alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 8,088.

#### L’ARINA v. The EXCHANGE.

[Bee, 198.] 1

District Court, D. South Carolina.

July, 1803.

Seamen’s Wages — Nominal Master — Sum Agreed to be Paid on Discharge.

A person hired for a particular purpose as nominal captain is entitled to wages agreed upon with the real captain, and so far the vessel and owners are bound. But not for a further sum in case of discharge.

[Cited in Thomas v. Osborn, 19 How. (60 U. S.) 45; The Dubuque, Case No. 4,110; Peterson v. The Nellie and Annie, 37 Fed. 218.]

At a summary hearing of this case, a plea to the jurisdiction of the court was urged, because the actor being master of the vessel could not sue in the admiralty or make her liable for his wages, his remedy being against the owners only. It' appeared» in evidence that the actor was merely called master of the brig, but never was considered so, or acted as such, except by lending his name to clear the vessel at the Havanna. An agreement was produced between him and Manwaring, the real captain, that he should receive fifty dollars per month, to proceed to Charleston, and return to the Ha-vanna; unless he should be discharged, or the voyage should be altered: in either ease he was to receive 200 dollars, over and above his wages.

In considering the case. THE COURT decided that the actor never was captain in fact, and therefore not barred from suing here. That the agreement for monthly wages was binding on the owners; and the vessel liable, as far as that amount That the words ‘‘unless discharged” gave Manwaring a clear right to discharge him; and that by doing so, Manwaring became personally lia*1149ble, at common law, for tbe said sum of 200 dollars. That tbe owners were in no manner bound for tbe same.

[NOTE. It was subsequently decided in the suit brought by the plaintiff against Manwaring to recover the $200 that the matter was .a subject for common-law jurisdiction, and could not properly be brought in admiralty. Case No. 8,0S9.]

1

 [Reported by Hon. Thomas Bee, District Judge.]

THE COURT

adjudged accordingly, that tbe brig was liable to tbe amount agreed upon as monthly wages; with costs.
#### Frank Barzizza *v.*United States

No. 6491.

Entry No. 43.

Invoice dated Naples, Italy, September 28, 1936.

Certified October 1, 1936.

Entered at Memphis, Tenn., December 14, 1936.

(Decided November 6, 1946)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement covers certain peeled tomatoes in tins imported from Italy.

The uncontradicted evidence discloses:

1. That said tomatoes are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Luigi Vitelli Elvea, Inc.,*11 Cust. Ct. 437, Reap. Dec. 5941; that the issues in the. two cases are the same; and that the record in the cited case has been incorporated herein.

2. That said tomatoes, at the time of the exportation thereof, were freely offered for sale to all purchasers in Naples (one of the principal markets in Italy) in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, packed ready for shipment, at the unit invoice prices herein, less 2 per centum swell allowance, less nondutiable charges as checked in red ini;: on the invoice by the appraiser, and that there was no foreign value thereof as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

I therefore find the proper basis of value for the merchandise here under consideration to be the export value thereof, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of said act, and that such values are as above described.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 54915.

#### McKesson & Robbins, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 161172-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantitites reported by the inspector as not landed were not in fact landed. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as not landed. The protest was sustained to this extent.
#### Ed. Schuster & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7465.

Invoice dated Brussels, Belgium, June 11, 1946.

Certified June 11, 1946.

Entered at Milwaukee, Wis., August 14, 1946.

Entry No. 101.

(Decided December 5, 1947)

*Wallace & Schwarts (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard PL. Welsh,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of certain theatrical gauze imported from Belgium on June 28, 1946.

When this case was called for trial, the Government moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was untimely. The record shows that the notice of advance was mailed on October 2, 1946, and the appeal for reappraisement was filed on January 17, 1947. The appeal is therefore untimely having been filed more than 30 days after the date of mailing of written notice of appraisement (section 501 of the Tariff Act of 1930).

The motion to dismiss is granted.
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009, I, Kevin M.
Goodwin, Chief Executive Officer of SonoSite, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) such Annual Report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SonoSite, Inc.



/s/    KEVIN M. GOODWINKevin M. GoodwinPresident and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


March 26, 2010
(Reap. Dec. 9864)

#### Cosmic Radio Corp. Globe Shipping Co., Inc. v. United States

Entry Nos. 872730; 855551; 855552.

(Decided December 7, 1960)

Plaintiffs not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doul),*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LawRENce, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeals for a re-appraisement were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiffs and the cases were ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5(a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> Tbe submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         292,792
<SECURITIES>                                   579,439
<RECEIVABLES>                                  107,157
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,000)
<INVENTORY>                                     11,610
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               994,071
<PP&E>                                       7,529,355
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,452,423
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,075,188
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          455,055
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       791,782
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,032,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,075,188
<SALES>                                        111,515
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               603,015
<CGS>                                           58,539
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  497,832
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,542
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                105,183
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,377
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            100,806
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   100,806
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
No. 55524.

