alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

LEROY COLLINS, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 2:12-cv-1093 

 JUDGE SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Deavers 

WARDEN, LONDON CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER 

On June 5, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, it was recommended that 

Defendants’ Motion be granted as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Woods for failure to 

state a claim; and that Defendants’ Motion be denied as it relates to Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendants Bottorff and Murphy. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Complaint was 

denied and Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery was also denied. (See Report and 

Recommendation, Doc. 18). The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and 

Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Defendants’ Partial Objection to the 

Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 26). The Court will consider the matter de novo. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

Case: 2:12-cv-01093-GCS-EPD Doc #: 27 Filed: 09/13/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

 Defendants do not object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the claims 

against Defendant Woods be dismissed for failure to state a claim. However, Defendants do 

object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants 

Bottorff and Murphy. 

 The objections, however, merely present the arguments and issues presented to and 

considered by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated 

in the Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that the objections are without merit. 

The Report and Recommendation, Document 18, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN 

PART. Further, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and Motion to Stay Discovery are DENIED. 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 13, 14, 15, and 18 from the Court’s pending motions 

list. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:12-cv-01093-GCS-EPD Doc #: 27 Filed: 09/13/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2016410EN.01003404.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/34

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Bena Properties v Council

(Case T-469/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 410/55)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
No. 55487.

#### Frank Ryser Co. *v.*United States,

protest 56218-K/90256 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial, the examiner of merchandise testified that he would now return certain portions of the Gruyére process-cheese at 20 percent under paragraph 710, as modified, *supra,*upon authority of *Gruyere Cheese Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(7 Cust. Ct. 171, C. D. 562) and *Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp.*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 767). On the record presented and on authority of the cited cases, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to the following items: Five portions out of the invoice item covering 50 cases (3,600 boxes) of 6-ounce 6-portion assortments, and four portions out of the invoice item covering 25 cases (1,800 boxes) of 8-ounce 7-portion assortments.
# C_2017086EN.01002402.xml

| 20.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2017 — Kessel medintim v EUIPO — Janssen-Cilag (Premeno)

(Case T-509/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Premeno - Earlier national word mark Pramino - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Right to be heard - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 086/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kessel medintim GmbH (Mörfelden-Walldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Jacob and U. Staudenmaier, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: M. Wenz, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2015 (Case R 349/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Janseen-Cilag and Kessel medintim.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kessel medintim GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kessel medintim GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

1

---
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 306 

Permitting the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part 

of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the 

Holocaust. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2008 

Mr. WAXMAN (for himself, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. LATOURETTE, and Mr. CANNON) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Permitting the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a 

ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days 

of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR HOLOCAUST DAYS OF 

4 REMEMBRANCE CEREMONY. 

5 The Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used 

6 on May 1, 2008, for a ceremony as part of the commemo7 ration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holo8 caust. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be carVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:33 Mar 05, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HC306.IH HC306

smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 306 IH 

1 ried out in accordance with such conditions as the Archi2 tect of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
#### United States *v.*C. S. Emery & Co.

No. 6254.

Entry No. M-41.

Invoice dated Iberville, Quebec, Canada, August 14, 1945.

Entered at St. Albans, Vt., August 17, 1945.

(Decided February 4, 1946)

*Paul P. Bao,.*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney)!,, for the plaintiff. ’ ■ ,

*William B. Nulty*and *E. Walker Abbott*for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for 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 bay mare, 5 years, “Goldie B,” involved herein that the export value thereof as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 was six hundred ($600) dollars, United States funds, and that there was no higher foreign value.

It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined, in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 193Ó, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the. merchandise here involved,, and that such value was $600, United States funds.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 9835)

#### Czech Quality Goods Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 803532, etc.

(Decided November 9, 1960)

*Siegel, Mcmdell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*George Oochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise and the issues in the Ap*550peals to Reappradsement listed in the Schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues decided in the case of *Paramount Import Co., Inc. et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697, and that the record in said case he incorporated and made a part of the record herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisements enumerated herein, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which 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 including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

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

In the incorporated case, it was held that the amount paid a foreign commissionaire for services rendered in connection with the purchase of merchandise in the foreign market and which amount did not inure to the benefit of the seller was a buying commission, and, therefore, was not a part of the dutiable value of the merchandise.

On the agreed facts and following my cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 44237.

#### Protests 838146-G, etc., of Eurasia Import Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Bbown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods,, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
No. 45204.

#### Protests 835695-G, etc., of Saks & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of atomizers in chief value of decorated glass similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) was therefore sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10(d)


                    SCHEDULE IDENTIFYING MATERIAL DETAILS OF
                       EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS SUBSTANTIALLY
                            SIMILAR TO EXHIBIT 10(b)


                                                     EFFECTIVE
         NAME                                          DATE
         ----                                        ---------
     Peter  E. Geier                                April 1, 1998
     Ronald J. Seiffert                             April 1, 1998
     Frank Wobst                                    April 1, 1998





                    SCHEDULE IDENTIFYING MATERIAL DETAILS OF
                       EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS SUBSTANTIALLY
                            SIMILAR TO EXHIBIT 10(c)


                                                     EFFECTIVE
         NAME                                          DATE
         ----                                        ---------
     Richard A. Cheap                               May 4, 1998
     Anne Creek                                     February 16, 2000
     Judith D. Fisher                               April 1, 1998
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
06-3024 GERMAN M. QUIAMBAO, Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

_________ __________________ DECIDED: April 6, 2006

_________ __________________ Before SCHALL, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. German M. Quiambao (“Quiambao”) appeal s the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (t he “Board”) denying his request for retirement benefits under the Civil Service Retirem ent System (“CSRS”). We affirm

