alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9869)

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 780023-1/2.

(Decided December 14, 1960)

*John I. Dugan*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the respective parties that the merchandise involved herein is pentamethyleneteteazole, a coal tar product.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the American Selling Price, as that term is defined in Section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, of the said merchandise is $17.60 less 1%, per kilo, net packed, for the time herein relevant.

> The appeal is limited to the merchandise above referred to and is abandoned as to any and all other merchandise, if any, and hereby submitted for decision.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1980, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question, and that such value for the involved item at the time of exportation was $17.60, less 1 per centum per kilo, net packed.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of the United States Trade Representative

# AGENCY:

Office of the United States Trade Representative.

# ACTION:

Notice with respect to a list of countries denying fair market opportunities for products, suppliers or bidders of the United States in airport construction projects.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

Date of Publication.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dawn Shackleford, Director for International Procurement, Office of the United States Trade Representative, (202) 395-9461, or Behnaz Kibria, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, (202) 395-9589.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to section 533 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended (49 U.S.C. 50104), the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has determined not to include any countries on the list of countries that deny fair market opportunities for U.S. products, suppliers, or bidders in foreign government-funded airport construction projects.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Section 533 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended by section 115 of the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, Public Law 100-223 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 50104) (“the Act”), requires USTR to decide whether any foreign countries have denied fair market opportunities to U.S. products, suppliers, or bidders in connection with airport construction projects of $500,000 or more that are funded in whole or in part by the governments of such countries. The list of such countries must be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    . For the purposes of the Act, USTR has decided not to include any countries on the list of countries that deny fair market opportunities for U.S. products, suppliers, or bidders in foreign government-funded airport construction projects.                

Susan C. Schwab,

United States Trade Representative.

[FR Doc. E7-8891 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190-W7-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0406 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID ALLEN PEIN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 30, 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 25 2024

07/25/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0406
a USGS

science for a changing world — 1996 = !<=— 1997——>
a z Sampled
‘storms
Prepared in cooperation with the
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Stormflow Chemistry aaa

in the Santa Ana River
below Prado Dam and
at the Diversion Downstream

from Imperial Highway,
Southern California, 1995-98

Santa Ana R. at diversion down-
stream from Imperial Highway

Fullerton Dam
San Bernardino Flood Control

1.0
05 — Prado Dam = =
00 —— layliwilg

i Ll
n

2 hows—> — 24 hours > —=24 hours —>
10-30-1996 10-31-1996 111-1996

Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4127

———_—_—_——<—<——
———————
| Insecticides 9 Fe
U.S. Department of the Interior ;
U.S. Geological Survey =
ag —s
=
Herbicides

180160140120100 80 60 40 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100
EXHIBIT 18.1


Preferability Letter of Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Independent Registered Accounting Firm








February 2, 2011





TRC Companies, Inc.


21 Griffin Road North


Windsor, CT 06095





Dear Sirs/Madams:


At your request, we have read the description included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 24, 2010, of the facts relating to the change in date for your annual goodwill impairment test.  We believe, on the basis of the facts so set forth and other information furnished to us by appropriate officials of the Company, that the accounting change described in your Form 10-Q is to an alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the circumstances.


We have not audited any consolidated financial statements of TRC Companies, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period subsequent to June 30, 2010. Therefore, we are unable to express, and we do not express, an opinion on the facts set forth in the above-mentioned Form 10-Q, on the related information furnished to us by officials of the Company, or on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of TRC Companies, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period subsequent to June 30, 2010.