#### Railway Express Agency *v.*United States,

protest 153519-K (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

An examination of the official papers disclosing nothing to disturb the collector’s classification, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
Case No. 9,264.

#### MASSOLETTI v. MILLER.

[2 Cranch. C. C. 313.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1822.

Witness — Interest—Joint Owxeii or Vessel— Passage Mosey — Indemnity Given.

One of two joint owners of a vessel is a competent witness to prove a joint claim against a passenger in the vessel, for the passage-money, if the other joint owner has given credit in account for his share of the passage-money, and a release of a claim to recover it back in case he should not get it from the passenger.

This was an action for money had and received by the defendant, for goods of the plaintiff sold by the defendant on commission. The defendant claimed to set off the amount of passage-money due by the plaintiff to the defendant, and one Howland, who were joint owners of the brig Benefactor, for the plaintiff’s passage from Marseilles; and to prove this set-off, the defendant offered the other joint owner, Howland, as a witness, the defendant having credited him in account with his share of the passage-money, and given him a release from all claims which he might have *to recover*it back from How-land, in case the defendant should fail to get it from the plaintiff.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, contra)

decided that the witness was competent.
#### T. B. Lee Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6474.

Entry No. 732585, etc.

Invoices dated Manchester, England, November 26, 1941, etc.

Certified November 27, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 3, 1942, etc.

(Decided October 29, 1946)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*Pml P. Bao,*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 cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALFONSO ANDRADE HERNADEZ, AKA Alfonso Andrade Hernandez,

Petitioner,

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent. No. 15

- 71393

Agency No. A092

- 049

- 270

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 13, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY , M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Alfonso Andrade Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision ordering removal. We have jurisdiction under 8

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAR 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 71393

U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law

. Lopez

- Jacuinde v. Holder
,
600 F.3d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The agency correctly determined that Hernan d ez’s conviction under
California Health and Safety Code § 11378 , for possession for sale of
methamphetamine, is a drug trafficking aggravated felony u nder 8 U.S.C. §

1101 ( a )( 43 )( B )

. See Cabantac v. Holder, 736 F.3d 787, 793

- 94 (9th Cir. 2013) (per
curiam) (where “the abstract of judgment or minute order specifies that a defendant
pleaded guilty to a particular count of the criminal complaint or indictme nt, we can
consider the facts alleged in that count”); Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 976
(9th Cir. 2008) (“[P]ossession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell
contains a trafficking element and is an aggravated felony.”). The criminal
complaint, change of plea form, and change of plea minutes, read in conjunction
, establishes that the substance at issue was methamphetamine.
Hernandez’s contention that his no contest plea is insufficient to establish a

factual basis for his plea is foreclosed by this court’s precedent

. See Cabantac

, 736

F.3d at 794 ; U

nited S tates v. Valdavinos

- Torres , 704 F.3d 679, 686

- 89 (9th Cir.
2012).

The agency did not err in determining that Hernandez’s drug trafficking

offense is presumptively a particularly serious crime that renders him ineligible for
withholding of removal

. S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B) ; Miguel

- Miguel v. Gonzales
,3 15

- 71393

500 F.3d 941, 94 7

- 49 (9th Cir. 2007); Matter of Y

- L

- , 23 I

. & N

. Dec. 270 ( Op.

Att ’ y Gen. 2002) (creating a strong presumption that a drug trafficking offense
resulting in a sentence of less than five years is a “particularly serious crime” ).
Because these determinations are dispositive, we do not reach Hernandez’s
remaining contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcr oft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.
2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the
results they reach).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
(Reap. Dec. 9622)

#### Kussi & Feigl, Inc. Globe Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 960275-2, etc.

(Decided March 4, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson é Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> XT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the appeals for reappraisemnt listed in Schedule *“A”,*attached hereto and made a part hereof, are limited to the following items and are abandoned in all other respects:

> 3981 E Necklet

> 3981 EB Bracelet

> 7237 E Necklet

> 7237 EB Bracelet

> 3981 Necklet

> Bracelet 3981 B

> Necklet 7237

> Bracelet 7237 B

> Necklet 7223 E

> Bracelet 7223 EB

> Necklet 7342 E

> Bracelet 7342 EB

> Bracelet 3491

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that as so limited the issues are the same in all material respects as the issues involved in *Bert Friedberg & Company*v. *United States,*Reappt. Dec. 8590 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the prices at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual whole* sale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, 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 were the appraised unit values less 15.35% plus 1.01%.

In the cited case, the court held foreign value, as defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1980, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise there under consideration, and that such *595statutory value did not include the so-called “French sole or unique tax.”

On the agreed facts and following the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is statutory foreign value, and hold that such value for the items in question is the appraised unit values, less 15.35 per centum, plus 1.01 per centum. .

The appeals for reappraisement are dismissed as to all other merchandise.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00166-CV

GALVESTON COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT, Appellant

V.

