alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9872)

#### The Akron et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 13697, etc.

(Decided December 14, 1960)

*Stein <& Shostak (Marjorie M. Shostak*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*George Ooehran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard, E. EitzGibbon,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

JOHNSON, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement, consolidated at the trial, have been submitted upon the following stipulation of coxuisel for the respective parties:

> Miss Shostak : The merchandise involved in these cases consists of seagrass squares imported from Formosa, Taiwan, and appraised at 7 cents per square foot, net packed.

> The merchandise was entered at the Port of Los Angeles on various dates, the entries covered by pencil number 325 being Dutiable Entry 13697, of October 7, 1958, the entry covered by Reappraisement 59/18798, being DE 6569, of August 6, 1959, and the entry covered by Reappraisement R60/3561, being Dutiable Entry 11790, of August 27,1959.

> Pursuant to information obtained after the invoices in this case had been passed upon by the Appraiser for duty, plaintiff offers to stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the consolidated appeals for reappraisement, that at the time of exportation of said merchandise to the *593United. States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States, 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, is .055 per square foot, packed f.o.b. Taiwan; that this price was the free price arrived at in the open competitive market, and represents the proper dutiable value of the merchandise.

> Mb. FitzGibbon : That is agreed to.

> Miss Shostak : That the appraised value is in United States dollars, and that the merchandise is not included on the list of commodities issued pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and accordingly, the export value, if found, represents the proper dutiable value of the merchandise, foreign value having been eliminated with respect to this type of merchandise by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Section 402, as amended.

> Me. FitzGibbon : If it is necessary to agree to that statement, I agree.

On the agreed facts, I find that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956,70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein, and that such value is $0,055 per square foot, packed f.o.b. Taiwan.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
 AGENCY: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
 ACTION: General notice.
 SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1641) and the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 111.51), the following Customs broker license is canceled with prejudice. Name
License No.
Issuing portRosa E. Garcia
20053
Laredo.
 Dated: April 27, 2007. Daniel Baldwin, Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.


[FR Doc. E7-8770 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
DENIED and Opinion Filed September 23, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00944-CV

IN RE WILLIE JAMES CHAPPLE, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-09749

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Garcia

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III

Before the Court is relator’s September 22, 2022 petition for writ of 

mandamus. We deny the petition.

Relator’s petition fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 

in multiple respects. Relator’s petition does not include any of the following as 

required by rule 52.3: the identity of the parties and counsel; a table of contents; an 

index of authorities; a statement of the case; a statement of jurisdiction; the issues or 

points presented; a statement of facts with record references; a clear and concise 

argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to 

the appendix or record; and a prayer with a short conclusion that clearly states the 
–2–

nature of the relief sought. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(c), (d)(1)–(3), (e)–(i). As a 

result, it is not clear what relief relator is seeking from this Court.

Further, relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient 

record to show he is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 

1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator’s petition is not properly certified. See TEX.R.APP.

P. 52.3(j); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. 

proceeding). Although relator has filed some unauthenticated documents, the 

petition is not supported by an appendix with certified or sworn copies of documents 

showing the matter complained of, TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), and relator did not 

file a record with his petition containing a certified or sworn copy of every document 

that is material to relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in the underlying 

proceeding, TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1); Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759. Without a 

certified petition and authenticated record, relator has not carried his burden. See 

Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 758–59.

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

220944f.p05 /Bill Pedersen, III//

BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
1^148823 

.S^-

On:^^-,., 

• ^'^i^-aoYf 

CAi^<^-^ O C^^-vv*^. .i?_ ^
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, H. Douglas Chaffin, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as enacted 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; and

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


/s/ H. Douglas Chaffin
-------------------------------------
H. Douglas Chaffin
Chief Executive Officer
November 7, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to MBT Financial Corp. and will be retained by MBT Financial Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Leon RUFFIN.

No. 98-KK-1278.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 13, 1998.

In re Ruffin, Leon;—Defendants); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “A”, No. 388-879; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 98KW-1157.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., not on panel.
(Reap. Dec. 9639)

#### Bert Friedberg & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 14090, etc.

(Decided March 22, 1960)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties herein:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States concerning the merchandise referred to in the attached Schedule A, as follows:

> 1. Said merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying cases which, in *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*C.D. 1519, this Court held to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of article.

> 2. At the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers, in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, are the unit prices shown in attached Schedule A, in U.S. currency, net, packed, the foreign value of such or similar merchandise being no higher.

> 3. The above appeals for reappraisement are abandoned as to all entries and merchandise not listed in the attached Schedule A, and the said appeals for reappraisement may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold 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 values of the merchandise herein involved, and that such values were the unit prices as shown in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made part of our decision herein, in United States currency, net, packed.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent, the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
33757.

