alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9860)

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. F-2894, etc.

(Decided November 29, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

DoNLON, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, attached to and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject to the approval of the court, as to the merchandise described as doors, with or without other words or description, on the invoices covered by Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof:

> 1. That at the time of exportation to the United States of the said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not offered for sale in the country of exportation for home consumption or for exportation to the United States, or for sale in the United States under the terms and conditions described in Sec. 402 (c) (d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as it existed at the time of exportation of the said merchandise; and that there was no foreign, export, or United States value for such or similar merchandise, as defined in said subsections.

> 2. That the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *A. N. Deringer,*A.R.D. 102, and that the record in said case may be incorporated into the record herein.

> 3. That the cost of production as defined in Sec. 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as it existed at the time of exportation of the said merchandise was in each instance the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

> 4. That the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in said Schedule A are submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

Insofar as the statement attempts to stipulate an issue of law, namely, that there was no statutory foreign, export, or United States value for such or similar merchandise, under section 402, it is of no force or effect. Parties may stipulate facts. They may not stipulate the issues of law which are before the court for its decision.

The stipulated facts are, however, sufficient for decision.

Accepting this stipulation as an agreed statement of facts, I find and hold that cost of production, as defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, in effect at the time of the importation, is the proper *580basis for determination of value of the merchandise described as doors, with or without other words of description, on the invoices covered by the schedule A appeals, and that such value is the appraised value, less the amount added by the importer in each instance to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

The appeals, as they relate to other merchandise, are dismissed. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 40429.

#### Protest 966361-G of Dr. Moritz Bachrach (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The protest was dismissed.
CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), Yan K. Skwara, Chief Executive Officer and  Principal Financial Officer of San Diego Soccer Development Corporation (the  "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));  and

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated: May 23, 2003

  Yan K. Skwara  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL   OFFICER
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

June 10, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00146

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.W.B.

- L.ET AL,
From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010

- PA

- 02179 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R
In this accelerated appeal of the February 23 , 201 5 order terminating A ppellant’s parental rights, on May 22, 2015, this court granted Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief until June 8, 2015. We warned Appellant we would not grant any further extensions absent extenuating circumstances. On June 8, 2015, Appellant’s counsel notified this court of a death in his family and moved this court for an extension of time to file the brief until June 16, 2015 , a due date ninety

eight days after the notice of appeal was filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a); see also T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2, available at http://www.txcourts.gov/media/698396/rja_20140901.pdf (directing courts of appeals t o dispose of SAPCR suits “[w]ithin 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed”)

. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief must be filed with this court not later than June 16 , 201 5

. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE GRANTED. If Appellant fails to file the brief as ordered, we will abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for an abandonment hearing. S ee, e.g. , T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b); see also T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 107.013 (West 2014) (requiring the trial court to appoint counsel to represent an indigent parent in a parental termination case); In re K.S.M. , 61 S.W.3d 632, 633 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2001, no pet.) (“ Like indigent criminal appellants, indigent appellants challenging an order te rminating their parental rights enjoy a right to counsel on appeal. ”); c f. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b); Samaniego v. State , 952 S.W.2d 50, 52

– 53 (Tex. A pp.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.)._________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 10th day of June, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     In connection  with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Open Stock Company of
Long-Distance  and International  Telecommunications  Rostelecom (the "Company")
for the year ended  December 31, 2002 as filed with the  Securities and Exchange
Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  Alexander A. Lutsky,  Chief
Accountant  of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

                                By:/s/ Alexander A. Lutsky
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Name:   Alexander A. Lutsky
                                   Title:  Chief Accountant of OJSC "Rostelecom"

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided by the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1297 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1297

    To preserve State and institutional authority relating to State 
            authorization and the definition of credit hour.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2011

   Mr. Burr (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Alexander, Mr. 
Coburn, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Shelby) introduced the following bill; which 
  was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
                          Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To preserve State and institutional authority relating to State 
            authorization and the definition of credit hour.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REGULATIONS RELATING TO STATE AUTHORIZATION AND 
              DEFINING CREDIT HOUR.

