alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John C. Pappas, Administrator of the Estate of C. Pappas, doing business as C. Pappas Co. *v.*United States

No. 6049.

Invoices dated Naples, Italy, March 1, 1936, etc.

Certified March 12, 1936, etc.

Entered at Boston, Mass., March 25, 1936, etc.

Entry No. 12012, etc.

(Decided September 1, 1944)

*Joseph F. Lockett*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliveb, Presiding Judge:

Accepting a stipulation of counsel for the respective parties, the name of the plaintiff in each of the appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a. part hereof, has been changed from “C. Pappas Company” to “John O. Pappas, Administrator of the Estate of C. Pappas, doing business as C. Pappas Company.”

The appeals wore then submitted for decision upon a stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto, agreeing that said tomatoes and tomato sauce are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Luigi Vitelli Elvea, Inc., et al.,*Reap. Dec. 5941; that the issues in the two cases are the same; that the record in the cited case be incorporated herein; and that said tomatoes and tomato *371sauce, at the time of exportation thereof, were sold and freely offered for sale in Italy to all purchasers in the ordinary course of trade, packed ready for shipment in the usual wholesale quantities, in Naples (one of the principal markets of Italy) for exportation to the United States, at the following values, there being no higher foreign value:

> *Reappraise* merit No. Entry Tomatoes per case of 9J, tins oft,W0 grams ‘each Tomatoes per case of 48 tins of 600 grams each Tomato sauce per case*

> 135036-A 12012 $2. 10 $2. 70

> 135037-A 13120 2. 10 2. 70

> 135038-A 14360 2. 10 2. 70

> 135040-A 1043 1. 90 2. 50

> 135039-A 15734 2. 10 2. 60

> 135041-A 2330 $4. 30

> 135042-A 3283 2. 00 2. 60

> 135043-A 3738 2. 00

> 135044-A 4169 4. 30

> 135045-A 4334 2. 05 2. 65

> 135048-A 4194 4. 30

> 135046-A 6188 2. '05 2. 65

> 135047-A 6241 4. 30

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

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 as set forth above.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 10233 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:16

- cr

- 00175

- RBD

- LRH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus RAMON FRANCISCO CASTILLO,

Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ ( August 26, 2020 )
Before ROSENBAUM , GRANT, and LAGOA , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 20-10233 Date Filed: 08/26/2020 Page: 1 of 22 Ryan Thomas Truskoski , counsel for Ramon Francisco Castillo in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our indepe ndent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED , and Cast illo’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 20-10233 Date Filed: 08/26/2020 Page: 2 of 2
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 325 

Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Mackinac Island State Park Commission’s Historical Preservation and Museum Program, which began on 

June 15, 1958, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2008 

Mr. STUPAK submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Mackinac Island 

State Park Commission’s Historical Preservation and 

Museum Program, which began on June 15, 1958, and 

for other purposes. 

Whereas the Mackinac Island State Park Commission was 

created, in 1895, to care for and manage Mackinac Island State Park; 

Whereas Michilimackinac State Park and Mill Creek State 

Park were later added to the family of parks and historic 

sites under the authority of the Commission; 

Whereas, in 1958, Michigan granted authority to the Commission to restore and interpret Fort Mackinac and other 

historical properties at the Straits of Mackinac; 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 325 IH 

Whereas, in 1958, the Commission began restoration, installed exhibits, and opened Fort Mackinac to the public; 

Whereas, in 1959, the Commission began archaeological excavation of Colonial Michilimackinac and opened it to the 

public one year later; 

Whereas, in 1984, the Commission opened Historic Mill 

Creek Discovery Park; 

Whereas, in 2004, after 14 years of being closed, Old Mackinac Point Lighthouse was reopened with an ongoing restoration program; 

Whereas, for 50 years, the Commission has professionally 

and successfully developed, promoted, and improved the 

Mackinac State Historic Parks complex, which has been 

continuously recognized by the American Association of 

Museums; and 

Whereas the Mackinac State Historic Parks complex has 

hosted more than 10,000,000 visitors since 1958, making 

it one of the most successful historic site complexes in 

North America and an important contributor to the tourism economy of northern Michigan: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) celebrates the 50th anniversary of the 