#### JOWERS v. JOWERS.

Per curiam.

Robert F. Jowers instituted this action against his former wife, Sarah J. Jowers, seeking a downward revision of periodic permanent alimony previously *209awarded his wife in a 1975 divorce decree. He alleged that his wife’s income and financial status had substantially improved, and requested that his alimony payments be adjusted accordingly. In her answer, the wife denied any substantial increase in her financial status and counterclaimed for an increase in alimony and child support on the basis of alleged improvement in the husband’s financial status.

Submitted June 23, 1978

Decided September 6, 1978

At trial the evidence showed that the income of both parties has increased since the 1975 divorce. The court entered an order terminating the husband’s periodic alimony obligations to the wife (conditioned upon her continued receipt of social security and VA benefits) and denying the wife’s counterclaim. It is from this order that the wife appeals.

A 1955 Act of the Georgia legislature (Ga. L. 1955, pp. 630, 631) permitted the revision of a judgment providing periodic permanent alimony for the support of a wife on a "change in the income and financial status of the husband.” In 1977 the legislature revised the Act (Ga. L. 1977, pp. 1253, 1254-55; Code Ann. § 30-220) to provide that: "The judgment of a court providing permanent alimony for the support of a wife shall be subject to revision upon petition filed by either spouse showing a change in the income and financial status of either spouse.”

In the recent case *of McClain v. McClain,*241 Ga. 422 (246 SE2d 187) (1978), this court determined that the 1977 Act cannot operate retroactively, and thus is not applicable to alimony judgments renderéd prior to the effective date of the 1977 Act. In light of this recent opinion, the alimony judgment in the present case cannot be modified because of a change in the income or financial status of the wife, and the husband’s petition cannot be sustained on that basis.

The judgment below is reversed and remanded for further action not inconsistent with this opinion.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Hall and Hill, JJ., who dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in McClain v. McClain, 241 Ga. 422.*

*210Rehearing denied September 26, 1978.

*Beverly H. Nash,*for appellant.

*Tom J. Crosby,*for appellee.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALYSSA RENEE CHRISTINA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-2787

[August 29, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Scott Ira Suskauer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2023-CF003464-AXXX-MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Hunter Eisenberg, 

Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
99-0600 (La. 4/23/99)

#### SUCCESSION of Willie McCLINTON.

No. 99-C-0600.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: McClinton, Henrie Doris;— Other(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Natchitoches *88610th Judicial District Court Div. “B” Number 12,169; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CA98-0989

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J. not on panel.
The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-4060

___________

Sammie Smith, Jr., *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the 

Dr. B. Alan Sugg, President, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

University of Arkansas; University *

of Arkansas, at Pine Bluff; Jim Guy * [UNPUBLISHED]

Tucker, Governor, State of Arkansas, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 23, 1997

Filed: May 29, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sammie Smith appeals from the district court's adverse grant of summary

1

judgment in his discriminatory-discharge action. Upon a de novo review of the record,

see Earnest v. Courtney, 64 F.3d 365, 366-67 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), we

conclude that summary judgment was correct for the reasons the district court stated.
-2-

See 8th Cir. R. 47B. As we had no occasion to review the papers outside of the record

that Smith submitted, we deny appellees' motions to strike. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
(Reap. Dec. 8450)

Entry No. 4534.

#### United States *v.*W. R. Zanes & Co. of La., Inc.

(Decided June 10, 1955)

*Warren E,*Burger, Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the defendant.

Oliveb, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision on an agreed set of facts, establishing export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of “the seamless steel Dalmine API casing” covered by consular invoices 8634 and 8635 involved herein and showing such statutory value for the said merchandise to be U. S. $240 per metric ton, less 1.97 per centum nondutiable charges. Judgment will be rendered accordingly
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**In the Matter of**

**JORDAN MERSON**

**PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT FROM INACTIVE STATUS**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: No. 116 DB 2015 (No. 57 RST 2015)** 

**Attorney Registration No. 310885** 

**(Out of State)**

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 27 th**  **day of August, 2015, the Report and Recommendation of**  **Disciplinary Board Member dated August 19, 2015, is app roved and it is ORDERED**  **that Jordan Merson, who has been on Inactive Status, h as never been suspended or**  **disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and**  **learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is,**  **hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Ba r of this Commonwealth. The**  **expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall**  **be paid by the Petitioner.**
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1368 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to repeal 

distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 14, 2011 

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. NELSON of Nebraska) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

to repeal distributions for medicine qualified only if for 

prescribed drug or insulin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restoring Access to 

5 Medication Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DISTRIBUTIONS FOR MEDICINE QUALI7 FIED ONLY IF FOR PRESCRIBED DRUG OR IN8 SULIN. 

