alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Globe Leather Corp. (Meadows Wye & Co., Inc.) *v.*United States

No. 6247.

Entry No. 726135.

Invoice dated Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, January 1945.

Certified January 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 30, 1945.

(Decided January 14, 1946)

*Jordan & Klingaman (Edward F. Jordan*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel 1. Auster,*special attorney), 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 counsel that the price at which the involved pigskins and similar merchandise were, at the time of exportation of the involved pigskins to the United States, freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Brazil, the country of exportation, for home consumption or for export to the United States, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, 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, was 3.79 Brazilian cruzeiros per square foot plus l^io per centum sales tax, plus cases and packing as invoiced.

It is further stipulated and agreed that the above-entitled appeal may be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was 3.79 Brazilian cruzeiros per square foot, plus lfto per centum sales tax, plus cases and packing as invoiced.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2016232EN.01001801.xml

| 27.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2016 — Market Watch v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (MITOCHRON)

(Case T-62/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MITOCHRON - Earlier EU figurative mark mito - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 232/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2014 (Case R 508/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA, and Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

1

---
# C_2015429EN.01003001.xml

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/30

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 November 2015 — FL, FM and FO v CEPOL

(Case F-41/15 DISS I)

(2015/C 429/40)

Language of the case: French

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

---
#### David STEELE, d/b/a S & S CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION v. Curtis NICHOLSON

CA 87-150

732 S.W.2d 876

Court of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc

Opinion delivered July 29, 1987

Per Curiam.

Appellee’s pro se motion to file a belated brief and for brief time is granted.

Corbin, C.J., and Mayfield, J., dissent.

Melvin Mayfield, Judge,

dissenting. I want to express my dissent from the decision by the majority of this court allowing a late brief to be filed for the appellee in this case.

The brief was due to be filed on July 5, 1987. On June 30, 1987, a motion was filed by an attorney asking that this court “relieve him as attorney of record for the reason that the appellee, Curtis Nicholson, has failed and refused to pay his fees in the above entitled cause.”

However, on July 10, 1987, the appellee filed a motion, which he signed, stating that his brief was due on July 5, 1987, admitting that he had “failed to pay an attorney to represent my interest,” claiming to now have the money and being “willing to employ an attorney,” and requesting that this court grant him additional time in which to file his brief.

*116Just last month, the Arkansas Supreme Court said that a party who had failed to “keep up” with her case could not be heard to complain when a judgment was taken against her at a trial she did not attend. *See Diebold*v. *Myers General Agency,*Inc., 292 Ark. 456, 731 S.W.2d 183 (1987). In the case before us, the appellee’s attorney has said the appellee “has failed and refused” to pay his fee, and the appellee himself admits this is true. Based upon the *Diebold*v. *Myers General Agency, Inc.*case, I would deny the appellee’s request to extend the time limit so he can file his brief late.

Under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney *may*“in some circumstances” withdraw from representation of a client “if it can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the client’s interests.” (See ARCP Rule 64 for requirements of a motion to withdraw.) One of the circumstances under which an attorney *may*withdraw is where the client “refuses to abide by the terms” of an “agreement concerning fees.” *See*“Comment” following Rule 1.16, 287 Ark. at 548.1 do not know whether appellee’s attorney was justified in seeking permission to withdraw in this case, but if he was, it seems clear to me that the appellee does not have a sufficient excuse to allow him to file a brief late. At least, his motion gives no information from which I can find such an excuse.

Therefore, I dissent from the granting of appellee’s motion to file a belated brief. I am authorized to say that Chief Judge Corbin joins in this dissent.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v LeROY F. HILLYARD, Private E-1, U. S. Army, Appellant

8 USCMA 495, 24 CMR 305

*496No. 10,404

Decided December 13, 1957

*Major Edward Fenig*and *First Lieutenant William H. Carpenter*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Thomas J. Nichols*was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Homer Ferguson, Judge:

