alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 297 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
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

              

 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
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress to honorably and respectfully 
recognize the historic significance and to celebrate the 60th 
Anniversary of President Truman's Executive Order 9981 signed on July 
26, 1948 that declared it to be the policy of the President that there 
shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the 
armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national 
origin thereby beginning the process of ending 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.
```
(V.D. 108)

#### Herman H. Sticht & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 760331, etc.

(Decided December 30, 1959)

*Strauss & Hedges*for the plaintiffs.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

This is a valuation proceeding which arose by virtue of the judgment issued by the second division of this court in the case of *Herman H. Sticht & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*38 Cust. Ct. 480, Abstract 60687, wherein the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of title 28 U.S.C., section 2636 (d).

The parties to this proceeding have stipulated and agreed that the market value or the price of the instruments and cases involved herein, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was as set forth on the following page.

*524Herman H. Sticht & Co., Inc.

Protest No. Swiss Entry # francs date ea.

246308-K/7812_. 760331 15 pcs #600 Handtachometers_ 68. 00'

10-7-53 Accessories_ 12. 20

Engravings_ 0. 50

Cases_ 12. 20

263249-K/20076. 10017 20 pcs #250-250A

10-9-53 Tachoscopes_ 135. 50

Accessories_ 10. 50

Stampings_ 0. 50'

Cases_ 7. 75

96 pcs #620 Handtachometers_ 68. 00

Accessories_ 12. 20

Engravings_ 0. 50

Cases_ 12. 20

264350-K/21442. 4218 25 pcs #600 Handtachometers_ 68. 00

8-11-53 Accessories_ 12. 20'

Engravings_ 0. 50

Cases_ 12. 20

25 pcs #621 Handtachometers_ 68. 00'

Accessories_ 12. 20'

Engravings_ 0. 50'

Cases_ 12. 20'

12 pcs #601 Handtachometers_ 68. 00'

Accessories_ 12. 20

Engravings_ 0. 50

Cases_ 12. 20

266721-K/1804. 11720 104 pcs #620 Handtachometers_ 68.00

10-27-53 Accessories_ 12. 20

Engravings_ 0. 50-

Cases_ 12. 20

O. Zernickow Company

266725-K/1809. 819254 25 pcs #620 Handtachometers_ 68. 00

1-7-54 Accessories_ 12. 20

Engravings_ 0. 50

Cases_ 12. 20

It was further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

Upon the agreed facts, I find and hold that export value, as such value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the tachometers, tachoscopes, and cases therefor, covered by the remand of protests enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of the decision herein, and that such value is as tabulated, *supra.*

I further find and hold that such values are the proper dutiable values of such merchandise.

As to all other merchandise, the remand is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Person & Weidhorn et al. *v.*United States

No. 6438.

Entry No. 745334, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, January 19, 1942, etc.

Certified January 21, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 2, 1942, etc.

(Decided October 10, 1946)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

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

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern 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. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

An agreed set of facts, submitting these cases, establishes that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar cases.
No. 46364.

#### Protests 35672-K, etc., of Ballymena Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty as claimed.
# C_2016111EN.01004401.xml

| 29.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/44

---

Action brought on 26 November 2015 — ZZ v EIB

(Case F-145/15)

(2016/C 111/54)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Nordh, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2014 and a claim for compensation for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision concerning the marks received by the applicant for 2014, including the decision concerning the increase in remuneration, the payment of a bonus and the promotion relating to those marks, and the staff report for 2014 based thereon, including both the part concerning the applicant’s performance in 2014 and the part concerning the objectives set for him for 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision concerning the marks received by the applicant for 2014, including the decision concerning the increase in remuneration, the payment of a bonus and the promotion relating to those marks, and the staff report for 2014 based thereon, including both the part concerning the applicant’s performance in 2014 and the part concerning the objectives set for him for 2015;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 150 000 together with interest, as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 150 000 together with interest, as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
#### Osaki Shotten, Ltd. *v.*United States

No. 8027.

Entered at Hilo, T. H.

Entry No. A-120.

