Hippler v Commission

(Case T-72/15) (1)

1

(2015/C 320/71)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

1

---
# C_2017078EN.01002601.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Mengozzi v EUIPO — Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano (TOSCORO)

(Case T-510/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark TOSCORO - Earlier protected geographical indication ‘Toscano’ - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 142 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 - Declaration of partial invalidity))

(2017/C 078/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Mengozzi (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: T. Schuffenecker, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko and S. Crabbe, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano IGP (Florence, Italy) (represented by: F. Albisinni, lawyer)

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

Intervener in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 June 2015 (Case R 322/2014-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano IGP and Mr Mengozzi.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Roberto Mengozzi to pay, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano IGP; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Roberto Mengozzi to pay, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano IGP;

| 3. | Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

1

---
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:00 PM

To: 'dacoda.aerobotics@gmail.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Request for Additional Informat ion: Dacoda Bartels (FAA-2015-1027)



### June 9, 2015

Dear Mr. Bartels:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-1027). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make(s), m odel(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) sh ould include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by June 23, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we w ill close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
# C_2015262EN.01004202.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/42

---

Action brought on 8 June 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-85/15)

(2015/C 262/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicants to the assessment stage of the competition EPSO/AD/204/10, after reopening of that competition by EPSO following annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal of the original decision not to admit the applicants to the assessment stage of the competition and compensation for the applicants for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions of 25 July 2014 of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/204/10, sent to each of the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions of 25 July 2014 of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/204/10, sent to each of the applicants;

| — | grant to each of the applicants a provisional award of EUR 1  000 in respect of non-material damage, and a second provisional award of EUR 2 27  899,50 in respect of financial damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant to each of the applicants a provisional award of EUR 1  000 in respect of non-material damage, and a second provisional award of EUR 2 27  899,50 in respect of financial damage;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2015389EN.01001501.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 August 2015 — Ivo Muladi v Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje

(Case C-447/15)

(2015/C 389/16)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ivo Muladi

Applicant:

Defendant: Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 2003/59/EC (1) preclude national legislation which imposes further conditions for exemption from the requirement on drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers to obtain an initial qualification?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 226, p. 4.

1

---
# C_2016314EN.01000801.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/8

---

Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by L’Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2015 in Case T-426/13 L’Oréal v EUIPO

L’Oréal

EUIPO

(Case C-611/15 P)

(2016/C 314/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal SA (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and L. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Cosmética Cabinas, S.L.

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 16 June 2016, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered L’Oréal SA to bear its own costs.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.L., A MINOR

PETITION OF: J.L., A MINOR

:

:

:

:

:

No. 491 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of United Refining Company, a Pennsylvania corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |     |  |                                                 
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Dated: April 19, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ John A. Catsimatidis                        
|                      |  |     |  | John A. Catsimatidis Principal Executive Officer
|                      |  |    
|Dated: April 19, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ James E. Murphy                             
|                      |  |     |  | James E. Murphy Principal Financial Officer     



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of this Form 10-Q or as a separate
disclosure document.



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to United Refining Company and will be retained by United Refining Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2015294EN.01003501.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/35

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Marc Soulier Sara Doke v Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication Premier ministre

(Case C-301/15)

(2015/C 294/44)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marc Soulier, Sara Doke

Applicants:

Defendants: Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication, Premier ministre

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the provisions, referred to above, of Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 (1), preclude legislation, such as that analysed in paragraph 1 of this decision, that gives approved collecting societies the right to authorise the reproduction and the representation in digital form of ‘out-of-print books’, while allowing the authors of those books, or their successors in title, to oppose or put an end to that practice, on the conditions that it lays down?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED
DECEMBER 30, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                       2,667,980
<SECURITIES>                                 2,660,059
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,344,525
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,304,748
<PP&E>                                       5,262,126
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,003,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,828,994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,592,125
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       153,175
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,363,276
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,828,994
<SALES>                                     18,911,992
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,911,992
<CGS>                                       12,194,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,194,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,007,261
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              84,875
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,322,742)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,322,742)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,322,742)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROBERT G. BAKER, Corporal, DONALD L. BARRETT, Corporal, DANIEL J. BRESNAHAN, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellants

8 USCMA 476, 24 CMR 286

No. 10,109

Decided December 13, 1957

*Commander David Bolton,*USN, was on the brief for Appellants, Accused.

*Lieutenant (jg) John V. L. Ellicott,*USNR, and *Commander Guilbert W. Martin,*USN, were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Robert E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

The accused were tried jointly for the alleged commission of two robberies, separated in time by about 10 minutes and in distance by about a half a mile. One of the major issues at the trial was the voluntariness of a pretrial statement by each accused. All statements were admitted in evidence by the law officer. Defense counsel requested an instruction to the effect that if the court-martial did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary, it must disregard them. Although trial counsel had no objection to the proposed instruction, the law officer did not give it. Instead, he gave substantially the same instruction we disapproved in United States v Jones, 7 USCMA 623, 23 CMR 87. The Government concedes error.

The decision of the board of review is reversed; the findings of guilty are set aside. A rehearing may be ordered.

Judges LatimeR and FERGUSON concur.
Before the Second Division,

June 10, 1958

No. 62063.

#### Stern & Stern Textiles, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 147945-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *B. C. Carter & Son, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 368, C. D. 1889), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.