alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### A. W. Salter & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7448.

Invoice dated London, England, April 23, 1946.

Certified April 24, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 24, 1946.

Entry No. 763146.

(Decided November 20, 1947)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiff.

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

Johnson, 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.
Exhibit 35.11



|     |  |                                                                                                          
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084, 8th Fl 401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2016, by and among DEUTSCHE
MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C1 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify
that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such
period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of
February 2018.



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO                                                  
|Daniel Bober Executive Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
### Surface water supply of the United States, 1961-65, Part 4, St. Lawrence River basin, v. 1, Basins of streams tributary to Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Huron

By: Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1911

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 24-0098

__________________________________________________________________

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: 

HANNAH HAN,

Petitioner/Appellee,

and

MAURICE DEGENNARO, 

Respondent/Appellant.

ORDER GRANTING

EXTENSION OF TIME 

Upon consideration of Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Opening Brief and Affidavit in Support, and for good cause appearing therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to 

and including July 17, 2024, within which to file his Opening Brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 11 2024

06/11/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0098
SERVED SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

rroAD 

rV RTMENTOF 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - .^'l'?5ffi!ffl6N 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

f OPERATIONS 

m ^^P?u A 9: 28 

IN THE MATTER OF 

BRADLEY WHEELER 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10NM0009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2010-0793 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No.2010NM730003) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

X Yod3 

Chief Administrative Law 

Attachment - Service List
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 16-4215

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Said Ali lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ Submitted: August 15, 2017 Filed: August 17, 2017 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Said Ali challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a gun ch arge, pursuant to a written plea agreement

1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.which included an appeal waiver. His c ounsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue that the district court erred by denying Ali’s motion to suppress evidence prior to his plea. Ali has also filed a pro se supp lemental brief, challenging th e use of a prior attempted assault conviction as a crime of violence for the purpose of determining his base offense level. We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and should be en forced as to the issues on appeal, because our review of the record demons trates that Ali entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States , 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); th e arguments fall within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of jus tice would result from enforcing the waiver, seeUnited States v. Scott , 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we enforce the appeal waiver, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal.

______________________________

-2-
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 14 

Expressing that Congress has the sole and exclusive power to declare war. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2007 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas submitted the following concurrent resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing that Congress has the sole and exclusive power 

to declare war. 

Whereas the President should present to Congress the question of whether to declare war as provided for in section 

8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States; 

and 

Whereas when the valiant men and women of the United 

States military are away from home to fight a war, to 

protect the peace, or to enforce disarmament, they will 

have the full support of the Congress, and Congress will 

take every possible step to ensure that they are protected 

from potential attacks and a negative environment, they 

have the support they need to do their jobs effectively 

and efficiently, and they are brought home safely as soon 

as practicable: Now, therefore, be it 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 14 IH 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That, pursuant to section 8 of article I of the 

3 Constitution of the United States, Congress has the sole 

4 and exclusive power to declare war. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### Mogi Momonoi & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6263.

Entry No. 726209, etc.

Invoices dated Yokohama, Japan, July 28, 1939, etc.

Certified July 28, 1939, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 31, 1939, etc.

*333(Decided March 16, 1946)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Edward P. Sharretts*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

TilsoN, Judge:

The appeals listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon a ¡stipulation to the effect that certain items of the involved merchandise consist of rayon articles which are similar in all material respects to the rayon articles the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Dry Goods Co.,*Reap. Dec. 5006, and that the appraised values of ■said articles, less any additions made by the importer by reason of the so-called Japanese consumption tax, to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases, represent the prices at the date of •exportation of such articles to the United States, at which such or ■similar articles were freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, and that there were no higher values therefor.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values ■of the items marked “A” and checked JWT, JM, or AZ on the.invoices covered by said appeals to be the appraised values, less any additions made by the importer by reason of the so-called Japanese consumption tax, to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 49360.

#### Protest 8361-K of W. X. Huber Co. (Los Angeles).

*297Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Two witnesses were called by the plaintiff, neither of which was able to establish that the window glass in question was broken or in any condition amounting to a nonimportation. An inspection report dated nearly 2 months after the goods had been released from customs custody, prepared by a claim agent employed by the steamship corporation in question, which was admitted in evidence as exhibit 1, was found to bear little weight in establishing breakage. A customs inspector and a deputy collector of customs at Los Angeles testified for the Government, and the Government also recalled one of the witnesses of the protestant, the claim agent of the steamship company, who also prepared the inspection report above referred to. It was found from the testimony and a careful examination of the record that there was nothing to establish that any glass was broken at the time of unlading, as claimed. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 54277.

#### Audrey Import Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 591251-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
122 STAT. 646 PUBLIC LAW 110–191—FEB. 29, 2008 

Public Law 110–191 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Andean Trade Preference Extension Act of 2008’’. 

SEC. 2. ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT. 

(a) EXTENSION.—Section 208 of the Andean Trade Preference 

Act (19 U.S.C. 3206) is amended by striking ‘‘February 29, 2008’’ 

and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2008’’. 

