alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### American Express Co. *v.*United States

No. 6468.

Entry No. 747465.

Invoice dated Birmingham, England, February 5, 1942.

Certified February 9, 1942.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 18, 1942.

(Decided October 28, 1946)

*Bugene B. Piclcrell,*for the plaintiff.

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

Mohison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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.
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:11 PM

Subject: Notification - Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Energy Conservation Standards for

standby mode and off mode for Microwave Ovens and the Technica l Support Documents

To Interested Parties:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted to the Federal Register on Thursday,

02/02/2012 a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Energy Conservation Standards

for standby mode and off mode for Microwave Ovens and the Technical Support Documents.

[RIN 1904–AC07, Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0048].

In this notice, DOE addresses the proposed energy conservation standards for standby and off

mode power consumption. DOE invites comments, data, and information about the proposed

energy efficiency levels, the analyses in the technical support document, and the analytical tools

that were used to evaluate proposed efficiency standards. Additionally, DOE invites comments

on any other issues relevant to the development of energy conservation standards for

microwave ovens.

For additional details about the notice of proposed rulemaking, technical support documents,

and upcoming public meeting, please see below:

The following document was published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2012.

Product Microwave Oven Standby Power

Type Notice

Action Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rule

Date February 2, 2012

FR Ref. TBA

Title Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Standby Mode and Off

Mode for Microwave Ovens

RIN 1904–AC07

eDocketI

D EERE–2011–BT–STD–0048

Link to

PDF http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/app liance_standards/residential/cooking_prod

ucts.html

Yours truly,

Wes Anderson
- 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 > Factory Workers' Earnings, May 1958

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Factory Workers' Earnings, May 1958 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1252*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										June 1959,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4539,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
**Exhibit 31.1**

CERTIFICATION

I, Craig I. Forman, certify that:
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of JCK Legacy Company; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

​

| 3                         | ​    Chief Executive Officer

​                                                     |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: September [*], 2020 | /s/ Craig I. Forman

Craig I. FormanPrincipal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer |

​

----
S10-l(K)9()l-0 7

cr ?

• c ^

— 1 

### > -. 9

— • , ^

- ' - , i , „. '

C O 

## SOWOM A C O U M TY AMtftiCA* ! PftEMii a WINf , M W AM > COASTA LOtlTiNAtlO N Augus t 23 , 201 0 Th e Honorabl e Ra yLaHoo d Secretaryo fTransportatio n U.S . Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenu e S E Washingto n D C Subyect : Docke t OST-2010-012 4 Dea rSecretaryLaHood ; I strongl ysuppor t th e Charle s M . Schulz-Sonom a Count yAirpor tapplicatio n fo ra gran tunde rth e Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Program . Thi s gran talon g wit h loca l fund s wil l provid e fo r marketin g an d advertisin g t o attrac t int)Oun d passenger s t o Sonom a Count yo n Horizo n Air . Horizo n Ai rha s bee n a n excellen t partne rfo rSonom a Count yi n providin g nonsto p ai rservic e t o Lo s Angeles , La s Vegas , Portland , an d Seattle . Traffi crespons e fro m th e loca l Sonom a Count ymarke tha s bee n excellent . Unfortunately , th e Inboun d passenge rnumber s hav e no tbee n a s larg e a s expected . Sonom a Count yi s wel l know n a s th e Win e Countr yan d loca l businesse s i n ou rare a depen d heavil yo n touris m spendin g t o suppor t ou reconomy . Th e Sonom a Count yAirpor tan d it s marketin g partner s hav e develope d a progra m t o attrac t inboun d visitor s t o Sonom a Count yan d increas e th e revenu e fo r Horizo n Air . Th e cos t o fmarketin g an d advertisin g i n Lo s Angeles , Portland , an d Seattl e i s to o hig h fo rth e Sonom a Count yAirpor t an d it s marketin g partner s t o d o i tb ythemselves . Th e awar d o fth e requeste d gran twil l giv e th e Airpor t an d it s partner s th e fundin g tha ti tneed s t o d o a n effectiv e jo b o fpromotin g Sonom a Count yan d increas e th e numt)e ro f^itor s t o ou rarea . I ti s estimate d tha tth e additiona l passenger s am'vin g fro m thi s progra m wil l generat e ove r$1 1 millio n i n visito rspendin g i n th e loca l community . W e als o kno wtha t highe rloa d factor s fo rHorizo n Ai rca n mea n mor e flight s t o existin g market s an d t o ne wmarkets . Thi s program , wit h th e suppor to ffundin g fro m th e Smal l Communit yProgram , wil l definitel yb e a win-wi n situatio n fo rtoca\ business , th e touris m community , th e airline , th e airport , variou s vendors , an d th e travelin g public . You rsuppor to fou rreques ti s mos tappreciated . Sincerel y(jJ^l ^ Mar k J . Crabb , Directo ro fSale s Sonom a Count yTouris m Burea u
1