9 Section 9003 of the Patient Protection and Afford10 able Care Act (Public Law 111–148) and the amendments 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1368 IS

1 made by such section are repealed; and the Internal Rev2 enue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such section, and 

3 amendments, had never been enacted. 

4 SEC. 3. RESCISSION OF UNSPENT FEDERAL FUNDS TO OFF5 SET LOSS IN REVENUES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi7 sion of law, of all available unobligated funds, appro8 priated discretionary funds are hereby rescinded in such 

9 amounts as determined by the Director of the Office of 

10 Management and Budget such that the aggregate amount 

11 of such rescission equals the reduction in revenues to the 

12 Treasury by reason of the repeal, and amendments, made 

13 by section 2. 

14 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Director of the Office of 

15 Management and Budget shall determine and identify 

16 from which appropriation accounts the rescission under 

17 subsection (a) shall apply and the amount of such rescis18 sion that shall apply to each such account. Not later than 

19 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

20 Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 

21 submit a report to the Secretary of the Treasury and Con22 gress of the accounts and amounts determined and identi23 fied for rescission under the preceding sentence. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1368 IS

1 (c) EXCEPTION.—This section shall not apply to the 

2 unobligated funds of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

3 or the Social Security Administration. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
33796.

#### HICKS v. HICKS.

Submitted July 7, 1978

Decided September 7, 1978.

Charles E. Hicks, *pro se.*

*Douglas C. Vassey,*for appellee.

Bowles, Justice.

The appellee-wife filed for divorce on the grounds that the appellant-husband was guilty of cruel treatment and that their marriage was irretrievably broken. Appellant answered, denying both allegations, and made demand for a jury trial.

As there was an issue of fact created by the pleadings, and proper demand for jury trial having been made, it was error for the trial court to grant a judgment for divorce without submitting the issues to a jury. *McMillian v. McMillian,*240 Ga. 278 (240 SE2d 65) (1977) and cits.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
  Kansas
    City Southern de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.
    Schedule of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
  Successor


PredecessorNine Months


Three MonthsYear Ended


Ended


EndedDecember 31,


December 31,


March 31,


Year Ended December 31,2006


2005


2005


2004


2003


2002(In thousands of U.S. dollars, except ratio data)Income (loss) before income taxes
    and minority interest

$
80,454


$
86,031


$
(504
)

$
(4,101
)

$
(16,370
)

$
46,917Equity Method


(5,948
)


1,466







(41
)


(282
)


(1,269
)VAT/PUT Settlement






(141,035
)














Interest expenses on indebtedness


92,953



70,402



25,616



102,706



103,818



93,705Amortization of capitalized interest


3,477



1,803



1,614



6,994



6,413



6,073Portion of rents representative of
    an appropriate interest factor


20,878



14,971



4,592



18,015



18,791



18,421Income (loss) before income taxes
    and minority interest Adjusted

$
191,814


$
33,638


$
31,318


$
123,573


$
112,370


$
163,847Fixed charges:Interest expenses on indebtedness


92,953



70,402



25,616



102,706



103,818



93,705Amortization of capitalized interest


3,477



1,803



1,614



6,994



6,413



6,073Portion of rents representative of
    an appropriate interest factor(1)


20,878



14,971



4,592



18,015



18,791



18,421Total fixed charges

$
117,308


$
87,176


$
31,822


$
127,715


$
129,022


$
118,199Ratio of earnings to fixed
    charges


1.6



N/A
*


1.0



1.0



N/A
*


1.4    *
    
    For the nine months ended December 31, 2005 and the year ended
    December 31, 2003, our earning were insufficient to cover fixed
    charges by $53.5 million and $16.6 million,
    respectively.(1)
    
    Rents represent one-third of rents expense.
No. 48764.

#### Protests 949274-G, etc., of F. Blumenthal & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The established facts showed that certain of the items are similar to those involved in Abstract 47291. The claim at only 25 percent was sustained as to these items.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 21.1



                    List of Subsidiaries of Ziff-Davis Inc.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Subsidiary                   Jurisdiction                 Doing Business As
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>                    <C>
  ZD Inc.                                 Delaware               Also doing business as ZDNet
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ZD Events Inc.                          Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  INET Centric Finance Inc.               Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ZD Holdings (UK) Ltd                    United Kingdom
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ziff-Davis Asia Pacific Pte Ltd         Singapore
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ZD Events Pty Ltd                       Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ZD Events S.A.                          Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>