alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### H. W. Robinson & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6752.

Entry Nos. 744900; 715568.

Invoices dated Edinburgh, Scotland, February 21, 1942, etc.

Certified February 24, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 30, 1942, etc.

(Decided January 13, 1947)

*Mary Rehan*for the plaintiffs.

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

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (e)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

An agreed set of facts shows export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values foi the articles in question are the appraised values less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar cases.
Part 1, Section B, Item 2(c) – ID Method

TS-C5079P Page 5a
```

[110th Congress Public Law 145]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ145.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 1815]]

Public Law 110-145
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in 
Green Bay, Wisconsin, as the ``Milo C. Huempfner Department of Veterans 
  Affairs Outpatient Clinic''. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 2007 -  [H.R. 2408]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT 
                              CLINIC, GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Green Bay, 
Wisconsin, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known 
and designated as the ``Milo C. Huempfner Department of Veterans Affairs 
Outpatient Clinic''. Any reference to such medical center in any law, 
regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the United States 
shall be considered to be a reference to the Milo C. Huempfner 
Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.

    Approved December 21, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2408:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            Oct. 23, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 13, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp. *v.*United States

No. 6395.

Entry No. 718977.

Invoice dated Birmingham, England, September 6, 1941.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 10, 1941.

(Decided September 30, 1946)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

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

Keefe, Judge:

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

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts T 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 earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are the entered values. Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2015236EN.01002401.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 20 April 2015 — Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu

(Case C-175/15)

(2015/C 236/33)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Taser International Inc.

Applicant:

Defendant: SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Must Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘jurisdiction derived from other provisions of this Regulation’ also covers the situation in which the parties to a contract for the assignment of rights to a trade mark registered in a Member State of the European Union have decided, unequivocally and undisputedly, to confer jurisdiction to settle any dispute regarding fulfilment of contractual obligations on the courts of a State which is not a Member State of the European Union and in which the applicant is domiciled (has its seat), while the applicant has seised a court of a Member State of the European Union in whose territory the defendant is domiciled (has its seat)?

1

If the answer is in the affirmative:

Must Article 23(5) of that regulation be interpreted as not referring to a clause conferring jurisdiction on a State that is not a Member State of the European Union, so that the court seised pursuant to Article 2 of the regulation will determine jurisdiction according to the rules of private international law in its own national legislation?

Can a dispute relating to the enforcement, through the courts, of the obligation to assign rights to a trade mark registered in a Member State of the European Union, assumed under a contract between the parties to that dispute, be regarded as referring to a right ‘required to be deposited or registered’ within the meaning of Article 22(4) of the regulation, having regard to the fact that, under the law of the State in which the trade mark is registered, the assignment of rights to a trade mark must be entered in the Trade Mark Register and published in the Official Industrial Property Bulletin?

If the answer is in the negative, does Article 24 of the regulation preclude a court seised pursuant to Article 2 of the regulation, in a situation such as that described in the above question, from declaring that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the case, even though the defendant has entered an appearance before that court, including in the final instance, without contesting jurisdiction?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

---
## SERVE D MA Y 14,201 0 nFpIOFTRAHSP C U.S . DEPARTMEN

T O FTRANSPORTATIO

N ^ OOnKFI

S OFFIC E O FHEARINGS WASHINGTON,D C •• / n A . ^0 ^ U b I N TH E MATTE RO F CLAR E ELAIN E SPEARIN

G FA A DOCKE

T NO . CP10EA000 3 (Civil Penalt

y Action ) FAANO.FAA-2010-031 3 NOTIC E OFASSIGNMENT O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceeding (heretofor

e designate da s Cas e No . 2009EA250035 ) ha s bee n assigned t o Administrativ e La

w Judg e Isaa

c D . Benkin . All futur

e pleading s an

dothe r communication s regarding thi s proceeding shall b e servedon the Judge , th e FA A Hearing Docket , an

dthe othe r person s name

di n the attachedServic e List .

Ronni e A . Yode

r Chie f Administrativ e L

; Attachmen t - Servic e Lis tFA A DOCKE T NO . CP10EA000 3 (Civi l Penalty Action )

SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Clar e Elain e Spearing , Responden t 70 3 Atlanti s 5 Parliamen t

Stree t Hamilto n HM 1 2 Bermud a Christian L . Lewerenz , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 TEL : 718-553-327 3 FAX : 718-995-569 9 Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benkin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r

202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo r servic e in perso n o r

b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 , Washmgton , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .
No. 56673.

protest 165205-K (New York).

#### Eskil Halle *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wooden animal figures similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 55996, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2015279EN.01001801.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 27 May 2015 — Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín

(Case C-243/15)

(2015/C 279/22)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK

Respondent: Obvodný úrad Trenčín

In the presence of: Biely potok, a.s.

Question referred

Is it possible to guarantee the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, affirmed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the event of a purported breach of the right to a high level of environmental protection established under the conditions laid down by the European Union, mainly by Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, particularly [the right] to help to obtain the public’s opinion on a project which could have a significant impact on special areas of conservation falling within the European ecological ‘Natura 2000’ network, and the rights invoked by the appellant (as a not-for-profit association active in the protection of the environment at national level) under Article 9 of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, within the limits indicated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 8 March 2011 in Case C-240/09 [Lesoochranárske zoskupenie], where the national court terminates the judicial review proceedings in a case concerning the review of a decision refusing to grant [that association] the status of party in administrative proceedings regarding the issuing of a permit, as has happened in the present case, and invites [that association] to lodge an appeal against its having been excluded from those administrative proceedings?

---

(1)  
