alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued April 10 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 13 - 00814 - CV

——————————— IN RE JP FOODS, LLC, CAI YI, THE XENOS YU EN FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST, C REDIT LINK FINANCE L IMITED

COMPANY , Relator s Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION JP Foods, LLC, Cai Yi, Xenos Yuen Family Irrevocable Trust, and Credit Link Finance Limited Company filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging (1) the trial court’s order denying a motion to compel further depositions in Case Number 12

- DCV

- 202514 and (2) the trial court’s deci sion to abate in Case2

Number 12

- DCV

- 202531 pending a bankruptcy court ruling regarding the application of the automatic stay under 11.U.S.C. §362. * We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown.

* The underlying case s are Nkasi Comfort Onyung v. Credit Link Finance Limited Company, and the Yuen Family Irrevocable Trust a/k/a/ Xenos Yuen Family Irrevocable Trust ( cause number 12

- DCV

- 202514) and Nkasi Comfort Onyung v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and JP Foods, LLC (cause number 12

- DCV

- 202531), pending in the 434th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, the Hon. James H. Shoemake pre siding.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**MICHAEL WILSON,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 434 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 1st day of February, 2016, the Petition for Al lowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**

**Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this** 

**matter.**
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 311 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington 

Soap Box Derby. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2008 

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. 

WYNN, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. WOLF) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater 

Washington Soap Box Derby. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES 

4 ON CAPITOL GROUNDS. 

5 The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Associa6 tion (in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Association’’) 

7 shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, soap box 

8 derby races, on the Capitol Grounds on June 21, 2008, 

9 or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of RepVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:43 Mar 06, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HC311.IH HC311

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 311 IH 

1 resentatives and the Committee on Rules and Administra2 tion of the Senate may jointly designate. 

3 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS. 

4 The event to be carried out under this resolution shall 

5 be free of admission charge to the public and arranged 

6 not to interfere with the needs of Congress, under condi7 tions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and 

8 the Capitol Police Board; except that the Association shall 

9 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities 

10 incident to all activities associated with the event. 

11 SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT. 

12 For the purposes of this resolution, the Association 

13 is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds, subject 

14 to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, such stage, 

15 sound amplification devices, and other related structures 

16 and equipment as may be required for the event to be car17 ried out under this resolution. 

18 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS. 

19 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police 

20 Board are authorized to make any such additional ar21 rangements that may be required to carry out the event 

22 under this resolution. 

23 SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

24 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce25 ment of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HCON 311 IH 

1 title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertise2 ments, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, 

3 as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol 

4 Grounds, with respect to the event to be carried out under 

5 this resolution. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7470.

Invoice dated Innerleithen, Scotland, January 22, 1942.

Certified January 23, 1942.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 25, 1942.

Entry No. 740243.

(Decided December 9, 1947)

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

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

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): This appeal for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concerns 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 (c)). *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 for the articles in question are the unit invoice prices less 5 percent discount, packing included.
1

 March 19, 2024

Safety Alert: Roadway Maintenance Machines

This Safety Alert highlights the need for each roadway worker and RMM operator to be aware of 

the safety procedures for Roadway Workers who work around Roadway Maintenance Machines. 

The industry has suffered three fatalities since December 2021 where an RMM struck a roadway 

worker. In each instance, the RMM was operating in reverse. In each of these accidents, the initial 

distance between the RMM and the roadway worker was greater than the specified “work/red 

zone” distance listed in the railroad’s on-track safety program. And in each instance, the operator 

of the RMM did not see the roadway worker standing in the foul of the track. 

As part of the investigation in two of these accidents, it was discovered that the operator of the 

RMM would not have been able to easily see a roadway worker standing at the end of the “work/red 

zone” distance. RMMs have different functions and are built differently. While the railroad’s 

“work/red zone” distance might be suitable for one type of RMM, the “work/red zone” distance 

might not allow the operator on a different type of machine to see someone standing in the track. 

One other common thread in the three fatality accidents was lack of communication between the 

roadway worker and the machine operator of the RMM. In all three accidents, the operators of the 

RMMs were unaware that a roadway worker had fouled the track. Communication between the 

roadway worker and the machine operator would have alerted the machine operator that workers 

where in the foul behind the RMM. 

