alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,224,313               2,010,236
<SECURITIES>                                   350,000                  50,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,672,823               2,775,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                   169,752                 157,772
<INVENTORY>                                    146,558                 221,124
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,074,230               5,015,813
<PP&E>                                       9,920,950               4,841,522
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,827,695               2,325,654
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,155,322              10,156,462
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,447,171               4,023,772
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                 400,000
<COMMON>                                    17,169,585               2,764,405
<OTHER-SE>                                   (911,612)              (3,548,226)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,155,322              10,156,462
<SALES>                                     28,901,604                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,901,604              23,260,082
<CGS>                                       12,031,532                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,590,163              10,222,651
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,950              10,105,317
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             344,163                 648,640
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,039,088                 232,203
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,564,242                (666,125)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,474,846                (395,358)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,458,846                (395,358)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30                   (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
No. 45188.

#### Protests 893502-G, etc., of S. H. Kress & Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Rockingham earthenware similar to that the subject of *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303). The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 210 was therefore sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-26-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              OCT-27-1996
<CASH>                                        564,376 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                              26,898,078 
<ALLOWANCES>                                1,002,000 
<INVENTORY>                                17,921,959 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           85,819,888       
<PP&E>                                    153,083,432      
<DEPRECIATION>                             65,260,957    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            246,422,066      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      36,417,756    
<BONDS>                                   100,289,731  
<COMMON>                                       96,420 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<OTHER-SE>                                 96,723,540       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              246,422,066         
<SALES>                                    44,109,627          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          151,144,902          
<CGS>                                      35,830,680          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             169,843,581          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          4,332,348       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            15,027,225       
<INCOME-TAX>                                5,710,500      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         9,316,725      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                9,316,725 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.97 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.97 
        

</TABLE>
south bend airport 

APPENDIX D: LETTERS OF SUPPORT 

C 3 

CITY OF SOUTH BEND "^ 

STEP1!EN J. LUECKE, MAYOR 

OFFICE OF THE MAVO^^g^^j 24.2010 

Secretary Ray LaHood 

United States Department of Transponation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Support of the South Bend Regional Airport Application for Funding Under the 

Department of Transponation Small Comniunity Air Service Development Program 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

On behalf of City of South Bend, I am delighted to suppor. the Small Community Air 

Service Development Grant application submitted by the St. Joseph County Airport Authority 

for marketing fiinding to encourage a new carrier to enter the South Bend market with non-stop 

scrv'icc to Denver, CO. 

Air service development is important for the economic health of our region. Businesses 

and residents must have access to the global transportation s>'stem at affordable fares. South 

Bend Regional Airport's importance to the Michiana region caimot be overstated. Oiir quahty of 

life is linked to the airport's growth now and in the future. 

This application is an excellent opportunity for St. Joseph County end Michiana to 

leverage scarce resources to help develop air service at South Bend Airport by supporting this 

application under the Small Community Air Service Development Grant program. 

The potential benefit to our community is great. We urge you to ftilly fund the request 

from the South Bend Regional Airport. 

Sincerely, 

CO 

> 

Stephen J. Uiecke 

Mayor 

CoUNTY-ClTT BUILDtNC • 227 W jF.FFETliON B0UIEVA.^D • SOUIH DENO. I.'-OIASA 46001 

PHONE 574/235-9261 • FA.X 574/235-9892 

South Bend Regional Airport, South Bend, Indiana 

Small Community Air Service Development Program Proposal - 2010 

45
Case No. 8,639.

#### The LYNCHBURG.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 659.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

July 17, 1863.2

Pkize —Condemnation- Pkooeedings — FuitTHEit Pboof.

Decree of the district court, so far as it condemned the vessel and all of the cargo except 504 bags of coffee, affirmed. As to the 504 bags of coffee, further argument ordered as to tne proprietary interest therein; and either party allowed to produce further proof upon it.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.]

[This was a suit for the condemnation of the schooner Lynchburg and her cargo, captured by the United States steamship Quaker City. A decree for claimants was entered (Case No. 8037a), and an appeal is prosecuted therefrom.]