Aetos Group Inc.

Tony Sauerbrey

5103 Rainflower Cir N League City TX 77573

Nov 3

, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition for Amendment to 333 Exemption 11209, Docket number FAA

- 2014

- 0629

Dear Sir or Madam:

Aetos Group received FAA Exemption No.11209 on March 13, 2015 authorizing Aetos Group under section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to operate the Aeryon Sky Ranger and Aeryon Scout sUAS, for aerial inspections of various

infrastructure and equipment. In this present petition for an amendment to Exemption No. 11209, Aetos Group seeks to operate the eXom multi

- rotor sUAS produced by Sensefly

for the same purposes.

The eXom, weighting 3.7 pounds (Max imum Take Off Weight), contains a rich array of advanced integrated sensors. These sensors work together to provide the user with full situational awareness and support obstacle avoidance:

Five ‘Navcam’ vision sensors allow the operator to see in the direction the drone is moving via its flight control software, without needing to turn the system’s TripleView camera head. This technology is unique in such a lightweight UAS, similar to the vi sual parking sensors in modern cars, but brought into a 3D flight environment.

Five ultrasonic proximity sensors work in harmony with eXom’s Navcams to ensure the operator always knows the drone’s distance from nearby objects. (The drone’s shock

absorben t carbon fiber shrouding is also always on hand to protect its rotors in case of surface contact.)

Numerous other sensors, including inertial measurement units, barometers, magnetometers, GPS and magnetic encoders, maximize the drone’s stability and safet y.2

eXom offers different flight modes to suit every project: semi

- automatic mode (waypoint navigation) or interactive ScreenFly mode (using the supplied joypad to navigate and orientate the drone via computer screen). The Screenfly mode includes flight assistance features such as cruise control and distance lock. In any situation, RC

- based manual control always remains available as a backup function.

The eXom is particularly safe. It was developed with flexible material absorbing potential

shocks , and SenseFly R&D team has developed also a unique carbon

- fiber shrouding protecting the propellers. We have added also redundancy in our command and control system. In case something happens to the primary autopilot, the eXom will switch automatically t o the secondary autopilot

We have attached the Operators Manual for additional detail on the eXom.

O ther than the add ition of this aircraft, there will be no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public safety that were the basis for the initial grant of exempt ion.

We trust that we have provided all of the necessary background and information needed to approve this request. Please contact me if you require any additional information or

clarification

Best regards,

Anthony Sauerbrey

Vice President Aetos Group
99-0613 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Nancy Haas KIMBROUGH, et al. v. Nathalie Haas HIRSCH, et al.

No. 99-C-0613.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Kimbrough, Nancy Haas;— Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review; parish of Evangeline 13th Judicial District Court Div. “B” Num*887ber 54-570-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CA98-0967

Denied.

KNOLL, J. not on panel.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Brett D. Davis, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2016-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                      Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                      I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                      All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A.

 

March 27, 2018

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Brett D. Davis                                               |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Brett D. Davis                                                   |
|   | Title: | President (senior   officer in charge of the servicing function) |

 

----
No. 6357.

#### ARTHUR BAKER, vs. MYATT, DICKS MOTOR CO.

Syllabus.