    (a) Regulations Repealed.--The following regulations (including any 
supplement or revision to such regulations) are repealed and shall have 
no legal effect:
            (1) State authorization.--Sections 600.4(a)(3), 
        600.5(a)(4), 600.6(a)(3), 600.9, and 668.43(b) of title 34, 
        Code of Federal Regulations (relating to State authorization), 
        as added or amended by the final regulations published by the 
        Department of Education in the Federal Register on October 29, 
        2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66832 et seq.).
            (2) Definition of credit hour.--The definition of the term 
        ``credit hour'' in section 600.2 of title 34, Code of Federal 
        Regulations, as added by the final regulations published by the 
        Department of Education in the Federal Register on October 29, 
        2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66946), and subsection (k)(2)(ii) of section 
        668.8 of such title, as amended by such final regulations (75 
        Fed. Reg. 66949 et seq.).
    (b) Effect of Repeal.--To the extent that regulations repealed by 
subsection (a) amended regulations that were in effect on June 30, 
2011, the provisions of the regulations that were in effect on June 30, 
2011, and were so amended, are restored and revived as if the 
regulations repealed by subsection (a) had not taken effect.
    (c) Regulations Defining Credit Hour Prohibited.--The Secretary of 
Education shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation or rule that 
defines the term ``credit hour'' for any purpose under the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) on or after the date of 
enactment of this section.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 85 (Thursday, May 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 24615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8468]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-61,236]


Precision Technologies Incorporated; Reno, PA; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 3, 2007 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Precision 
Technologies Incorporated, Reno, Pennsylvania.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-8468 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 120 

To direct the General Accountability Office to conduct a full audit of hurricane protection funding and cost estimates associated with post-Katrina 

hurricane protection. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the General Accountability Office to conduct a 

full audit of hurricane protection funding and cost estimates associated with post-Katrina hurricane protection. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUDIT OF HURRICANE PROTECTION FUNDING 

4 AND COST ESTIMATES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 270 days after the 

6 date of enactment of this Act, the Government Account7 ability Office, in coordination with the National Academy 

8 of Engineering, shall conduct and submit to Congress a 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 120 IS

1 full audit of hurricane protection funding and cost esti2 mates associated with post-Katrina hurricane protection. 

3 (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the audit shall be— 

4 (1) to identify the causes for the extraordinary 

5 miscalculations in cost estimates of damage caused 

6 by Hurricane Katrina that were completed before 

7 the date of enactment of this Act; 

8 (2) to conduct an analysis of resources available 

9 and work required with respect to hurricane protec10 tion funding and post-Katrina hurricane protection; 

11 and 

12 (3) to identify strategies to replenish repro13 grammed funding from out-year work to immediate 

14 needs. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN RODRIGUES, Private E-2, U. S. Army, Appellant

8 USCMA 596, 25 CMR 100

No. 10,773

Decided January 10, 1958

*Colonel Edward M. O’Connell*and *First Lieutenant Gerald G. Barton*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee, First Lieutenant Avram G. Hammer*and *First Lieutenant Richard W. Young*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Homer Ferguson, Judge:

The accused, charged with desertion terminated by apprehension, pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of absence without leave, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886. He was found guilty as charged. The conviction of desertion must be set aside. The instructions which we held were erroneous and prejudicial in United States v Soccio, 8 USCMA 477, 24 CMR 287, are present here and are as follows:

> “In this connection, the court is advised that an intent on the part of an accused to remain permanently absent may be proved by circumstantial evidence, that is, evidence of facts and circumstances from which, according to the common experience of mankind, such an intent may reasonably be inferred, such as evidence of a much prolonged period of absence without authority, *for which there is no satisfactory explanation,*and the manner in which the unauthorized absence was terminated.” [Emphasis supplied.]

