alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 9,958.

#### MURRAY v. DONNELLY et al.

[3 Leg. Int. 41.] 1

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Aug. 7, 1846.

Practice in Admiralty — Libel in Personam f.or Personal Injuries — Doubtful Merits. .

[The court will not take jurisdiction of a libel in personam for assault committed _ against a mariner by the officers of the vessel, if the case ■ is of doubtful merits, and must be established by unquestionable proofs, but will remit libelant to his remedy at common law.].

[Libel in personam by John Murray, a mariner. against Donnelly, master, and Randall, mate, of the brig Rebecca, for assault.]

1

 [Reprinted by permission.]

KANE, District Judge.

I have considered this case, and have come to the determination to dismiss the libel. I am not satisfied with the evidence. It is, at best, doubtful, if not contradictory. I take the occasion to say to the gentlemen of the bar, and through .them to those whom it may concern more . directly, that I am strongly disinclined to favor proceedings like the present. The admiralty jurisdiction of this court, summary and potential as it is, in cases of personal wrong on the high seas, will he exercised impressively whenever a clear case shall be made out in evidence. But the case must not be one of doubtful merits, and it must be established by unquestionable proof. There must be no mutinous provocation on the part of the li-belant, no apparent combination among the witnesses, nothing from which the mind can without violence infer an attempt to prostitute judicial forms to purposes of wrong. When the case is made doubtful by the character of the witnesses or the conflict of their., testimony, there is safety in the intervention of a jury; and, where the primary investigation of it by the proctor gives him reason to anticipate such a state of things, he will wisely consult the interests of his client by referring him to the courts of common law.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 238 

Supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national 

celebration of after-school programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 17, 2007 

Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. REGULA, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. NADLER, Ms. 

MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. COURTNEY, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New 

York, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. ROTHMAN, and Mr. HALL of New 

York) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and Labor 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, 

a national celebration of after-school programs. 

Whereas high-quality after-school programs provide safe, 

challenging, engaging, and fun learning experiences to 

help children and youth develop their social, emotional, 

physical, cultural and academic skills; 

Whereas high-quality after-school programs support working 

families by ensuring that their children are safe and productive after the regular school day ends; 

Whereas high-quality after-school programs build strong communities by involving the Nation’s students, parents, 

business leaders, and adult volunteers in the lives of the 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 238 IH 

Nation’s young people, thereby promoting positive relationships among children, youth, families, and adults; 

Whereas high-quality after-school programs engage families, 

schools, and diverse community partners in advancing the 

well-being of the Nation’s children; 

Whereas ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national celebration of 

after-school programs on October 18, 2007, promotes the 

critical importance of high-quality after-school programs 

in the lives of children, their families, and their communities; 

Whereas more than 28,000,000 children have parents who 

work outside the home, and 14,300,000 children have no 

place to go after school; and 

Whereas many after-school programs are struggling to keep 

their doors open and their lights on: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the Congress supports the goals and 

3 ideals of ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national celebration 

4 of after-school programs. 

Æ 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****California current developments[electronic resource].
 
SuDoc Number:A 57.81/5-2:
Item Number:0120-C-49 (online)
CGP System Number:000614466
 
 
2002
Fall
 
December
2003
February
 
April
 
June
 
September/October
 
November/December
2004
January/February
 
March/April
 
May/June
 
July/August
 
September/October
 
November/December
2005
April/May
 
July/August
2006
Winter
 
Spring
 
Summer
 
Fall
2007
Spring
 
Fall
2008
Winter
 
Spring
 
 
October 11, 2017
 
 **
#### Nathan Newman *v.*United States

No. 6465.

Entry Nos. 714414; 723620.

Invoices dated Sheffield, England, August 30, 1945, etc.

Certified September 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 9, 1945, etc.

(Decided October 28, 1946)

*Biegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Kincheloe, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have 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.
(Reap. Dec. 8316)

#### Benziger Brothers *v.*United States

Entry No. 731719, etc.

