alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Raffaele D’Amora et al. *v.*United States

No. 6035.

Invoices dated Naples, Italy, August 29, 1936, etc.

Certified August 29, 1936, etc.

Entered at Boston, Mass., September 21, 1936, etc.

Entry No. 3816, etc.

(Decided June 22, 1944)

*Joseph F. Lockett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney) *r*for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement cover certain peeled tomatoes in tins, imported from Italy.

The uncontradicted evidence discloses :

1. That said tomatoes are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Luigi Vitelli Elvea, Inc., et*al., Reap. Dec. 5941; that the issues in the two cases are the same; and that the record in the cited case had been incorporated herein.

2. That said tomatoes, at the time of the exportation thereof, were freely offered for sale to all purchasers in Naples (one of the principal markets in Italy) in the usual .wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade packed ready for shipment for exportation to the United States, at the following values, there being no higher foreign values:

> *Reap. No. Entry Per case of 24 tins of 1,200 grams each Per case of 48 tins of 600 grams each*

> 135147-A 3816. $2. 05 $2. 65

> 138732-A 4057. 2. 05 2. 65

> 138736-A 457. 2. 00 2. 60

> All the foregoing less 2 per centum cash; less .65 lire loading charge; less cost of cartons (if of American manufacture and if included in each price).

I therefore find the proper basis of value for the involved merchandise to be the export value as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such values are as set forth above.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 56627.

protests 131858-K and 134282-K (New York).

#### Sam Forwand Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. O. *Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
No. 46930.

#### Protest 990320-G of New York Mdse. Co., Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the articles classified as manufactures of metal under paragraph 397 consist of Christmas-tree decorations in chief value of plain paper in the form of miniature houses. These were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1413 as claimed. Following Abstract 42474 the antimony table utensils in question were held to be not plated and therefore dutiable at only 40 percent under paragraph 339 in accordance with stipulation of counsel.
# Official Journal C 319/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.319.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 319 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5223 December 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.319.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 319

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5223 December 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Council |
| 2009/C 319/01 | Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed in Lugano on 30 October 2007 — Explanatory report by Professor Fausto Pocar (Holder of the Chair of International Law at the University of Milan) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Council

2009/C 319/01

Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed in Lugano on 30 October 2007 — Explanatory report by Professor Fausto Pocar (Holder of the Chair of International Law at the University of Milan)

(Holder of the Chair of International Law at the University of Milan)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# C_2017161EN.01002201.xml

| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council

(Case T-35/15) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment))

(2017/C 161/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC (Tal Kurdi, Syria) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, and subsequently S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 36), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 7), in so far as the name of the applicant has been included in the list of the persons and bodies to which the restrictive measures apply.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as they concern Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as they concern Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alkarim for Trade and Industry. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alkarim for Trade and Industry.

---

(1)  OJ C 89 of 16.3.2015.

1

---
Case No. 8,617.

#### LYELL v. GOODWIN.

[4 McLean, 44.] *1*

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

June Term, 1851.

Service of Summons — Person Privileged from Arrest.

A summons served by leaving a copy at the residence of a judge, privileged from arrest while in the performance of his judicial duties, or traveling to and from his court, can not claim the privilege against the service when at home and not about setting out on his judicial circuit.

[Cited in Atchison v. Morris, 11 Fed. 583.]

[This was an action of trespass on the case by James L. Lyell against Daniel Goodwin. The defendant filed a motion to vacate the writ of the summons and the service thereof. See Case No. 8,616.]

*1132Mr. McReynolds, for plaintiff,

Mr. Fraser, for defendant

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

A motion is made in this case to quash the writ on the ground that the defendant was a judge of the supreme court of the state, and as the summons was served on him while at his residence in Detroit, not engaged in the actual performance of his judicial duties, but, as alleged, was preparing to leave home on the same, or the next day, to meet the court in which he presided, in the county of -, and that his departure, at the time stated, was necessary to reach the court at the commencement of the term which was fixed by law. The case was submitted to the court on the argument which had been made before the district judge, and on the opinion which he had pronounced. Judge McLean observed, the facts in this case differ, in my judgment, substantially from those on which the judgment of my brother judge was given. I have looked into his elaborate and learned opinion, and I am inclined to think that the service of the process, in this case, may be sustained without infringing upon the principles laid down in that one. The process, in this case, as in the other, was a summons; and when a copy was left at the residence of the defendant, he was not actually engaged in holding court, nor was he in the act of traveling to or from court. And if, under such circumstances, a mere notice could not be served on the defendant, it would be difficult to imagine at what time such service could be legally made. The question arises under the law of Michigan, and not under the common law, unless its principles have been adopted by legislation or judicial decision. Without entering into a discussion of the principles involved, I would state that 1 am inclined to sustain the service of the summons, and I would suggest to the counsel, if they desire to take the question to the supreme court, we will certify the poiut, as to the legality of the service. The court ordered the point to be certified to the supreme court, under the act of congress [1 Stat. 73], After-wards the case was settled and discontinued.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5THCIR. R. 47.5.4.