1. Signatures to obligations are not mere ornaments. If a party can read, it behooves him to examine an instrument before signing it; and if he cannot read, it behooves; him to have the instrument read to him and listen attentively whilst this is being done.

2. One who seeks to avoid the effect of his written obligation upon the ground that its contents have been misrepresented to him, must support his claim by something more appreciable than his own uncorroborated testimony.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “A,” No. 109,493. Honorable T. C. W. Ellis, Judge.

¥m. Y. Seeber, for plaintiff and .appellee.

Titche & Rogers, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

The purpose of this suit is to avoid the effect of a written .act of pledge npon the ground that the contents thereof were fraudulently misrepresented to the signer.

To substantiate the claim plaintiff relies upon his own bald statement alone, uncorroborated (except as to his inability to read) and flatly contradicted by two other witnesses.

In the emphatic language of the Supreme Court, ‘ ‘ signatures to obligations are not mere ornaments,” Bonet vs. Sarpy, 30 An., 495. If a party can read, it behooves him to examine an instrument before signing it; .and if he cannot read, it behooves him to have the instrument *282read to. him and listen attentively whilst this is being done.

Opinion and decree, May 3rd, 1914.

Murphy vs. Hussey, 117 La., 399.

If Courts are to lend their aid to the incautious ana incompetent, and assist them to avoid their written acts upon the bare suggestion that they have been imposed upon unsupported by any evidence other than their own testimony, then the door is wide open for any designing person to repudiate at his pleasure his most solemn engagements, and written contracts become worse than useless.

One who seeks to avoid the effect of his written obligation, upon the ground that its contents have been misrepresented to him, must support his claim by something more appreciable than his own uncorroborated testimony.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be annulled, avoided and reversed, and it is now ordered that plaintiff’s demand be rejected at his cost in both courts.

It is further ordered that there be judgment in favor of the intervenor, Albert Feldman, and against the plaintiff, Arthur Baker, for the full sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars ($125.00) with legal interest from September 29th, 1914, and recognition of intervenor’s right of pledge upon the automobile herein sequestered, and his right to sell the same at public or private sale to satisfy this judgment with costs and five dollars ($5.00) per month storage charges.
33899.

#### WITCHER v. DUNNELL.

Submitted September 13, 1978

Decided September 28, 1978.

*Jack LaSonde,*for appellant.

Per curiam.

Notwithstanding an order entered pursuant to Rule 14 (a), appellant’s enumerations of error were untimely. Moreover, those enumerations not abandoned are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Bowles, J., who is disqualified.*

*291
      *Jesse G. Bowles, III,*for appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,229
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,052
<INVENTORY>                                      3,030
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,874
<PP&E>                                         266,141
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,123
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 411,728
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,545
<BONDS>                                        120,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   411,728
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               223,143
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  226,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,945
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,121)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (732)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,121)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (517)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,906)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9613)

#### Michael Berkowitz Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1006637.

(Decided February 29, 1960)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiff.

*George Cooliran Bout),*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purposes of certain pure silk shantung warp dyed, 16 momme, 40 inches in width, rolled on carton tubes, and manufactured in and exported from Japan to the United States, is before the court for determination.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation wherein it has been agreed that the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan in the usual-wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and that all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was 92% cents per yard, net packed.

It was further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for said merchandise at the day of exportation.

Upon the record before me, I find and hold that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as *586amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 943,. T.D. 54165), as supplemented by the final list published by the Secretary of the Treasury, 93 Treas. Dec. 14, T.D. 54521, is the proper basis for determining the value of the silk shantung in controversy and that such value is *92y2*cents per yard, net packed.

As to all other merchandise, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Lee Wesley HOGAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-6461.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 29, 2005.

Decided: Sept. 16, 2005.

*547Lee Wesley Hogan, Appellant pro se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Robert David Goldberg, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Lee Wesley Hogan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hogan has not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 We note that as to Claim O, Hogan’s failure to specifically object to the magistrate judge's recommended disposition waives appellate review as to that claim. *See, e.g., Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,*416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir.2005).