. BACKGROUND Quiambao was employed as a blacksmith by the Department of the Navy at Subic Bay in the Philippines beginning on December 8, 1965. On May 16, 1966, after the one-year probationary perio d, his appointment was c onverted to an indefinite appointment. Quiambao retired on June 26, 1987, and requested CSRS retirement benefits on January 10, 1989. OPM denied t he request on August 17, 1989. Though his appeal to the Board was not filed unt il October 14, 2004, t he Board excused the late-filing because OPM could not prove that Quiambao received the August 17, 1989decision. On the merits, the Board denied Quiambao’s claim bec ause his s e rvice in a n Indefinite Exc epted Appointment did not satisfy the statut ory requirement s for CSRS benefits. The Board’s decision became fi nal on August 19, 2005, and Quiam bao timely appealed. We have jurisdiction purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). DISCUSSI ON We must affirm the Board’s decis ion unle ss it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accor dance with law; obtain ed without procedures required by law, rule or r egulation; or unsupported by subs tantial evidenc e. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (2000); Yates v. Me rit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 145 F.3d 1480, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1998). To qualify f o r CSRS r e tirement benefits, Quiambao must show that he satisf ie s the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 8333 and that he is not excluded under any provision limiting CSRS coverage. 5 U.S.C. § 8333 (2000); 5 U.S.C. § 8347(g) (2000); Rosete v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. , 48 F.3d 514, 516 (Fed. Cir. 1995). While Quiambao was an employee of the federal gover nment, we have held r epeatedly that employ ees serving in indefinite appointm ents made after January 23, 1955, are expressly excluded from CSRS cov e rage under 5 C. F.R. § 831.201(a)(13). Casilang v. Office of Pers. Mgm t

. , 248 F.3d 1381, 1383 ( F ed. Cir. 2001); Rose te , 48 F.3d at 516-17. The Board’s decis i on is affirmed. No costs.

06-3024 2
March 12, 2012 Re: Docket No. DOT
- OST
- 2012
- 0029 Dear Secretary

L aHood: I am joining Alaska Airlines in its effort to provide convenient service from Portland to our nation's capital. I am writing in support of the application of Alaska Airlines, Inc. to provide a dail y direct flight to Reagan National Airport (DCA) from Portland I nternational Airport (PDX). I believe that Alaska is the right choice. With their large Portland hub presence, strong customer service focus and track record for operati onal reliability , the carrier is best suited to provide a nonstop PDX to DCA flight. Portland is the second largest market to the Washington DC area without nonstop service to DCA. With a nonstop route from PDX to DCA, Oregon and S.W. Washington residents will no longer be forced to use more time
- consuming and less convenient service to our nation's capital. I respectfull y urge you to grant Alaska Airlines' application to serve PDX
- DCA. Dederia D. Caldwell Portland, OR dcaldwe@hotmail.com
Exhibit 4.1


 


DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES


REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


 


Authorized Capital Stock


 


The total number of stock authorized that may
be issued by Fourth Wave Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) is 950,000,000 shares of common stock with a par value of $0.001 per
share and 4,999,000 shares of preferred stock with a par value of $0.001.


 


Common Stock


 


The total number of authorized shares of common
stock shall be 950,000,000 shares with a par value of $0.001 per share.


 


Preferred Stock


 


The total number of authorized shares of Preferred
Stock shall be 4,999,000 shares with a par value of $0.001 per share. The board of directors (the “Board”) shall have the
authority to authorize the issuance of the Preferred Stock from time to time in one or more classes or series, and determine the rights,
preferences, and designations thereof.


 


Special Meetings


 


Under our bylaws, unless otherwise prescribed
by law or by the Articles of Incorporation, Special Meetings of Stockholders, for any purpose or purposes, may be called by the President,
by a majority of the Board, or by the person or persons authorized by resolution of the Board.


 


Consent of Stockholders in Lieu of Meeting


 


Under our bylaws, unless otherwise prescribed
by law or by the Articles of Incorporation, whenever all stockholders entitled to vote at any meeting consent, either by (i) a writing
on the records of the meeting or filed with the Secretary; or (ii) presence at such meeting and oral consent entered on the minutes; or
(iii) taking part in the deliberations at such meeting without objection; the doings of such meeting shall be as valid as if had at a
meeting regularly called and noticed. At such meeting any business may be transacted which is not excepted from the written consent or
to the consideration of which no objection for want of notice is made at the time.


 


If a meeting be irregular for want of notice or
of such consent, provided a quorum was present at such meeting, the proceedings of the meeting may be ratified and approved and rendered
likewise valid and the irregularity or defect therein waived by a writing signed by all stockholders having the right to vote at such
meeting.


 


Such consent or approval of stockholders may be
made by proxy or attorney, but all such proxies and powers of attorney must be in writing


 


Transfer Agent and
Registrar


 


Empire Stock Transfer
is the transfer agent and registrar in respect of the common stock.


 


Pursuant to Item 202(a),
the information regarding the Common Stock contained herein does not constitute a complete legal description of the Common Stock and is
qualified in all material respects by the provisions of the Company’s Articles of Incorporation, Amendments thereto and bylaws,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
### Uranium occurrences on the Merry Widow claim, White Signal district, Grant County, New Mexico

By: Harry Clifford GrangerHerman L. Bauer

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir189

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Reinthal & Newman *v.*United States

No. 7457.

Invoice dated London, England, July 29, 1943.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 19, 1943.

Entry No. 711664.

(Decided December 2, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Kincheloe, 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 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 are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000101462
<NAME> UNITED REFINING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,507
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                       479
<INVENTORY>                                     71,640
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,589
<PP&E>                                         248,241
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,119
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 333,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,449
<BONDS>                                        200,943
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   333,605
<SALES>                                        376,565
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               376,565
<CGS>                                          340,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,449
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,728)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,896)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,832)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,832)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>