2 This was Rea’s second motion to seek an extension of time to file an appeal in this

case. On January 3, 1996, the bankruptcy court granted Rea an extension because her attorney did

not receive notice of an earlier bankruptcy court order.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-10796

Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: BILLY RAY DELP, JR.

 Debtor.

 ______________________________________________

LEONA REA,

Appellant,

VERSUS

MICHAEL HARRISON; HARVISON GROUP,

Apellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:96-CV-947)

January 16, 1998

Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Leona Rea appeals the denial of her motion to extend time to file her appeal. Rea filed her

motion in the BankruptcyCourt on October 25, 1996 afterlearning that the bankruptcy court entered

an “Order Granting Motion for Authority to Compromise Controversy” on October 11, 1996.2 She
3 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 (a).

4

In re Moody, 41 F.3d 1024, 1026 (5th Cir. 1995).

5 See 9 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 8002.07 (1989); Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, 987

F.2d 1199, 1202 (5th Cir. 1993).

2

argued that her failure to file a notice of appeal within 10 days was due to excusable neglect because

the clerk had not mailed a copy of the order to her attorney. Billy Ray Delp, Jr., the debtor, filed a

similar motion to extend time to appeal. The district court affirmed the denial of the motion with

respect to Rea, but remanded the case with respect to Delp. We have jurisdiction over Rea’s current

appeal. The district court’s order is final and co nclusive with respect to Rea, and the remaining

proceedings are unrelated to the issues raised in this appeal.

Bankruptcy Rule 8002(c) authorizes the bankruptcy court to grant a motion to extend time

to file an appeal after the expiration of the usual 10-day period to appeal3only in cases of “excusable

neglect”.4 Rea has failed to meet this standard. Failure of the clerk to send notice to a party does

not, of itself, amount to excusable neglect 5 Rea’s only argument is that the clerk did not send notice

of the order. Rea received notice of the proposed findings of fact, and was on notice that an order

was to be issued. We will not excuse Rea’s failure to perfect a timely appeal in this instance.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 40381.

#### Petition 5650-R of Lovell Dressel Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Being satisfied of the good faith of the petitioner and that the entry was made without any intention to defraud, the court granted the petition.
2002 Attainment, 2015 Growth Projection and 2015 Maintenance Demonstration Inventory Summary

Large Point Sources Only1(sources > 40 tpy NOX, 100 tpy CO and 10 tpy VOC - within 25 miles of AQMD meeting criteria >40 TPY NOX, 100 tpy VOC and CO

2002 tpy 2002 lb/day 2015 TPY

2015 

lb/day

2015 

"Allowables" 

by ratio, tpy

2015 

"Allowables" 

by ratio, lb/day

Proportional Growth Allowance, tons

2015 MaintDemonstratpy

2002 actual - attainment inventory 2015 growth projection 2015 maintenance demonstration

CO 694 3,803 690 3,780 1,895 10,382VOC 652 3,572 690 3,779 1,356 7,430 411 1,76NOX 1,111 6,089 1,131 6,197 2,878 15,770 1,313 4,19

2015 growth projection = 2002 Actuals + Metro growth projections22015 maintenance projections = "Allowables" calculated using ratio method3 + proportional growth allow

1small point source emission totals included with area source emissions2 Economic Report to the Metro Council, 2000-2030 Regional Forecast for the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area (Metro

Resource Center, December 2002 final draft) Repeated in the 'modeling report' -Historical and Future Ozone Simulations using the MM5/SMOKE/CMAQ System in the Portland/Vancouver area, Ying Xie, Brian Lamb, December 31, 2005, Table A13, pp 106

3 Allowables % Oregon allowables PSEL/Oregon actuals

CO 2.73NOX 2.59SOX 4.55VOC 2.08In order to match up with Oregon DEQ methodology for PTEFor SWCAA sources we applied the proportionate difference between Oregon allowables and Oregon actualsto SWCAA 2002 actualsWade and Paul agreed to this methodology confirmed by email July 13, 2005The proportionate increases per pollutant are listed above

11/21/2006 WA 2015 PTE Wor
No. 45186.