Recommendations:

• Each RMM operator review what your railroad’s on-track safety program lists as the

“work/red zone” distance and see if you can see a roadway worker standing in front of or 

behind your machine when at the end of the “work/red zone” distance. If the “work/red zone” 

distance is not compliant, inform the workers who work around the machine and inform the 

supervisor of the team.

• Each roadway worker who is going to foul a track, communicate with the nearest RMMs in 

view in both directions from the location they will foul the track regardless of the “work/red 

zone” distance.

• Assure back-up alarms are functioning properly and sound your horn when making 

movements according to your operating rules. 

The FAMES Committee consists of safety representatives from a cross section of rail labor, railroad management, 

and federal regulators. FAMES is a continuous improvement process that relies on the candid sharing of available 

data and the views of its participants. To enable the process, FAMES explicitly refrains from making any findings 

regarding whether any past or present practice or protocol satisfies any legal duty or standard of care.

The views, opinions, and recommendations contained in this report are those of the FAMES Committee and do not 

necessarily represent the views, opinions, or recommendations of any specific railroad, labor organization, or 

governmental agency.
Case No. 8,595.

#### LUCY v. SLADE.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 422.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1807.

Slavekt — Deed—Unrecorded—Proof or Execution'.

1. A deed conveying or transferring a slave in Maryland, not recorded, cannot be given in evidence without proof of its execution, although it has been acknowledged before a justice of the peace in Maryland.

2. The oath, required by the “Virginia law of the 17th of December. 1792, § 4. is of no avail unless taken within sixty days after the removal of the party.

Trespass, for assault and battery and false imprisonment, to try the right of freedom.

E. J. Lee, for defendant

[Charles Slade], offered a deed of gift of the plaintiff by Colonel William Lyles to Miss Ann Lowery, whom W. H. Lyles afterwards married, acknowledged before Mr. Bowie, a justice of the peace of Prince George's county, Maryland, and a certificate of the clerk of Prince George’s county, that Mr. Bowie was on that day a qualified justice of the peace, and a certificate of J. M. Gantt, chief judge of the court of Prince George’s, &c.

Mr. Jones, for plaintiff,

objected that it is no act, nor record, nor a judicial proceeding. It is not recorded, and if it had been, yet as it is not required to be recorded, it would gain no authenticity by the recording. It is not necessary to be acknowledged. The taking of an acknowledgemnt is not a judicial act

THE COURT

(nem. con.) decided that it was not evidence, unless proved by witnesses. The acknowledgment of the deed, at all events, can amount to no more than an estoppel against the party himself, who has acknowledged, and does not prevent another person from denying the execution of the deed.

THE COURT also permitted the plaintiff to give evidence of an importation by Colonel William Lyles, under a general allegation in the statement of the case, prepared by counsel under the order of the court; whereupon the defendant gave in evidence a certificate of an oath taken by William H. Lyles; but THE COURT instructed the jury that the said oath was not in compliance with the Virginia act of assembly of Dec. 17, 1792, p. 86, § 4, unless taken within sixty days after the removal of W. H. Lyles.
No. 46379.

#### Protests 963367-G, etc., of Iwai & Co., Ltd. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the cellulose sheets in question are similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Iwai*(29 C. C. P. A. 60, C. A. D. 171). They were therefore found to be cellulose sheets, not transparent,, and held dutiable at 40 cents per pound as claimed.
# Official Journal L 461I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 461I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6427 December 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 461I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6427 December 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/2310 of 21 December 2021 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States
  (notified under document C(2021) 9889)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/2310 of 21 December 2021 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States
  (notified under document C(2021) 9889)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2021) 9889)

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### I. Freeman & Son, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6462.

Entry No. 739974.

Invoice dated London, England, January 7, 1942.

Certified January 10, 1942.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 28, 1942.