*407(Decided July 18, 1951)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George B. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David 27. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been-submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows between counsel for plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, concerning the- merchandise referred to herein:

> 1) That the merchandise covered by the appeal enumerated above, marked “A” on the invoice and initialed L. F. B. by Customs Examiner Leslie F. Brewer, consists of rubber-soled shoes of the same character and description as those covered by Samura v. US, Reap. Dec. 4437, and appraised on the same basis, and that the record in said decision may be incorporated herein.

> 2) That the unit invoiced values of said shoes, plus packing and eases as invoiced, represent the foreign and export values as defined in section 402, Tariff Act of 1930.

> 3) That the appeal herein be submitted on this stipulation, it being limited to items marked “A” as aforesaid.

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe foreign and export values, as those values are defined in section 402 (c) and (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to’ be tbe proper bases for the determination of tbe value of the merchandise represented on tbe invoice by the items marked “A” and initialed L. F. B. by Examiner Leslie F. Brewer, and that such values were the unit invoiced values, plus packing and cases as invoiced.

Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2016364EN.01003701.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/37

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Barroso Truta and Others v Court of Justice

(Case F-126/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Contractual agents - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the European Union’s pension scheme of pension rights previously acquired under national schemes - AECC’s proposals to add years of pensionable service - Invitation to contact the administration for explanations and to discuss whether it would be appropriate to make transfers - Acceptance by the agents of the transfer of their national pension rights without prior consultation with the AECC - Definitive nature of the transfers - Subsequent discovery of the ‘minimum subsistence figure’ rule - Fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of diligence - Alleged insufficiency of the information provided by the AECC when putting forward the proposals to add years of pensionable service - Action for damages - Non-compliance with the requirements governing the pre-litigation stage - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 364/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Barroso Truta (Bofferdange, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram, agent)

Re:

Payment of compensation to the applicants for the material harm which they have incurred on account of the loss of their pension rights acquired in the national system following the transfer of those rights to the pension scheme of the European Union.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Court of Justice of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr José Barroso Truta, Mr Marc Forli, Mr Calogero Galante and Mr Bernard Gradel. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Court of Justice of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr José Barroso Truta, Mr Marc Forli, Mr Calogero Galante and Mr Bernard Gradel.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015, p. 42.

---
PUBLIC LAW 110–193—MAR. 6, 2008 122 STAT. 649 

Public Law 110–193 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To make technical corrections to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT. 

(a) PESTICIDE REGISTRATION SERVICE FEES.—Section 33 of the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136w– 

8) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (b)(7)— 

(A) in subparagraph (D)— 

(i) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator may exempt 

from, or waive a portion of, the registration service 

fee for an application for minor uses for a pesticide.’’; 

and 

(ii) in clause (ii), by inserting ‘‘or exemption’’ after 

‘‘waiver’’; and 

(B) in subparagraph (E)— 

(i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ‘‘WAIVER’’ 

and inserting ‘‘EXEMPTION’’; 

(ii) by striking ‘‘waive the registration service fee 

for an application’’ and inserting ‘‘exempt an application from the registration service fee’’; and 

(iii) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘waiver’’ and 

inserting ‘‘exemption’’; and 

(2) in subsection (m)(2), by striking ‘‘2008’’ each place it 

appears and inserting ‘‘2012’’. 

Mar. 6, 2008 

[S. 2571] 
122 STAT. 650 PUBLIC LAW 110–193—MAR. 6, 2008 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2571: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

Jan. 29, considered and passed Senate. 

Feb. 13, 14, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection 

(a) take effect on October 1, 2007. 

Approved March 6, 2008. 

7 USC 136w–8 

note.
No. 56657.

protests 180428-K, etc. (New York).

#### Fine Arts Bag Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 9009)

Entry No. 888877-1/2.