#### Protests 897242-G, etc., of Associated Mfrs. Importing Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Rockingham earthenware similar to that the subject of *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120 C. D. 303). The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 210 was therefore sustained.
#### Veronica Y. MCCALL-SCOVENS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

No. 05-3238.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 26, 2005.

Veronica Y. McCall-Scovens (informal brief form enclosed), pro se.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Veronica Y. McCall-Scovens submits a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and Fed. Cir. R. 15(c) statement concerning discrimination. We treat McCall Scovens’ submissions as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s July 25, 2005 order dismissing her petition for review for failure to pay the filing fee and submit a Rule 15(c) statement.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) McCall-Scovens’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

(2) McCall-Scovens’ motion for reconsideration is granted. The July 25, 2005 dismissal order is vacated, the mandate is recalled, and the petition for review is reinstated.

(3) McCall-Scovens’ brief is due within 21 days of the date of filing of this order.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL A. HEARTSMAN,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD, Warden; XAVIER

BECERRA,

Respondents

- Appellees. No. 18

- 16110

D.C. No. 3:16

- cv

- 0 6098

- VC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Michael A. Heartsman appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Reviewing de novo, see Smith v. Ryan

,

823 F.3d 1270, 1278 ( 9th Cir. 2016), we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 16110

Heartsman contends that the trial court committed misconduct by favoring

the prosecution and exhibiting bias against the defense. We need not address

appellee’s contention that the claim is procedurally defaulted because it fail s on the

merits. See Franklin v. Johnson , 290 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2002). None of the

claimed instances of misconduct suggest the trial court harbored “deep

- seated

favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v.

United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). The state court’s rejection of this claim,

therefore, was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly

established federal law. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S.

362, 411 (2000).

We treat appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the

certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22

-

1(e); Hiivala v. Wood , 195 F.3d 1098, 1104

- 05 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2015262EN.01000502.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 13 May 2015 — Openbaar Ministerie v Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV

(Case C-221/15)

(2015/C 262/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Openbaar Ministerie

Appellant:

Respondent: Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 15(1) of Directive 2011/64/EU (1), whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) of 7 December 2000, preclude a national measure which requires retailers to respect minimum prices by prohibiting the application of a price for tobacco products which is lower than the price that the manufacturer/importer has affixed to the revenue stamp? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 15(1) of Directive 2011/64/EU (1), whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) of 7 December 2000, preclude a national measure which requires retailers to respect minimum prices by prohibiting the application of a price for tobacco products which is lower than the price that the manufacturer/importer has affixed to the revenue stamp?

1

2

| 2. | Does Article 34 TFEU preclude a national measure which requires retailers to respect minimum prices by prohibiting the application of a price for tobacco products which is lower than the price that the manufacturer/importer has affixed to the revenue stamp? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 34 TFEU preclude a national measure which requires retailers to respect minimum prices by prohibiting the application of a price for tobacco products which is lower than the price that the manufacturer/importer has affixed to the revenue stamp?

| 3. | Does Article 4(3) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 101 TFEU, preclude a national measure which requires retailers to respect minimum prices by prohibiting the application of a price for tobacco products which is lower than the price that the manufacturer/importer has affixed to the revenue stamp? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 4(3) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 101 TFEU, preclude a national measure which requires retailers to respect minimum prices by prohibiting the application of a price for tobacco products which is lower than the price that the manufacturer/importer has affixed to the revenue stamp?

---

(1)  Council Directive of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24).

1

(2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

2

---
No. 40374.

#### Protest 932038-G of Langfelder, Homma & Hayward, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of paper bells similar to those the subject of *Kresge*v. *United States*(25 C. C. P. A. 1, T. D. 48975). The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was therefore sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7139

EDWARD F. ARRINGTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SID HARKLEROAD, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-02-170-1)

Submitted: February 15, 2006 Decided: March 23, 2006

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward F. Arrington, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Edward F. Arrington, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Arrington has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
January 29, 1942

No. 46915.

#### Protests 24007-K, etc., of American Ecla Corp.

C. D. 574. Motion of plaintiff for rehearing granted.