2

 [Affirming Case No. 8,G37a.]

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

There is no dispute in this case that the vessel, and also a *1177portion of the cargo, belong to citizens of Virginia and residents of Richmond. The ' cargo consisted of coffee, of which 2,045 bags are claimed by Brown Brothers & Co., of New York, citizens of a loyal state. Of these, 1,541 bags were restored to them, and the residue were condemned. I desire to hear a further argument upon the question as to the proprietary interest in the residue off the 2,045 bags of coffee, beyond the 1,541 claimed by Brown Brothers & Co., and either party may produce further proof upon it.

The decree below is affirmed as to the vessel, and all of the cargo except the residue of the 2,045 bags of coffee, after the restoration of the 1,541 bags.
#### Brooks Brothers *v.*United States

No. 6445.

Entry No. 724415, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, September 12, 1941, etc.

Certified September 17, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 13, 1941, etc.

(Decided October 17, 1946)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

*Paul 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.
(Reap. Dec. 9020)

Entry No. 763928.

#### Colonia, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided November 8, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

This case has been submitted for decision upon stipulation of counsel to the effect that the market values or the *696prices at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement herein 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 wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the costs 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 values, set forth in German deutschemarks per dozen, as shown in red ink on the invoices, less 20 per centum, less 3 per centum, packed, and that the export values thereof, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, were no higher than the said values.

On the agreed facts I find foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c), as amended, of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise involved, and that such value as to each item is the appraised value set forth in German deutschemarks per dozen, as shown in red ink on the invoices, less 20 per centum, less 3 per centum, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Spencer DURHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-2481.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Sept. 22, 2005.

James Barz, Office of The United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard H. Parsons, Johanna M. Christiansen, Office of The Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before FAIRCHILD, POSNER, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

After we ordered a limited remand, *see United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); *United States v. Paladino,*401 F.3d 471, 484 (7th Cir.2005), the district judge informed us that she would have imposed the same sentence on Spencer Durham had she known the sentencing guidelines were advisory. Because that sentence fell within the correctly calculated guidelines range, it was presumptively reasonable. *See United States v. Mykytiuk,*415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). Since Durham filed no response to rebut that presumption and our independent review uncovers nothing to suggest unreasonableness, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.1

                 NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED BY TRANSFER AGENT
                    INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF

                                    FLORIDA

       NUMBER                                                            SHARES

                             americabilia.com, Inc.

                                                           CUSIP NO. 023658 10 7

                  AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK: 50,000,000 SHARES
                               PAR VALUE: $.001


THIS CERTIFIES THAT


IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF


                 Shares of americabilia.com, Inc. Common Stock
transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized
attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This
Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and
registered by the Registrar.

         Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile
                  signatures of its duly authorized officers.

Dated:

/s/ ILLEGIBLE                                                 /s/ ILLEGIBLE
------------------                                            -----------------
         SECRETARY                                                    PRESIDENT

                                    [SEAL]


INTERWEST TRANSFER CO. INC. P.O. BOX 17136/SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84117



COUNTERSIGNED & REGISTERED   /s/ ILLEGIBLE
                             ------------------
                             COUNTERSIGNED Transfer Agent--Authorized Signature
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Structure of the Residential Building Industry in 1949

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Structure of the Residential Building Industry in 1949 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1170*,												Washington: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										November 1954,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4475,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-1775

___________________________

Gabriel Cassell

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

The County of Ramsey; Ramsey County 

District Court Administration; Ramsey 

County Guardian Ad Litem Program; Ramsey 

County Child Support Enforcement; Susan Gaertner, 

Ramsey County Attorney; Attorney Autumn Tomkins; 

Joan Fitzgerald; Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin; Judge John T. 