The law officer incorrectly instructed the court-martial on the issue of intent on the part of the accused in the offense of desertion, and for that reason the conviction must be reversed. The instructional errors are outlined in the opinions of this Court in United States v Soccio, 8 USCMA 477, 24 CMR 287, and United States v Cothern, 8 USCMA 158, 23 CMR 382. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for reference to a board of review. The board may reduce the offense to absence without leave and reassess the sentence, or it may order a rehearing on the desertion charge.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Latimer, Judge

(dissenting)

I dissent. My reasons for so doing are expressed in my concurring opinion in United States v Soccio, 8 USCMA 477, 24 CMR 287.
' tviETRO AIR QUALITY MGMT DIS 

ST. 3RD FLOOR 

..a(;ARET JORDAN 

. ;AMEF!TO CA 95 81 4--1 90 8 

GLARAIION OF PUBLICATION 

( (;. C. P. 2015.5) 

OUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 

".TA.TE OF CALIFORNIA 

-.rn a citizen of the United States and 

. rrvsidont of the County aforesaid; I 

.in over the age of eighteen years, 

~ nd not a party to or interested in the 

.I)ove entitled matter. I am the printer 

111rl principal clerk of the publisher of 

_. Sacramento Bee, printed and 

....flished in the City of Sacramento, 

.!;nly of Sacramento, State of Cali- 

...., daily, for which said newspaper 

 ~c^n ad'ludged a newspaper of 

=G11 Girr,ulation by the Superior 

,n (,f the County of Sacramento, 

. .le of Cali(ornia, under the date of 

.ptember 26, 1994, Action No. 

 ,•:)071; that the notice of which the 

.-.nocxed is a printed copy, has been 

.!imlished in each issue thereof and 

in any supplement thereof on the 

 ii,wing clates, to wit: 

c:otember 26. 2006 

.^rtify (or doclare) under penalty of 

:-riury that the foregoing is true and 

.nect and thiat this declaration was 

•;c.uted lt

eF

aento, California, 

- 3rntemi~er 26 . 2006. . 

(Signature)
No. 44243.

#### Protests 895796-G, etc., of Eurasia Import Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, 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.
Exhibit
32.2
 
 
 
 Certification
of CFO 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 Quarterly Report of U.S. Energy Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert Scott Lorimer,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:
 
 (1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 
 /s/  Robert
      Scott LorimerRobert
      Scott Lorimer,Chief
      Financial OfficerNovember
      6, 2008
 
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
U.S. Energy Corp. and will be retained by U.S. Energy Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2017022EN.01002401.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts v EUIPO — Residencial Palladium (PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA)

(Case T-217/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA - Earlier national trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM - Relative ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 022/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Residencial Palladium, SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, 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 Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2015 (Case R 2391/2013-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Residencial Palladium and Fiesta Hotels & Resorts.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.

1

---
# C_2016251EN.01003201.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/32

---

Order of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission

(Case T-310/15) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Plant-protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 - Establishment of a list of candidates for substitution - Inclusion of copper compounds on that list - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory measure comprising implementing measures - Inadmissible))

(2016/C 251/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Union Copper Task Force (Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution (OJ 2015 L 67, p. 18).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Parliament and the Council. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Parliament and the Council.

| 3. | European Union Copper Task Force is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