(Decided October 28, 1946)

*Gold/water & VVyrm*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, 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:

(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.
### Conference Call with Tribal Envi ronmental Professionals November 29, 2007 Meeting Note to the Docket

Discussion Topics

On November 29, 2007, representatives from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) participated in a mee ting with a workgroup of interested tribal environmental professionals regarding the implementation of the rule titled: “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country.” The attendees discussed a draft document that will provide guidance to EPA employees on how to conduct effective consultation with

tribes.
# Title

# Summary

# Total, Dissolved Nutrients

# Chlorophyll

# BOD

# DOC

# TPCN

# Sheet2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-13-00415-CR, 01-13-00416-CR, 01-13-00417-CR

Style: Javier Noel Campos

v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: February 14, 2014

Type of motion: Extension of time to file appellant’s brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: October 10, 2013

Number of previous extensions granted: 2 Current Due date: February 14, 2014

Date Requested: May 19, 2014

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted in part, denied in part

If document is to be filed, document due: March 19, 2014

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

If the brief is not filed by March 19, 2014, the Court may set a date for appellant’s counsel to appear and

show cause why appellant’s brief was not timely filed.

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: March 6, 2014
# C_2016410EN.01003403.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 — Souruh v Council

(Case T-468/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 410/54)

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. 46354.

#### Protests 813280-G, etc., of Shun On & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Cline, Judge:

When these cases were on the calendar at San Francisco, based on a stipulation of the parties, marked exhibit 1, protest 711659-G, the trial judge continued the protests herein involved subject to defendant’s motion to dismiss the same. The language of the stipulation applicable to these cases reads as follows:

(2) That the cases listed in Schedule B hereto attached may be continued, subject to Government’s motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiffs’ motion to amend should be denied as a matter of law where A. A. A. claim was the only claim in the original protest.

No motions to amend appear to have been filed, and, while the defendant’s motion to dismiss appears to be directed to the legality of amendment, we construe it to mean that the protests should be dismissed because the court has no jurisdiction. At any rate, the court has power of its own motion to raise the question of jurisdiction. *United States*v. *Klytia Corporation,*C. A. D. 178. An examination of the protests indicates that the only claim therein is that the assessment under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933, was improper and illegal. In *United States*v. *Lamborn,*27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60, the appellate court held that this court has no jurisdiction to consider the validity of an assessment under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and, in *Chew Yuen Gee et al.*v. *United States,*C. D. 479, it was held by this court that protests which contained'no claim other than that relating to the applicability of the Agricultural Adjustment Act were not subject to amendment after the enactment of the Revenue Act of 1936 which divested this court of jurisdiction over that subject matter.

In harmony with the decisions cited, the protests herein involved are dismissed. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Security Instruments,
Inc. (the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  December 31, 2004 as
filed  with  the   Securities   and  Exchange   Commission  and  to  which  this
Certification  is an exhibit (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned  hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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
      for the periods reflected therein.

Date: February 14, 2005                 /s/ Harvey B. Grossblatt
                                    ---------------------------------
                                    Harvey B. Grossblatt
                                    Chief Executive Officer

                                        /s/ James B. Huff
                                    ---------------------------------
                                    James B. Huff
                                    Chief Financial Officer
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 00493

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

00493\00493_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 00493\00493_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00493\00493_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00493\00493_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00493\00493_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00493\00493_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

00493\Certification Statement Plant ID 00493.pdf Plant certification statement

x 00493\Supplemental Documents\00493_Diagram 2 JKS2 flyash sytem for Question 2-31.TIF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00493\Supplemental Documents\00493_Diagram JKS2 flyash sytem for Question 2-31.TIF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00493\Supplemental Documents\00493_Diagram1 JKS1 flyash sytem for Question 2-31.TIF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00493\Supplemental Documents\00493_Diagram2 JKS2 flyash sytem for Question 2-31.TIF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00493\Supplemental Documents\00493_final calaveras site map 8-2010.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00493\Supplemental Documents\00493_Water Balance Spruce I.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00493\Supplemental Documents\00493_Water Balance Spruce II.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00493\00493_CSection2.2_MappingFix.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00493\00493_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00493\00493_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc., by W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7570.

Entry No. 724941.

Invoice dated London, England, November 1945.

Certified November 21, 1945.

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

(Decided March 25, 1948)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, 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:

(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 thé 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.
|   | (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      for the periods reflected therein. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| August      12, 2010 | /s/ Harvey B. Grossblatt     |
|----------------------|------------------------------|
|                 | Harvey      B. Grossblatt    |
|                 | Chief      Executive Officer |
|                 |                         |
|                 | /s/ James B. Huff            |
|                 | James      B. Huff           |
|                 | Chief      Financial Officer |

----