4 Mackinac Island State Park Commission’s Historical 

5 Preservation and Museum Program; and 

6 (2) respectfully requests the Clerk of the House 

7 of Representatives to transmit an enrolled copy of 

8 this resolution to the Mackinac Island State Park 

9 Commission as evidence of the Commission successVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:25 Apr 10, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HC325.IH HC325

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HCON 325 IH 

1 fully fulfilling its mission to protect, preserve, and 

2 present the historical and natural wonders of Mack3 inac Island. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
No. 53787.

protests 976026-G, etc. (New York).

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

By virtue of the decision in *United States*v. *American Viscose Corporation*(30 C. C. P. A. 240, C. A. D. 239), the protests were dismissed.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 294 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense take immediate steps to appoint doctors of chiropractic as commissioned officers 

in the Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2008 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, and 

Mrs. DRAKE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense take immediate steps to appoint doctors of chiropractic as commissioned officers in the Armed Forces. 

Whereas the Secretary of Defense has statutory authority 

under section 3070 of title 10 of the United States Code 

to appoint doctors of chiropractic as commissioned officers in the Armed Forces, but has not yet made such appointments; 

Whereas the urgent needs of military personnel in the field 

of operations include access to the widest possible range 

of health care options, especially in the area of care of 

the spine and related structures of the body; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 294 IH 

Whereas providing military personnel in the field of operations with access to chiropractic care will increase the 

cost effectiveness of military health care expenditures by 

taking advantage of the conservative, drugless, and nonsurgical care option offered by chiropractic care; 

Whereas back injuries are the leading cause of lost service 

time and disability in the Armed Forces; 

Whereas military personnel in the field of operations or on 

shipboard can access chiropractic care only through commissioned chiropractic officers; 

Whereas access to chiropractic care through commissioned 

chiropractic officers will enhance the combat readiness of 

military personnel by offering a non-pharmaceutical option for the health care needs of such personnel; and 

Whereas the appointment of doctors of chiropractic as commissioned offices will make use of a highly skilled and 

trained pool of health care professionals and help to meet 

the growing demand for chiropractic care in the Armed 

Forces: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Sec3 retary of Defense should take immediate steps to establish 

4 a career path for doctors of chiropractic to be appointed 

5 as commissioned officers in all branches of the Armed 

6 Forces for purposes of providing chiropractic services to 

7 members of the Armed Forces. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report
of Universal Life Holding Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Frederic S. Richardson , Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:

(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.

Date: August 5, 2004

/s/ Frederic S. RichardsonFrederic
S. RichardsonChief Executive Officer &Chief Finanical Officer
#### Pedro Alberto CRUZ VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72152.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2005.

Pedro Alberto Cruz Valdez, Simi Valley, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Leslie McKay, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Pedro Alberto Cruz Valdez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for re*835view of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, *Ordonez v. INS,*345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Cruz Valdez’s motion to reopen because his bare assertion that a potential change in immigration law would allow him to stay in the United States, absent any evidence that such a law is currently in place and, if it were, that he would meet its requirements, failed to establish a prima facie case for cancellation of removal. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); *Ordonez,*345 F.3d at 785.

We lack jurisdiction over Cruz Valdez’s remaining contentions concerning the agency’s underlying decision because he did not file a petition for review from that order. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2020414EN.01002901.xml

| 30.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — IMG v Commission

(Case T-381/15 RENV) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Development cooperation - Implementation of the EU budget under indirect management - Decision suspending the applicant’s ability to conclude new delegation agreements for indirect management with the Commission - Unlawfulness - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Application for injunctive relief - Late submission of application - Modification of the nature of the reparation sought - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 414/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and J. Norris, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s decision, in its letter of 8 May 2015, not to conclude new delegation agreements for indirect management with the applicant ‘until there was absolute certainty regarding [its] status as an international organisation’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action for damages;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs in respect of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs in respect of the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

---
No. 53240.