European Union Copper Task Force is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---
```

[110th Congress Public Law 123]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ123.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 1351]]

Public Law 110-123
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  950 West Trenton Avenue in Morrisville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Nate 
DeTample Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Nov. 30, 2007 -  [H.R. 3297]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATE DETAMPLE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 950 West Trenton Avenue in Morrisville, Pennsylvania, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Nate DeTample Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Nate 
DeTample Post Office Building''.

    Approved November 30, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3297:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            Oct. 15, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 16, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
No. 45163.

#### Protests 38598-K, etc., of John Alban & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keeue, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 48284 and T. D. 49389) it was held that an allowance of 2)4 percent on some items and 1 percent on others should have been made in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the inedible coverings.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 12, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-2326

Lower Tribunal No. 85-3768

________________

Leonardo T. Morales,

Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida, et al.,

Repondents.

On the Court’s Order to Show Cause.

Leonardo T. Morales, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Keri T. Joseph, Assistant Attorney

General, for respondents.

Before SHEPHERD, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
On June 3, 2015, this Court issued an opinion denying Leonardo T.

Morales’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Our opinion contained an order to

show cause why Morales should not be prohibited from filing with this Court any

further pro se appeals, petitions, motions or other proceedings related to his

criminal sentence in circuit court case number 85-3768.

Morales responded by filing with this Court a motion for

rehearing/reconsideration, a response to the order to show cause, and a request for

a written opinion. In this omnibus submission, Morales again raises his contention

that his criminal sentence was illegal because his sentencing guidelines scoresheet

misidentified the primary offense (of the two crimes for which he was convicted).

Morales’s response raises no new information or argument for our

consideration. This matter is well settled on the merits.1 Accordingly, we conclude

that Morales has not shown good cause to justify further pro se filings of appeals,

petitions, motions, or other proceedings with this Court.

We must balance Morales’s pro se right of access to courts with this Court’s

need to devote finite resources to legitimate appeals, recognizing the seriousness of

the sanction when the litigant is a criminal defendant. State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d

1 See, e.g., Morales v. State, 73 So. 3d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (Table) (affirming

the trial court’s findings on the merits upon Morales’s 3.800 motion to correct

illegal sentence).

2
47, 48 (Fla. 1999). After an order to show cause and an opportunity to respond, a

court may prevent such further filings. Id.

It is hereby ordered that the Clerk of the Court of the Third District Court of

Appeal shall refuse further filings related to case number 85-3768; provided,

however, that filings related to case number 85-3768 may be accepted by the Clerk

if such filings have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a licensed

member of the Florida Bar in good standing.

Any further and unauthorized pro se filings by Morales will subject him to

sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Florida

Department of Corrections for consideration by it for disciplinary action, pursuant

to section 944.279(1) of the Florida Statutes.

The motion for rehearing is denied.

Order issued.

3
(Reap. Dec. 9587)

#### H. P. Lambert Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 3366, etc.

(Decided February 8, 1960)

*SJiarretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule A for decision upon a stipulation reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, that the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule A hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of Grades 70/30S or No. 3 hard rubber dust exported from England, and that the questions of fact and law are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *H. Muehlstein & Co., Inc.,*42 Cust. Ct. 760, A.R.D. 106.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of the merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for domestic consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of England, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, are the prices shown on Schedule B hereto attached and made a part hereof plus the cost of packing as shown on the invoices, and that there was no higher export value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals for re-appraisement be submitted on this stipulation and that the record in A.R.D. 106 be incorporated with the record in these eases.

Accepting the forgoing stipulation as establishing the facts therein recited, and upon the entire record before me, and following the decision in the cited case, I conclude that foreign value, as defined in section 402(c), as amended, Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the hard rubber dust involved, and that such value in each case is as shown on schedule B, also attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

*558Schedule B

Appeal No. Description of merchandise Value (unpacked) in shillings and pence

248259-A/3840-55 Hard rubber dust No. 3 2/5

248260-A/3641-55 Ebonite dust No. 3 2/5

248261-A/3642-55 2/5

248262-A/3643-55 Hard rubber dust No. 3 1/9-3/4

248263-A/3644 — 55 Ebonite dust No. 3 1/2-1/4

248264-A/3645-55 1/7-3/4

248265-A/3646-55 1/9-3/4

248266-A/3647-55 1/9

248267-A/3648-55 1/8-1/2

248268-A/3649-55 Hard rubber dust 70/30S 2/6-1/2

248269-A/3650-55 Ebonite dust No. 3 2/3

248270-A/3651-55 • 2/3

248271-A/3652-55 2/3

248276-A/3657-55 Hard rubber dust 70/30S 2/11-1/2

Hard rubber dust No. 3 1/9-3/4

248277-A/3658-55 Ebonite dust No. 3 2/3

248278-A/3659-55 2/3

248279-A/3660-55 Ebonite dust 70/30S 2/10

248280-A/3661-55 Ebonite dust No. 3 2/3

248281-A/3662-55 2/3

248282-A/3663-55 2/5