alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Third Division,

September 30, 1942

No. 47615.

#### Protests 999033-G, etc., of R. L. Albert & Sons, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 thé court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.46

                                 March 21, 2000


PROVANT, Inc.
67 Batterymarch Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA  02110

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         Effective immediately, I hereby resign as Chairman of the Board, Chief
Executive Officer and an employee of PROVANT, Inc. ("PROVANT"). I shall remain a
member of the Board of Directors of PROVANT. In exchange for the benefits
described on the attached Exhibit, I hereby agree that my existing employment
contract with PROVANT is terminated (except for the non-competition and
confidentiality clauses) and all stock options that I have received from PROVANT
are terminated and shall be surrendered to PROVANT. I will continue to keep my
warrants to acquire PROVANT stock. Such benefits shall be made available to me
promptly upon (a) delivery by me of a general release in favor of PROVANT and a
special release relating to age discrimination claims and (b) expiration of the
statutory revocation period with respect to the special release.



                                             /s/ Paul M. Verrochi
                                             ---------------------------------
                                             Paul M. Verrochi
<PAGE>   2
                                     EXHIBIT


         1. I shall be paid in cash the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000).

         2. My automobile allowance and parking benefits shall continue until
May 4, 2001.

         3. PROVANT shall pay all of my medical insurance premiums during the
period I am entitled to coverage under COBRA.
(Reap. Dec. 9035)

Entry No. 760950.

#### Davies, Turner & Co. *v.*United States

(Decided December 20, 1957)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

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

LawbeNCE, Judge:

The question of the proper dutiable value of certain electrical articles imported from England is presented by the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement.

A stipulation of fact has been entered into by the parties hereto wherein it has been agreed that, at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise, there was no foreign, export, or United States value for such or similar merchandise and that the cost of production of said articles, within the purview of section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f)), is as follows:

> Item Cost of production

> Superb Electric Immersion Heaters £0.4.3

> Es—Es Electric Immersion Thermostat Major £0.8.0

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f), *supra,*is the proper basis of value for the articles in issue and that said value is as above set forth.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2017277EN.01003401.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Sistema Teknolotzis v Commission

(Case T-234/15) (1)

1

((Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Grant agreements for the PlayMancer, Mobiserv and PowerUp projects - Article 299 TFEU - Enforceable decision - Actions for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Proportionality - Duty of diligence - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 277/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sistema Teknolotzis AE — Efarmogon Ilektronikis kai Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Georgilas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and L. Di Paolo, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Politis, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 1677 final of 10 March 2015 constituting writ of execution for the enforced recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 716 334,05 together with interest.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sistema Teknolotzis AE — Efarmogon Ilektronikis kai Pliroforikis to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sistema Teknolotzis AE — Efarmogon Ilektronikis kai Pliroforikis to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

1

---
Exhibit 10.6

----

|   | Joseph Masters |                         |
|--------|----------------|------------------------------|
|   |           |                         |   |
|   | By:            | /s/ Joseph      Masters |   |
|   |           | Joseph      Masters          |   |
|   |           |                         |   |
|   |           |                         |   |

|   | URS      Corporation,a Delaware corporation |                                |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|   |                                        |                                |   |
|   | By:                                         | /s/ H.      Thomas Hicks       |   |
|   |                                        | Name:      H. Thomas Hicks          |   |
|   |                                        | Title:      Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |                                        |                                |   |

----
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

ROBERT C. TINDALL 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2776-96-1 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 

LYNNE L. TINDALL 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 

Alan E. Rosenblatt, Judge 

 (Moody E. Stallings, Jr.; Kevin E. 

Martin-Gayle; Stallings & Richardson, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 (Glenn R. Croshaw; T. Scott McGraw; Willcox & 

Savage, on brief), for appellee. 

 Robert C. Tindall (husband) appeals the decision of the 

circuit court denying his motion to reduce the monthly spousal 

support he pays to Lynne L. Tindall (wife). Husband contends 

that the trial court erred in finding that he failed to prove a 

material change in circumstances, warranting a reduction in 

spousal support. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the 

parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. 

See Rule 5A:27. 

 As the party seeking a modification of spousal support 

pursuant to Code § 20-109, husband bore the burden "to prove both 

a material change in circumstances and that this change warrants 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

a modification of support." Schoenwetter v. Schoenwetter, 8 Va. 

App. 601, 605, 383 S.E.2d 28, 30 (1989). Husband stipulated that 

he remained able to pay $4,000 a month in spousal support as 

previously ordered. He argued, however, that wife had reduced 

her monthly expenses, and that the reduction in her needs 

constituted changed circumstances warranting a decrease in 

support. 

 According to the statement of facts, the evidence 

established that wife sold the former marital residence which she 

had received upon entry of the final decree of divorce. She used 

the proceeds from the sale to purchase a condominium, thereby 

eliminating her mortgage payments. Wife testified that this 

action was a form of "estate planning" designed to hold down her 

monthly expenses. 

 The evidence also proved that when wife's monthly mortgage 

payment ceased, her tax liability increased by $300 to $400 per 

month because she could no longer claim the related interest 

deduction. Furthermore, the statement of facts recites that 

"[w]ith other expenses increasing and the loss of the mortgage 

deduction, the expenses of the [wife] had not changed 

significantly since 1992." On this evidence the trial court 

found that husband failed to prove that there had been a material 

change in circumstances. 

 Because the statement of facts recites evidence that 

supports the order, the judgment of the trial court is summarily 
 3 

affirmed. Affirmed.
Before the Second Division,

January 30, 1940

No. 43146.