#### Miles Laboratories, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 138663-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of sheep gall the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

  

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 18, 2016, by andamong GS MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION II, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as SpecialServicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administratorand WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect toCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2016-RENT (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.7 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Marthinsen, Managing Director of Special Servicing dohereby certify that:

 

1.            A review of the activities of the Special Servicer during the period from March18, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and ofits performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and 

 

2.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

  

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

 /s/Daniel Marthinsen 

Daniel Marthinsen, ManagingDirector

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
#### Fred M. Reineman Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6459.

Entry No. 703962, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, June 1945, etc.

Certified July 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 28, 1945, etc.

(Decided October 24, 1946)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiffs.

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

Mollison, 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:

(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 importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
VSE Corporation Form 10-Q March 31, 2011




Exhibit 32.2







CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO
 SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of VSE Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the best of the undersigned's knowledge:
 
 
 1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (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 Company's Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: April 29, 2011
/s/ T. R. LoftusT. R. LoftusExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)
(Reap. Dec. 9421)

#### American Cathay Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 567, etc.

(Decided May 12, 1959)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for tbe plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Dowd,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Wilson, 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 tbe attorneys for tbe parties hereto, subject to tbe approval of tbe court:

> *637That the issues involved in the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, are the same in all material respects as the issue involved in *Meier & Frank Co. Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9057.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise involved) the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States was the appraised values less the amount added under duress by reason of Section 503(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on or about the date of exportation the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation for home consumption therein was no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in *Meier & Frank Co. Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9057 be incorporated herein and the appeals for reappra'isement set forth in Schedule A be submitted herewith.

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 were the appraised values, less the amount added under duress under section 503 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 in each case.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v PAUL H. ROMERO, Seaman Apprentice, U. S. Navy, Appellant

8 USCMA 524, 25 CMR 28

*525No. 10,549

Decided December 20, 1957

*Commander John P. Gibbons,*USN, and *Lieutenant (jg) W. W. McNeilly, Jr.,*USNR, were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles H. Beale, Jr.,*USMC, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Cueiam:

Inter alia, the accused was tried and convicted upon a charge of desertion. Although he pleaded not guilty to this offense, he did plead guilty to the lesser included offense of absence without leave. The staff legal officer in his review advised that “The record of trial is legally sufficient to support' the findings and the sentence.” Both the convening authority and board of review affirmed with a modification of sentence, and we granted review to consider whether the law officer erred in failing to instruct on apprehension and whether the staff legal officer’s advice on the legal sufficiency of the record was erroneous.

After the appellant filed his brief, the Government introduced a motion to remand to the board of review. Therein they concede error as to both the first and second issue specified by this Court. See United States v Grice, 8 USCMA 166, 23 CMR 390; United States v Johnson, 8 USCMA 173, 23 CMR 397; United States v McDonald, 6 USCMA 575, 20 CMR 291. However, they suggest that, as the accused pleaded guilty to absence without leave under Charge I, an approval of this lesser included offense would vitiate the prejudicial effect of both errors. See United States v Lucas, 1 USCMA 19, 1 CMR 19; United States v Clay, 1 USCMA 74, 1 CMR 74.

As the accused joins in the proposed action, the Government’s motion is granted. The case is returned to the board of review which, in its discretion, may either approve a finding of absence without leave and assess an appropriate sentence, or order a rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 87 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 25786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8696]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences; Notice 
of Meeting

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting:

    Name: Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences 
Advisory Committee (66).
    Date/Time: May 30, 2007 1:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA 22230, Room 1235 via telecom.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Morris L. Aizenman, Senior Science 
Associate, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Room 
1005, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, 
VA 22230. (703) 292-8807.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning NSF science and education activities within the 
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences.
    Agenda: Budget and Planning.
    Summary Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed 
above.

    Dated: May 2, 2007.
Susanne E. Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-8696 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P