(Decided June 11, 1954)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Sidney Mandell*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the respective parties, subject to the approval of the court, that the leather-bound prayer books and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, are similar in all material respects as the leather-bound prayer books and issues decided in the case of *United States*v. *Malhame & Co., et al.,*39 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 108, C. A. D. 472, and that the record in said case be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no foreign, export, or United States value as defined in Section 402 (c) (d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 at the time of the exportation of the involved merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the invoice values of the leather-bound prayer books correctly represent the statutory cost of production as defined in Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 on the dates of exportation.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that 66%% of the invoice values represents the statutory cost of production of the leather bindings as defined in Section 402 (f) of said Act, and that 33% *%*of the invoice values represent the cost of production of the printed text as defined in Section 402 (f) of said Act.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this stipulation is limited to leather-bound prayer books and is abandoned insofar as it relates to other merchandise; that said reappraisements may be submitted upon this stipulation.

*649On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the leather-bound prayer books here involved, and that such values were the invoice values, 66% per centum of which represents the' cost of production of the leather bindings and the remaining 33% per centum of which represents the cost of production of the printed texts.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

September 5, 1940

No. 44256.

#### Protests 968221-G, etc., of Ernest Mayer (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It appeared that the collector required a deposit of estimated duties at the rate of 10 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1457, and on liquidation duty was assessed at the same rate. The plaintiff’s attorney requested the collector to repost the entries involved, which he refused to do. It was found that the protests were filed within 60 days of the collector’s refusal to repost and are timely under the rulings in *Dublin*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 14, C. D. 77) and *Astra*v. *United States*(id. 20, C. D. 79). On the authority of *Workman*v. *United States*(4 id. 295, C. D. 346) it was found that the posting in this case was not in compliance with the statute and regulations. That claim was therefore sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8412)

Entry No. 856440.

#### Inter Maritime Fwdg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided April 13, 1955)

Plaintiff not represented by”counsel.

*Warren E.*Burger, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When this appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the appealing-party.

Rule 5 of the rules of this court provides that—

> * * * Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it shall be deemed submitted and shall be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

*479In conformity with the requirements of the rule, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

MARLENE REID , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 3603

[ June 1, 2016 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Andrew Siegel

, Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 13

- 263CF10A, 14

- 005084CF10A, and 14

- 006694CF10A

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

. See Rankin v. State , 174 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2015).

C IKLIN , C.J., W ARNER and G ERBER , JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 39068.

#### Protests 943800-G, etc., of Andrew Makris & Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49302) the protests were sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         226,069
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,225,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,194,796
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,725,072
<PP&E>                                         218,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,807
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,299,165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,650,808
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,975
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,639,882
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,299,165
<SALES>                                      2,058,352
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,058,352
<CGS>                                        1,587,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,587,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               672,647
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,914
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                650,869
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            650,869
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   650,869
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67


</TABLE>
Hi my name is Tony Fuller. I'm a volunteer with the Sierra Club here in Chicago and have been concerned about the threat posed by carbon pollution and the resulting climate disruption

. I would like to thank the US EPA & DOT for these second phase standards to reduce carbon pollution and oil use from heavy-duty freight trucks

. However, these standards need to be strengthened to achieve at least a 40% reduction by 2025. The science shows that the technology exists to meet stronger standards

. Strong 40% reduction standards are what I call a "no brainer" decision. Increased standards would yield additional health , economic and environmental benefits for minimal costs especially when you factor in the health benefits and long term threats posed by climate. G iven the larger role the federal government has taken on in paying for health care costs I think monetary savings to the government is a factor that government should consider

. Also the US EPA and DOT have a moral obligation to future generation adopt strong standards. We are in a race to prevent a global temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius above pre- industrial times which would limit the impacts of climate change on the planet. Unfortunately, current plans by the Admin istration don 't go far enough. According to Climate Action Tracker (cli mateactiontracker. org), a group of research organizations dedicated to analyzing the world 's progress the U.S

. action plans as being short ofwhat's needed. By increasing these second phase standards to a 40% reduction we can take one more step towards limiting the impacts of climate change

. Anything less endangers not only our own health and economic wellbeing but also the future for our families and the planet. Tony Fuller Chicago , IL ftone13@gmail.com
### Surface water supply of the United States, 1946, Part XIV, Pacific slope basins in Oregon and lower Columbia River basin

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

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1064

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (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.
No. 47598.