Yours truly,


/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP


Boston, MA
```

[110th Congress Public Law 228]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ228.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 753]]

Public Law 110-228
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
         To provide for extensions of leases of certain land by 
 Mashantucket <<NOTE: May 8, 2008 -  [S. 2457]>> Pequot (Western) Tribe.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 25 USC 1757a.>> EXTENSIONS OF LEASES OF CERTAIN 
                              LAND BY MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT 
                              (WESTERN) TRIBE.

    (a) In General.--Any lease of restricted land of the Mashantucket 
Pequot (Western) Tribe (referred to in this section as the ``Tribe'') 
entered into on behalf of the Tribe by the tribal corporation of the 
Tribe chartered pursuant to section 17 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 
U.S.C. 477), may include an option to renew the lease for not more than 
2 additional terms, each of which shall not exceed 25 years, subject 
only to the approval of the tribal council of the Tribe.
    (b) Liability of United States.--The United States shall not be 
liable to any party for any loss resulting from a renewal of a lease 
entered into pursuant to subsection (a).
    (c) Prohibition on Gaming Activities.--No entity may conduct any 
gaming activity (within the meaning of section 4 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)) pursuant to a claim of inherent 
authority or any Federal law (including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
(25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and any regulations promulgated by the 
Secretary of the Interior or the National Indian Gaming Commission 
pursuant to that Act) on any land that is leased with an option to renew 
the lease in accordance with this section.

    Approved May 8, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2457:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110-611 (Comm. on Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            Feb. 5, considered and passed Senate.
            Apr. 29, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
No. 46385.

#### Protests 849337-G, etc., of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Olivee, P. J.

It was stipulated that the brushes in question are the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 34593. The •claim that they are dutiable as brushes, not specially provided for, at 50 percent under paragraph 1506 was therefore sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-7676 VIELKA DUDLEY, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-7857 VIELKA DUDLEY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-88-11-A) Submitted: April 14, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Vielka Dudley, Appellant Pro Se. Gordon Dean Kromberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant Vielka Dudley appeals from the district court's orders denying her motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) for the return ofproperty seized from her as part of a criminal investigation and denying her motions for reconsideration.* The record shows that Dudley'sproperty was seized by the United States Customs Service on December 20, 1987. Dudley did not bring the instant claim until September 5, 1997. The district court found that Dudley's claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (1994). A postconviction motion for return of property seized as part of a criminal investigation brought under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) is an equitable civil action. See United States v. Garcia , 65 F.3d 17, 20-21(4th Cir. 1995). Such an action is subject to the general six-year statute of limitations for suits brought against the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). Dudley's cause of action accrued on December 20, 1987, the date her property was seized. B ecause Dudley's claim was not filed until 1997, almost ten years after the seizure, her claim is barred by the statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Dudley's claim as barred by limitations and the court's denial of Dudley's motions for reconsideration. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-

_________________________________________________________________ *Dudley also appealed from the district court order denying her motion for postconviction relief. Her appeals were consolidated, and in her informal brief, Dudley failed to raise any issues as to the denial of her motion for postconviction relief. Accordingly, this claim has been waived. See 4th Cir. Local R. 34(b). Thus, we affirm the district court's order as to this claim. 2als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
<PAGE>
                                                            EXHIBIT (4)(c)(4)

MELLON BUSINESS CREDIT                             Mellon Bank Center
                                                   1735 Market Street
February 6, 1996                                   6th Floor
                                                   Philadelphia, PA 19101-7899

Mr. William C. Massie
Vice President-Finance
B.B. Walker Company
414 East Dixie Drive
Asheboro, NC 27203

Dear Mr. Massie:

As we have previously discussed, Mellon Bank has agreed to modify the 
financial covenants of B.B. Walker for the period ending October 31, 1995 and 
subsequent periods.  These covenant changes are outlined on the attached term 
sheet along with various changes to the structure of the loan facility.  The 
modifications were based on the Company's draft audited financial statements 
results for the fiscal year ended October 31, 1995 and the Company's 
projections for fiscal 1996.

These are the only amendments to the Credit Agreement contemplated at this 
time.  All the other terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement remain in 
full force and effect.

The Amendment to the Credit Agreement formalizing these changes is now being 
prepared by Ben Howell of Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay.

Sincerely,

ROGER D. ATTIX

Roger D. Attix
Vice President


cc:   Rogers Anderson
      Price Waterhouse





<PAGE>
                                  TERM SHEET
                              B.B. WALKER COMPANY
                       Loan Restructure of February 1996



                         Original                 As Approved
                         --------                 -----------

Revolving Line          $20,000,000               $16,000,000

Inventory Sublimit      $9,000,000 May-Sept       $8,000,000 Jan-Mar; Aug-Oct
                        $8,000,000 Apr & Oct      $7,000,000 Apr-July; Nov-Dec
                        $7,000,000 Mar & Nov      $300,000   Retail
                        $6,500,000 Dec-Feb
                        $300,000   Retail

Seasonal Overadvances   $750,000 March-Nov        $500,000 Oct-March

Stockholder Notes       $750,000 Minimum          $1,100,000 Minimum (If level
                                                  falls below $1,200,000 - 
                                                  seasonal overadvance becomes 
                                                  unavailable)

Pricing-Revolver        Prime + .50%              Prime + 1.00%
  LIBOR Option          Yes                       No
  Performance Pricing   Yes                       Tied to reaching original 
                                                  covenants as projected in 
                                                  August, 1995.

  Collateral Mgt. Fee   $16,000                   $36,000