#### Kaiser-Reismann Corp. *v.*United States

(Decided October 22, 1957)

*Eugene B. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

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

Ford, Judge:

The appeal listed above has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the export value or the *675price at which certain items of the subject merchandise, or merchandise similar thereto, was 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, for exportation to the United States, including all costs, charges, and expenses, specified in section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, was the invoice unit value, less 31% per centum trade discount, less ocean freight, plus the invoice charge for coloring, and that, as to other items of the subject merchandise, the said export value or price was the invoice unit value, net packed.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find the proper dutiable export value of the merchandise marked “A” and checked BS on the invoice to be the invoice unit value, less 31% per centum trade discount, less ocean freight, plus the invoice charge for coloring, and for the items marked “B” and checked HM on the invoice, I find the proper dutiable export value to be the invoice unit value, net packed. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                       (307,819)
<SECURITIES>                                 1,688,099
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,973,409
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,267,798
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,621,487
<PP&E>                                       3,711,192
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,253,056)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,079,623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,104,234
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          816,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,159,389
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,079,623
<SALES>                                      4,267,938
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,267,938
<CGS>                                        3,721,348
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,721,348
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               698,373
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (151,783)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (60,435)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (91,348)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 55501.

#### British American Importation Co., Ltd., and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L. A. *v.*United States,

protests 138473-K and 162033-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2017063EN.01000501.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/5

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Signum Alfa Sped Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság

(Case C-446/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right of deduction - Refusal - Issuer of the invoice considered not to have been the real supplier of the invoiced services - Obligation on the taxable person to carry out checks))

(2017/C 063/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Signum Alfa Sped Kft.

Applicant:

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national practice under which the tax authorities refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax which is payable or paid in respect of services supplied to it on the ground that the invoices relating to those services lack verisimilitude since the issuer of those invoices could not be the real supplier of those services, unless it is established, in the light of objective factors and without the taxable person being required to carry out checks not required of it, that that taxable person knew or should have known that those services were involved in value added tax fraud, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.

1

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARLENE REID,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-3603

[June 1, 2016]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Andrew Siegel, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 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.

PER CURIAM.

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

CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
',-,T". '["'.:-:- r(

\ ",,' ~. , .

. ;~:"i.:~~PORTP;IlU:~I~

"",',~',;C-i;'\llGEl)I\Ti(1;,r:;

_ }\j\\ •...l Jl ,_I I; ,,' .'1,,"-

Adams. Kevin (OST)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

City Manager < manager@cityofhancock.net>

Monday, July 22, 2013 10:49 AM

Ada~s, Kevin (OST) c,n .:I ? 1 PI: 51

DenniS Hext .db J.,l ..-

RE:Request for Comment re the proposal of SkyWest at Hancock/Houghton, MI (the

only carrier to bid)

Kevin, on Wednesday, July 17th, the Hancock City Council reviewed the one submission for Essential Air Service for the

2014/2015 period from Sky West. The City of Hancock has been pleased with the performance and pricing of Sky

\Nest/United via O'Hare(ORD) during the last 4 years, and believe 5kyWest is suited to undertake the next two years as

well. Therefore, the City Council voted to support SkyWest's bid to continue EAS service at CMX for 2014 and 2015.

Glenn Anderson, City Manager

._--~~~~-_. ---~----~~~---_._- _.._-_._-------------- --_.~._._----

From: Kevin.Adams@dot.gov [mailto:Kevin.Adams@dot.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 9:40 AM

To: Clerk@citvofHancock.com; dhext@HoughtonCounty.net; Manager@CityofHancock.com; Scott@cityofHoughton.com

Cc: brad.rawson@skywest.com

Subject: Request for Comment re the proposal of SkyWest at Hancock/Houghton, MI (the only carrier to bid)

Hi All,

Attached above is a copy of the one timely-filed proposal for Essential Air Service (EAS) at

Hancock/Houghton, submitted by SkyWest. We are currently reviewing those proposals. The attached proposal is

directly from the carrier and will soon be reflected in the Docket, which you may access through Regulations.gov at DOTOST-2009-0302, along with other pertinent information on this proceeding.

The next step in the carrier-selection process is for you to provide us with your community's comments, a critically

important element in our carrier-selection decision, especially the comments of civic officials. Accordingly, I ask that

everyone get back to us, preferably by email, no later than August 13, 2013. We will docket this email, as well as any

replies.

In brief, look at the proposal, and if you have any questions, call me, and get back to us by the deadline, August 13;

Best,

Kevin Adams

202-366-1047

1
No. 44226.

#### Protests 839674-G (B), etc., of Philip Lien (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protest was therefore sustained.