Finley; Judge Steven D. Wheeler; Judge Edward J. Cleary; 

Judge M. Michael Monahan; Judge George T. Stephenson; 

Judge Dale B. Lindman; Judge John Van De North; 

Judge Diane Alshouse; Referee Charles H. Williams, Jr.; 

Referee Mary E. Madden; Magistrate Brad A. Johnson; 

Magistrate Colia F. Ceisel; Olivia Jassah Cassell; 

Attorney Julie L. La Fleur; Attorney Amanda L. Hagen; and 

Hansen Dordell Bradt Odlaug & Bradt, PLLC

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: November 6, 2012

Filed: November 7, 2012

[Unpublished]

____________
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Gabriel Cassell appeals the district court’s1

 judgment granting defendants’

motions to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, and denying as moot his motion for

a preliminary injunction. Following careful review, we conclude that Cassell’s

complaint, which sought to overturn state-court rulings made in the course of five

years of child custody and support litigation, was properly dismissed. See Skit Int’l,

Ltd. v. DAC Tech. of Ark., Inc., 487 F.3d 1154, 1156-57 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo

review of district court’s dismissal under Rooker-Feldman2

 doctrine, which prohibits

lower federal courts from exercising appellate review of state-court judgments);

Fielder v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 188 F.3d 1031, 1035-36 (8th Cir. 1999) (generally

no fraud exception to Rooker-Feldman); see also Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v.

Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1982) (no federal interference with

pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Tony N.

Leung, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2

See Dist. of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker

v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).

-2-
# C_2022171EN.01003601.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/36

---

Order of the General Court of 22 February 2022 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) and Others v Commission and ECB

(Case T-161/15) (1)

(Action for damages - Economic and monetary policy - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Equal treatment - Principle of proportionality - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 171/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and the 18 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the order (represented by: R. Nowinski, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, M. Konstantinidis and S. Delaude, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (represented by: K. Laurinavičius and M. Szablewska, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the decision of the Commission and the ECB to subject to certain conditions the grant of a financial assistance facility to the Republic of Cyprus.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---
No. 49425.

#### Protest 52588-K of Butler Bros. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the hearing a buyer for the plaintiff testified that the harmonicas in question, consisting of 8 reeds or more, were the same as exhibits 1 and 2 in the decision covered by Abstract 40586, which record was incorporated herein. The protest was sustained to this extent.
EXHIBIT 23



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-78075, 333-61617, 333-42890, 333-42976 and 333-88048 of US LEC Corp. on
Form S-8, in Registration Statement No. 333-111536 and 333-115545 on Form S-3, of our report dated March 10, 2005, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of US LEC Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2004.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|Charlotte, North Carolina
|March 10, 2005
|                                                      |   |             |   |   |              |   |   |      |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------|--------|--------|-------------------|--------|--------|-----------|--------|
|                                                      |   | Six Months Ended |   |   | Fiscal Year Ended |   |
|                                                      |   | 2/28/2011        |   |   | 2/28/2010         |   |   | 8/31/2010 |   |
| Income before income taxes and minority interest          |   |             | 2,110  |   |              | $      | 1,839  |      |   | $ | 3,373 |   |
| Add:                                                      |   |             |   |   |              |   |   |      |   |   |   |   |
| Minority interest                                         |   |             | -      |   |              |   | -      |      |   |   | - |   |
| Fixed charges                                             |   |             | 582    |   |              |   | 526    |      |   |   | 1,100 |   |
| Less: Capitalized interest                                |   |             | (5     | )      |              |   | (5     | )         |   |   | (12 | ) |
| Earnings as defined                                       |   |             | 2,687  |   |              | $      | 2,360  |      |   | $ | 4,461 |   |
|                                                      |   |             |   |   |              |   |   |      |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense, net of capitalized interest             |   |             | 38     |   |              | $      | 43     |      |   | $ | 90 |   |
| Capitalized interest                                      |   |             | 5      |   |              |   | 5      |      |   |   | 12 |   |
| Portions of rentals representative of the interest factor |   |             | 539    |   |              |   | 478    |      |   |   | 998 |   |
| Fixed charges as defined                                  |   |             | 582    |   |              | $      | 526    |      |   | $ | 1,100 |   |
|                                                      |   |             |   |   |              |   |   |      |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        |   |             | 4.62   |   |              |   | 4.49   |      |   |   | 4.06 |   |