  Overadvance Fee       $15,000                   $10,000
  Restructure Fee       $N/A                      $25,000


All other terms and conditions to remain unchanged.

<PAGE>
Case No. 8,657.

#### McAllister v. Douglas et al.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 241.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1805.2

Contracts — Nondelivery—Value of Article-Measure of Damages.

The value of the article on the day the cause of action accrued, is the true measure of damages for not delivering it according to contract.

Assumpsit on a special contract respecting flour.

Mr. Lee, for defendant,

prayed the court to instruct the jury, that they ought to regulate the damages according to the price of flour on the day when the flour ought to have been delivered, and cited the following cases: Groves v. Graves, 1 Wash. [Va.] 1; Dutch v. Warren, 1 Pow. Cont. 337. The contract was as follows, viz.: “Will you receive my flour on the following terms, viz.: Whenever a load of flour is delivered, should any cooperage be wanting, you charge it to the wagoner and deduct it from the carriage; you will credit me with the highest market price at the time of delivery, and note it on the receipt, and any balance of flour that may remain in your hands unpaid, as it is delivered, you will pay me when I send for it, or deliver as much flour as coming to me, at my option. It is understood, that in case the flour is delivered, storage is to be allowed and charged at sixpence per barrel. Agreed: Given undér our hands. Alexandria, April 27, 1803. Douglas & Mandeville. John Mc-Allister.”

The plaintiff, on the 14th of October, gave notice to the defendants of his option to receive the flour specifically, but gave time to the defendants till the 19th of November, when the flour not being delivered, the plaintiff, on the 21st of November, brought this suit.

Mr. Jones, contra.

There was no specific *1204day for the delivery of the flour; when the demand of flour was made, it only showed the plaintiff’s option to take flour, and created a duty in Douglas & Mandeville to deliver flour on demand. It was a continuing contract; therefore the damages ought to be the highest price at any time after demand and before verdict. Plaintiff might have sold the flour much higher. Defendants did actually sell much higher.

2

 [Affirmed in 3 Cranch (7 U. S.) 298.]

THE COURT

being divided

(FITZHUGH. Circuit Judge, absent),

the instruction was not given. KILTY, Chief Judge, thought no instruction should be given to the jury. CRANCH, Chief Judge, was of opinion that the jury should be instructed that they ought to make the price of flour on the day of demand and refusal, and interest thereon, the rule of damages for the non-delivery.

The jury gave damages according to the price on the 19th of November, which was the day the cause of action accrued, the negotiation for a compromise having on that day failed.

Judgment affirmed by supreme court, 3 Cranch [7 U. S.) 298.
Served: March 13 , 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 1 3 th day of March , 2014

Essential Air Service at

CRESCENT CITY, CALIFORNIA

Under 49 U.S. C. § 47131 et seq. DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 199 7

- 2649



### NOTICE EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS

By O rder 2014

- 2

- 4 , issued on February 5, 2014 , the Department requested proposals for

Essential Air Service (EAS) at Crescent City

, California, with proposals d ue no later than

March 13 , 2014. On March 13 , 2014, SkyWest Airlines requested a n extension to the deadline

until March 21, 2014

.

We will grant the extension request. Proposals for Crescent City, California

, are now due

March 2 1

, 2014.

KEVIN D. SCHLEMMER

Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis Division

An electronic version of this document is available at

http://www.regulations.gov U N

I T E D S

T A T E S O F A

M E R I C A D E P A R T M E N T O F T R A N S P O R T A T

I O

N
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. LEROY McCOY, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

4 USCMA 700, 16 CMR 274

No. 4933

Decided September 24, 1954

Lt Col George M. Thorpe, U. S. Army, and 1st Lt Jackson L. Kiser, U. S. Army, for Appellant.

Lt Col William R. Ward, U. S. Army, and 1st Lt Benjamin C. Flanna-gan, U. S. Army, for Appellee.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

By this appeal the accused challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of the wrongful use of narcotics. Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 USC § 728. The sole basis of this contention is the scientific unreliability of the tests upon which identification of the drug was made. This issue is disposed of by our decision in United States v. Ford, 4 USCMA 611, 16 CMR 185, wherein we recognized both the reliability of such evidence and its sufficiency to support a finding of guilty.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
**Agricultural      Bank of China**

**Loan      Certificate (2)**

| Applicant                             |   | Shenzhen                BAK Battery Co., Ltd             |   | ID                card of the Applicant            |   |                                                |
|---------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| Currency                              |   | RMB                                                      |   | Amount                                             |   | 30,000,000.00                                       |
| Loan                Term              |   | From                October 11, 2007 to January 25, 2009 |
| Usage                                 |   | Purchase                equipments and machines          |
| Annual                rate            |   | 7.65%                                                    |
| Reference                Contract No. |   | 81101200600001989                                        |   | Reference                Guaranty Contract No.     |   | 81901200600001462;                81902200600005528 |
| Stamp                of Applicant     |   |                                                     |   | Stamp                of Agricultural Bank of China |   |                                                |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                            
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          54,588
<SECURITIES>                                    12,879
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,707
<ALLOWANCES>                                       433
<INVENTORY>                                     14,985
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,377
<PP&E>                                         103,307
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,911
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 179,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,100
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,394
<OTHER-SE>                                     139,489
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   179,212
<SALES>                                        173,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               173,678
<CGS>                                           85,571
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,571
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 306
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,956
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,216
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,740
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,740
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .89
        

</TABLE>