#### Protest 987136-G of Butler Bros. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Minami*v. *United States*(1 Cust. Ct. 307, C. D. 72) the wreaths in question were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 353 as claimed.
(Reap. Dec. 9432)

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 12428.

(Decided May 26, 1959)

*Lawrence*<6 *Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain cigarette lighters exported from Japan and entered at the port of San Francisco, Calif.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for these cigarette lighters is $1.86 per dozen ex-factory, plus packing, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 49832.

#### Protest 76268-K of Pistorino & Co., Inc. (Boston).

Opipion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it appeared that the importer and his wife, both of whom are naturalized citizens of the United States, having immigrated from Italy, maintained a home on Cape Cod and during the winter season conducted a shop in Bermuda and rented a furnished home. Because of inadequate furnishings various pieces were taken from the Bermuda shop to the home there and some of these articles had come from their home in Italy and had been in the wife’s possession for more than a generation. From the record presented it appeared the 77 pieces of glass tableware in question, 71 pieces of decorated earthenware, and 41 pieces of decorated china tableware, although acquired abroad, were in the home of the plaintiffs in Bermuda for many years. When the plaintiffs’ business affairs were settled, they returned to the United States ■with their household effects, which were, therefore, entitled to free entry under paragraph 1632. It also appeared that 5 pieces of decorated chinaware statuettes and a dog’s day bed or crib set were taken by the plaintiffs out of the United States 'to Bermuda and when returned were, therefore, entitled to free entry under paragraph 1798. In view of the entire record the court directed the collector to reliquidate the entry, making refund of all duties taken upon the foregoing named articles.
#### Person & Weidhorn *v.*United States

No. 6464.

Entry No. 718014, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, November 1944, etc.

Certified December 1944, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 8, 1945, etc.

(Decided October 28, 1946)

*Alfred Ride*for the plaintiff.

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

Kincheloe, 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 importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar eases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Leah Nivison,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respectof the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the GS Mortgage SecuritiesTrust 2016-GS2 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Midland LoanServices, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as OperatingAdvisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer for theVeritas Multifamily Pool 1 Mortgage Loan, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Special Servicer for the Veritas Multifamily Pool 1 MortgageLoan, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee for the Veritas MultifamilyPool 1 Mortgage Loan, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator for the Veritas Multifamily Pool 1 Mortgage Loan, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Custodian for the Veritas Multifamily Pool 1Mortgage Loan, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as ServicingFunction Participant for the Veritas Multifamily Pool 1 Mortgage Loan, andNational Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant for the VeritasMultifamily Pool 1 Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 23, 2018

 

 

/s/ Leah Nivison

 

 

Chief ExecutiveOfficer

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
# C_2017014EN.01001201.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Timothy Martin Hemming, trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd’ and Others v Westminster City Council

(Case C-316/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 13(2) - Authorisation procedures - Concept of charges which may be incurred))

(2017/C 014/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: The Queen, on the application of: Timothy Martin Hemming, trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd’, James Alan Poulton, Harmony Ltd, Gatisle Ltd, trading as ‘Janus’, Winart Publications Ltd, Darker Enterprises Ltd, Swish Publications Ltd

Defendant: Westminster City Council

Interveners: The Architects’ Registration Board, The Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, The Bar Standards Board, The Care Quality Commission, The Farriers’ Registration Council, The Law Society, The Bar Council, The Local Government Association, Her Majesty’s Treasury

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the requirement for the payment of a fee, at the time of submitting an application for the grant or renewal of authorisation, part of which corresponds to the costs relating to the management and enforcement of the authorisation scheme concerned, even if that part is refundable if that application is refused.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

---
No. 45226.

#### Protests 953345-G, etc., of Western Novelty Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the loving cups in question are similar to those passed upon in Abstract 43785. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was therefore sustained.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from B.B.
Walker's Form 10-Q for the second quarter of fiscal 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000104218
<NAME> B.B. WALKER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          0CT-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-01-1999
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,712
<ALLOWANCES>                                       717
<INVENTORY>                                      9,294
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,416
<PP&E>                                           8,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,546
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         83
<COMMON>                                         1,726
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,146
<SALES>                                         12,598
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,721
<CGS>                                            9,030
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,478
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   150
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (216)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (216)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (216)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
May 24, 1944

No. 49444.

#### Protest 48640-K of Ti Hang Lung & Co.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-78075, 333-61617, 333-42890 and 333-42976 of US LEC Corp. on Form S-8 andin Registration Statement No. 333-111536 on Form S-3, of our report dated March 22, 2004, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of US LEC Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Charlotte, NorthCarolina 

March 23, 2004
#### Tommy WALKER, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry BRIGGS, Frank Simonelli, and Paul Kaczor, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 04-2357.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Sept. 23, 2005.

Tommy Walker, Lewisburg, PA, for Appellant, pro se.

Charles N. Brown, First Assistant Corporation Counsel (Linda Sullivan Fatata, Corporation Counsel, on the brief), Corporation Counsel’s Office, City of Utica, Utica, NY, for Appellees.

PRESENT: CARDAMONE, CABRANES and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 23rd day of September, two thousand and five.

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff *pro se*Tommy Walker appeals from a judgment, entered March 25, 2004, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after a bench trial held before Magistrate Judge Gustave J. DiBianco. The District Court denied plaintiffs claims that (1) the search of his girlfriend’s apartment on November 18, 1988 was conducted in violation of plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights; and (2) the statements plaintiff made later that day while in police custody were coerced in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.

We have reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and considered all of plaintiffs arguments on appeal and find each of them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.