ERICA HANLEY, Appellee

Appeal from the 56th District Court of Galveston County. (Tr. Ct. No. 12-CV-2314).

TO THE 56TH DISTRICT COURT OF GALVESTON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 4th day of December 2014, the case upon appeal to revise 

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is a statutory interlocutory appeal from the 

order signed by the trial court on February 19, 2014. After 

submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments 

properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was no 

reversible error in the trial court’s order. Accordingly, the 

Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that the appellant, Galveston County 

Health District, pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.
Judgment rendered December 4, 2014.

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Massengale.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

February 13, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
No. 56158.

protests 163697-K, etc. (New York).

#### Dalsheim Accessories, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 10.17

                                                                         Summary
                                                                         -------


Summary of Loan  Agreement by and between  Shenzhen  BAK Battery  Co.,  Ltd. and
Longgang Branch, Shenzhen Development Bank dated June 3, 2005.

Main contents:
>>   Contract number: Shenfa Longgang Dai Zi NO.20050603001.
>>   Loan Principal: RMB 12 million;
>>   Loan term: June 3, 2005 - April 30, 2006;
>>   Interest rate: fixed rate of 6.138%;
     |X|  Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 6.138% plus 50% *6.138%;
     |X|  Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 6.138% * 2;
>>   Repayment:  interest is payable monthly (20th);  principal is due April 30,
     2006;
>>   Purpose of the loan is to provide working capital for the Company;
>>   Advanced  repayment  of loan needs to be approved by  Development  bank and
     Development  Bank is  entitled  to charge a month's  interest  based on the
     prepaid loan principal as penalty;
>>   If any of the following  occurs,  Development Bank is entitled to terminate
     Loan Agreement 4 before its term and withdraw all loans provided and cancel
     all loans not yet provided under Loan Agreement 4:
     |X|  The Company terminates operation or is stopped from operation;
     |X|  The Company  provides  untrue  documents or hide  important  financial
          information about its operation;
     |X|  The Company  intentionally  evades bank debts by way of related  party
          transaction or other means;
     |X|  The Company uses loan proceeds for purposes  other than what is agreed
          without the consent of Development bank;
     |X|  Occurrence  of other  instances  which  endangers  or may endanger the
          safety of the loan provided by  Development  Bank under Loan Agreement
          4;
>>   Breach  of  contract  penalties:  suspension  of  loan  unprovided,  demand
     prepayment of loan principal and interest  before  maturity;  imposition of
     punitive  interest;  compensation for Development  bank's expenses incurred
     due to the Company's  breach of contract such as lawyer's fee,  travel cost
     in case of litigation, etc.
>>   Special  term:  If the Company  belongs to the group  client  category,  it
     should report to the Lender in writing  within 10 days from the  occurrence
     of any related party  transaction  involving more than 10% of the Company's
     net asset.

Terms that have been omitted:  loan arrangement;  Interest clearing of the loan;
drawing of the loan;  interest  penalty of loan;  rights and  obligation  of the
borrower;  rights and obligations of the lender;  expenses and service  charges;
settlement  account;   modification  and  termination  of  the  loan  agreement;
miscellaneous;  undertakings and  representations of the lender;  applicable law
and dispute settlement; validity; and attention.
Exhibit 10.8

                                                                         Summary
                                                                         -------



Summary of Loan  Agreement by and between  Shenzhen  BAK Battery  Co.,  Ltd. and
Longgang Branch, Agricultural Bank of China dated June 2, 2005

Main contents
>>   Contract number: Shenzhen Longgang Nong Jie Zi NO.81101200500000680.
>>   Loan Principal: RMB 15 million;
>>   Loan term: June 2nd, 2005---December 2nd, 2005
>>   Interest rate: fixed rate of 5.22%;
     |X|  Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 5.22% plus 50% *5.22%;
     |X|  Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 5.22% * 2;
>>   Repayment:  interest is payable  monthly  (20th) and  principal  is due six
     months from the date of the agreement;
>>   Purpose of the loan is to provide  working  capital  for the Company to buy
     raw material;
>>   Advanced repayment of loan needs to be approved by the Lender;
>>   Breach  of  contract  penalties:  suspension  of  loan  unprovided,  demand
     prepayment of loan principal and interest  before  maturity;  imposition of
     punitive  interest;  compensation for the Lender's expenses incurred due to
     the Company's  breach of contract such as lawyer's fee, travel cost in case
     of litigation, etc.

Terms that have been omitted:  types of the loan; clearing of the loan interest;
condition  precedent to the drawing of the loan;  rights and  obligations of the
borrower;  rights  and  obligations  of the  lender;  prepayment  of  the  loan;
guarantee  of  the  loan;  dispute  settlement;  miscellaneous;   effectiveness;
validity; and attention.
May 18, 1959

Reap. Dec. 9431.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

REHEARING MOTION GRANTED

Motion by plaintiff.