  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

---
Exhibit 15(b)
                                                               
                                                               



UniSource Energy Corporation
Tucson Electric Power Company
220 West Sixth Street
Tucson, Arizona  85701

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of
the unaudited interim financial information of UniSource Energy
Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company) and Tucson Electric
Power Company and subsidiaries (TEP) for the three-month and 
nine-month periods ended September 30, 1997 as indicated in our 
report dated February 23, 1998; because we did not perform an 
audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which was
included in your Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 1998, is incorporated by reference in
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-
55732 of TEP on Form S-3, Registration No. 333-31043 if the 
Company on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-60809 of the
Company on Form S-4, and Registration Statement No. 333-43765,
No. 333-43767, No. 333-43769, No. 333-53309, No. 333-53333
and No. 333-53337 of the Company on Form S-8.

We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to
Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered
a part of the Registration Statements prepared or certified by
an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Tucson, Arizona
November 10, 1998
# C_2017151EN.01003201.xml

| 15.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-501/15) (1)

1

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Integrated administration and control system - Reductions and exclusions where the rules on cross-compliance are not observed - Minor non-compliance - Article 24(2) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 71(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 - Burden of proof - Interpretation of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 73/2009))

(2017/C 151/40)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and H. Stergiou, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by C. Brodie, subsequently by J. Kraehling, finally by J. Kraehling and G. Brown, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, 39) to the extent that it concerns the expenditure made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 77 (Monday, April 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7659]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY


Name Change From the Bureau of Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Bureau 
of Customs and Border Protection to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice informs the public that the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) has changed the name of the Bureau of Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 
and the name of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

EFFECTIVE DATES: This Notice is effective March 31, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For CBP: Harold M. Singer, Director 
for the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division, Office of 
International Trade (202) 572-8700; for ICE:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
was established on January 24, 2003, pursuant to the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296 (HSA). DHS is the result of the 
reorganization of 22 federal agencies, including the former Immigration 
and Naturalization Service (INS) from the Department of Justice and the 
U.S. Customs Service (Customs Service) from the Department of the 
Treasury. Pursuant to sections 442 and 542 of the HSA, INS and the 
Customs Service were transferred to DHS effective March 1, 2003, and 
reorganized to become the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS), the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and 
the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
    DHS has decided to change the name of these components from the 
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Pursuant to 
section 872(a)(2) of the HSA (6 U.S.C. 452(a)(2)), DHS is required to 
provide notice of the name change to Congress no later than 60 days 
before the change will be effective. DHS notified Congress on January 
18, 2007.
    This Notice informs the public that all official documents and 
future regulatory actions involving the Bureau of Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement now will identify U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE) as the applicable DHS component, and all references 
to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in existing documents 
and actions henceforth shall be construed as references to U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP).

    Dated: April 17, 2007.
Mary Kate Whalen,
Deputy Associate General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Office of the 
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E7-7659 Filed 4-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration 

This is notice that on January 26, 2007, Stepan Company, Natural Products Department, 100 W. Hunter Avenue, Maywood, New Jersey 07607, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as an importer of Coca Leaves (9040), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II. 

The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for the manufacture of a bulk controlled substance for distribution to its customer. 

                    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                           ( print page 21299)                        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. E7-8133 Filed 4-27-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
# C_2016335EN.01004701.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/47

---

Order of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Panzeri v Parliament and Commission

(Case T-677/15) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of undue payments - Replacement of the contested measure in the course of the proceedings - No need to adjudicate - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 335/62)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pier Antonio Panzeri (Calusco d’Adda, Italy) (represented by: C. Cerami, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and G. Corstens, acting as Agents) and European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment (i) of the letter from the Director of Directorate B ‘Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements’ of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance dated 21 September 2015 concerning recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 83 764,34 and enclosing the related debit note of 18 September 2015 and (ii) of the letter from the Secretary General of the Parliament of 27 July 2012 informing the applicant of the findings of an investigation into the use of his parliamentary allowances.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the letter from the Director of Directorate B ‘Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements’ of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance dated 21 September 2015 and against Debit Note No 2015-1320 of 18 September 2015. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the letter from the Director of Directorate B ‘Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements’ of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance dated 21 September 2015 and against Debit Note No 2015-1320 of 18 September 2015.

| 2. | For the rest, the action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the rest, the action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 3. | Mr Pier Antonio Panzeri shall pay, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Pier Antonio Panzeri shall pay, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The Parliament shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Parliament shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

1

---
No. 56667.

protest 693836-G (New York).

#### B. B. Dorf & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsfel that the merchandise consists of grenadine the same in all material respects as that the subject of *La Manna, Azema & Farnan, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 44, C. A. D. 461), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.