(b) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN APPAREL ARTICLES.—Section 

204(b)(3) of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 

3203(b)(3)(B)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (B)— 

(A) in clause (iii)— 

(i) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘5 succeeding 1- 

year periods’’ and inserting ‘‘6 succeeding 1-year 

periods’’; and 

(ii) in subclause (III)(bb), by inserting ‘‘and for 

the succeeding 1-year period,’’ after ‘‘for the 1-year 

period beginning October 1, 2007,’’; and 

(B) in clause (v)(II), by striking ‘‘4 succeeding 1-year 

periods’’ and inserting ‘‘5 succeeding 1-year periods’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (E)(ii)(II), by striking ‘‘December 31, 

2006’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2008’’. 

SEC. 3. CUSTOMS USER FEES. 

Section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘December 13, 2014’’ 

and inserting ‘‘December 27, 2014’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ‘‘December 13, 2014’’ 

and inserting ‘‘December 27, 2014’’. 

19 USC 3201 

note. 

Andean Trade 

Preference 

Extension Act of 

2008. 

Feb. 29, 2008 

[H.R. 5264] 


jbridges on POFP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS
PUBLIC LAW 110–191—FEB. 29, 2008 122 STAT. 647 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5264: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110–529 (Comm. on Ways and Means). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

Feb. 27, considered and passed House. 

Feb. 28, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

SEC. 4. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES. 

The percentage under subparagraph (C) of section 401(1) of 

the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 in 

effect on the date of the enactment of this Act is increased by 

0.25 percentage points. 

Approved February 29, 2008. 

26 USC 6655 

note. 


jbridges on POFP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 15

- 00452

- CR Dimetric Dashon GONZALEZ , Appellant

v. The STATE of The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CR9594 Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 30, 2015
DISMISSED Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement, Appellant Dimetric Dashon Gonzalez pled guilty to Assault

- Family

- 2nd Offense (Repeater) and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment and a fine of $2,000 in accordance with the terms of his plea

- bargain agreement. On June 25, 2015, the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). After Gonzalez filed a
pro se notice of appeal, the t rial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to04

- 15

- 00452

- CR

- 2

- this court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2(d). “In a plea bargain case ... a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before t rial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea

bargain case and that Gonzalez does not have a right to appeal. We must dis miss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d). We, therefore, warned Gonzalez that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d ), unless an amended trial court certification showing that he had the right to appeal was made part of the appellate record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order). No such amended trial

cou rt certi fication has been filed. Instead, Gonzalez’s appointed counsel filed a letter concluding that Gonzalez does not have a right to appeal in this case. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 297 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas the United States has always had strong Armed 

Forces made up of courageous men and women serving 

the ideals of duty, honor, and country; 

Whereas the Armed Forces were unfortunately once a place 

of segregation of the races; 

Whereas despite segregation, minority members of the Armed 

Forces, such as the Tuskegee Airmen, who 
2 

•HCON 297 EH 

trained at historic Moton Field in Macon County, Alabama, demonstrated honor and bravery above and beyond 

the call of duty; 

Whereas the bravery and sacrifice of all members of the 

Armed Forces regardless of race during World War II 

and prior conflicts is a matter of national honor; 

Whereas the integration of the Armed Forces beginning in 

1948 was a seminal event in our Nation’s history and instilled the democratic ideal of equality in the military; 

and 

Whereas the continued bravery and dedication of every member of the Armed Forces continues to be a source of 

pride to every American: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress to honorably 

3 and respectfully recognize the historic significance and to 

4 celebrate the 60th Anniversary of President Truman’s Ex5 ecutive Order 9981 signed on July 26, 1948 that declared 

6 it to be the policy of the President that there shall be 

7 equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in 

8 the armed services without regard to race, color, religion 
3 

•HCON 297 EH 

1 or national origin thereby beginning the process of ending 

2 segregation in the United States Armed Forces. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 297 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the beginning 

of the integration of the Armed Forces.
September 7, 1943

No. 48762.

Suit 4417.

#### Aber*crombie & Fitch Co.*v. *United States.*

C. A. D. 248.
EXHIBIT 11
                                TSI Incorporated
                        Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Three Months Ended June 30, 1997
                                                      --------------------------------
                                                            1997             1996
                                                        -----------      -----------
<S>                                                    <C>              <C>       
Primary
Average shares outstanding                               11,494,354       11,209,850

Net effect of dilutive stock options, based on the
treasury stock method using average market price            313,599          459,265
                                                        -----------      -----------

Total                                                    11,807,954       11,669,115

Net Earnings                                            $ 1,482,254      $ 1,872,946

Primary per share amounts                               $       .13      $       .16

Fully Diluted

Average shares                                           11,494,354       11,209,850

Net effect of dilutive stock options, based on the
treasury stock method using the period-end market
price, if higher than the average market price              313,594          452,467
                                                        -----------      -----------

Total                                                    11,795,007       11,662,317

Net Earnings                                            $ 1,482,254      $ 1,872,946

Fully diluted per share amounts                         $       .13      $       .16

</TABLE>
No. 55482.

#### Clinton D. Keagy *v.*United States,

petition 6792-R (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From the testimony it appeared that the petitioner is the exclusive United States agent of the exporter, receiving a discount of 50 percent from the manufacturer’s list price in England; that in England the books are freely offered for sale at list price, less 33)4 percent; that prior to making entry, the broker had inquired as to the proper basis for making entry and was instructed to enter at the list price shown in column 11 of the consular invoice, less 33}4 percent; that the broker erred as to one item which he entered at list price, less 50 percent instead of *33}i*percent, and that it was clearly an oversight. Upon all the facts before the court it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.