The conviction of desertion is set aside and the record is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for reference to a board of review. The board, in its discretion, may affirm the lesser offense of absence without leave and reassess the sentence or it may order a rehearing on the desertion charge.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Judge Latimer dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          14,166
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  156,021
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     52,561
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               253,271
<PP&E>                                         378,733
<DEPRECIATION>                                 116,554
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 609,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,196
<BONDS>                                        308,424
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           69,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,344
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,823
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   609,694
<SALES>                                        337,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               337,428
<CGS>                                          283,427
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  283,427
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,664
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,973
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,364
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,927
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,140
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,473)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       667
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.24

                                                                         Summary
                                                                         -------


Comprehensive  Credit  Facility  Agreement of Maximum Amount Entered Between the
Company and Agricultural Bank

Summary of the main contents

>>   Contract number: (Shenzhen Longgang Nongyin Shouzi No.20050237000;
>>   Maximum amount for credit facilities to be provided: RMB50 million;
>>   Term:  from July 29th,  2005 to January 29, 2006;  >> Interest rate of loan
     shall be subject to each loan agreement/contract to be signed;
>>   Purpose: Working capital;
>>   Adjustment of credit can be made by Agricultural  Bank under the any of the
     following:
     |X|  The Company suffers severe operational risk or its financial situation
          severely  deteriorates;
     |X|  Guarantor's  payment ability is obviously weakened or value of pledged
          collaterals decreases obviously;
     |X|  Occurrence  of other  instances  which  make  Agricultural  Bank think
          adjustment of credit facility is necessary.
>>   Breach of contract  penalty:  adjustment of credit,  cancellation of unused
     credit,  imposition  of punitive  interest,  demand  prepayment of loan and
     other measures;
>>   Special  terms:  This  line of  credit is added on the basis of the line of
     credit of 200 million yuan.

Terms  that have been  omitted:  definition;  credit  types used for the line of
credit;  use of the  line of  credit;  the  guarantee  of the  loan  under  this
Agreement; adjustment of the line of credit; dispute settlement;  miscellaneous;
effectiveness; validity; and attention.
#### Best & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6801.

Entry No. 752459, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, April 20, 1942, etc.

Certified April 24, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 27, 1942, etc.

(Decided January 23, 1947)

*James W. Bevans*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 cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**AMENDMENT
      NO. 1 TO THE**


**CHINA
      BAK BATTERY INC.**


**STOCK
      OPTION PLAN**




WHEREAS,
      China BAK Battery, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the China BAK Battery, Inc.
      Stock Option Plan; and




WHEREAS,
      the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has been
      appointed as the “Committee” under the Plan; and




WHEREAS,
      Article 5.1 of the Plan provides that the Committee may amend the Plan, subject
      to shareholder approval of such amendment if such approval is required under
      applicable law; and




WHEREAS,
      the Committee now desires to amend the Plan to, among other things, increase
      the
      number of shares of Common Stock issuable under the Plan from 4,000,000 shares
      to 8,000,000 shares;




NOW,
      THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:




FIRST :
      Section
      1.6 of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety:




**1.6**  **Maximum
      Number of Plan Shares.** Subject
      to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.2, and subject to any
      additional restrictions elsewhere in the Plan, the maximum aggregate number
      of
      shares of Common Stock that may be issued and sold hereunder shall be 8,000,000.
      Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum aggregate number of shares of Company
      Common Stock which may be issued under the Plan shall during any given calendar
      year not exceed 5% of the total outstanding shares of Company Common Stock
      during such calendar year.




SECOND :
      The
      second sentence of Section 1.7 of the Plan is deleted such that Section 1.7
      is
      amended to read in its entirety:





**1.7**  **Options
      and Stock Granted Under Plan.** If an
      Option terminates without being wholly exercised, new Options may be granted
      hereunder covering the number of Plan Shares to which such Option termination
      relates.




THIRD :
      Except
      as provided above, the Plan shall continue in full force and
      effect.









FOURTH :
      Any
      capitalized term used herein, but not defined herein, shall have the meaning
      ascribed to such term in the Plan.




FIFTH :
      This
      Amendment No. 1 to the Plan is subject to the approval of the stockholders
      of
      the Company and shall become effective upon such approval.





2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                             612
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,202
<ALLOWANCES>                                       684
<INVENTORY>                                      6,788
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,037
<PP&E>                                          85,011
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,542
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,938
<BONDS>                                         20,194
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,280
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,879
<SALES>                                         16,340
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,340
<CGS>                                           10,229
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,364
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 813
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,263)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (491)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (772)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (772)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        



</TABLE>