#### Protests 55330-K, etc., of M. Pressner & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Certain of the pencil sharpeners in question were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 following Abstract 41633, as stipulated between counsel at the trial.
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

Kathy Smith v Board of County Road Commissioners 

Docket No. 334226 

LC No. 2015-148043-CH 

Thomas C. Cameron 

Presiding Judge 

Deborah A. Servitto 

Elizabeth L. Gleicher 

Judges 

The Court orders that the January 4, 20 18 opinion is hereby AMENDED to correct a 

clerical error. The last sentence of the fi rst paragraph on page 5 is corrected to read: 

Because we conclude that defendants' conduct was not grossly negligent, we need not 

address proximate cause. 

In all other respects, the January 4, 2018 opinion remains unchanged. 

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., Chi ef Clerk, on 

JAN 1 D 2018 

Date
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 335 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 335

  Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for a celebration of the 
     100th anniversary of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2008

 Ms. Watson (for herself, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, and Ms. 
 Jackson-Lee of Texas) 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 a celebration of the 
     100th anniversary of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR 100TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION OF 
              ALPHA KAPPA ALPHA SORORITY, INCORPORATED.

    (a) In General.--Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated (in this 
resolution referred to as the ``sponsor''), shall be permitted to 
sponsor a public event (in this resolution referred to as the 
``event'') on the Capitol Grounds to celebrate the 100th anniversary of 
Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated.
    (b) Date of Event.--The event shall be held on July 17, 2008, or on 
such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate jointly designate.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--Under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, the event shall be--
            (1) free of admission charge and open to the public; and
            (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress.
    (b) Expenses and Liabilities.--The sponsor shall assume full 
responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all 
activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

    Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the 
sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, 
sound amplification devices, and other related structures and equipment 
as may be required for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.
                                 <all>
```
No. 40370.

#### Protests 912088-G, etc., of Carl Fischer Musical Instrument Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the musical instruments in question were held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 1541 (a) and T. D. 48316.
<PAGE>

                                  BILL OF SALE

         For valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
acknowledged, BOSTON FINANCIAL & EQUITY CORPORATION (hereinafter called
"SELLER"), hereby sells, transfers, and conveys all of its rights and
interests in and to the Equipment covered by the Master Lease Agreement
between Seller and Tanisys Technology, Inc., No. 1299 dated as of March 4,
1999, as described on Schedule No. 1 executed March 25, 1999, and Schedule
No. 2 executed August 12, 1999, copies of which schedules are attached hereto
as EXHIBIT A and incorporated herein (the "Equipment") to Tanisys Operations,
LP ("Buyer").

         This Bill of Sale is executed pursuant to the terms of that certain
Contract for Sale of Equipment executed by and between Buyer and Seller of
even date herewith and is subject to all of the terms and provisions of that
Contract.

         THE EQUIPMENT IS CONVEYED BY SELLER TO BUYER IN AN "AS IS," "WHERE
IS" CONDITION AND IS ACCEPTED BY BUYER AT ITS EXISTING LOCATIONS, WHEREVER
THAT MAY BE. BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS FAMILIAR WITH THE EQUIPMENT AND IS
RELYING UPON THAT FAMILIARITY AND IS NOT RELYING ON ANY REPRESENTATION OR
WARRANTY OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER MADE BY SELLER. BUYER UNDERSTANDS THAT SELLER
DOES NOT WARRANT THE EQUIPMENT IN ANY RESPECT, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY,
AND BUYER HEREBY WAIVES ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE
EQUIPMENT WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITING THE
GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR OF
FITNESS OR ADEQUACY FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, OR OF QUALITY, QUANTITY,
PRODUCTIVENESS OR CAPACITY.

                                           DATE:       12-9-99
                                                 ----------------------------
BUYER:                                     SELLER:

TANISYS OPERATIONS, LP, a                  BOSTON FINANCIAL & EQUITY CORPORATION
Texas limited partnership

                                           By:  /s/ Adolf F. Monosson
                                                ------------------------------
By: TANISYS ACQUISITION GP, INC., a
    Texas corporation, as general partner  Name:    Adolf F. Monosson
                                                ------------------------------

                                            Title:   President
                                                  ----------------------------
    By: Robert Cooper
        -------------------------

    Name: Robert Cooper
          -----------------------

    Title: President
           ----------------------

                                      1 of 1
December 7, 1949

No. 53794.

protest 129252-K.

#### The Werner G. Smith Company *v.*United States,

C. D. 1186. Motion . of Government for rehearing denied.

Cole, J., concurring.