alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 43152.

#### Protests 987208-G (A), etc., of Charles & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was established that 53 1-pound packages of plum pudding were legally marked at the time of importation as the immediate containers thereof were marked with the country of origin. The protests were sustained to that extent.
(Reap. Dec. 9439)

#### Marguerite Originals, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 817344, etc.

(Decided June 2, 1959)

*Samuel R. E&elstein*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule “A” for decision upon a stipulation upon the basis of -which I find that export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved, and that such value, in each instance, is the unit appraised price, plus packing, as invoiced, less 5 per centum agent’s commission, as invoiced.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
**Exhibit 
  32.1**

**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 Quarterly
  Report of Certified Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
  the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
  on the date hereof (the Report), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
  as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Danny L. Pixler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, that to the best
  of my knowledge:

|(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/ Danny L. Pixler     | 
|----------------------- | 
|                        | 
|Name: Danny L. Pixler   | 
|Chief Executive Officer | 
|April 30, 2004          | 

_______________________

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS
  WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO CERTIFIED SERVICES,
  INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CERTIFIED SERVICES, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
  AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

Note: The certification the Registrant furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
  “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
  of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.
  Registration Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
  Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference, except as otherwise
  expressly stated in such filing.

---
#### Stephanie ELLIS and Paradise Landscape, Inc. v. James S. BRINKLEY, Jack B. Kelly, Inc. and Nobel Insurance Company.

No. 98-C-2771.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

In re Ellis, Stephanie et al; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of St. James, 23rd Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 21,599; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 98-CA-0149.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., not on panel.
No. 43135.

#### Protests 161718-G, etc., of F. M. Jabara & Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the evidence it was found that certain items consist of filet lace similar to that involved in *United States*v. *Jabara*(22 C. C. P. A. 77, T. D. 47065), Venice lace like that passed upon in *Littwitz*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 123, C. D. 217), Alenpon lace similar to that involved in *United States*v. *Caesar*(18 C. C. P. A. 106, T. D. 44067), and lace articles embroidered like those passed upon in *Pustet*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 530, T. D. 41396). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
#### C. S. Emery & Co. *v.*United States

No. 7720.

Entry No. K-3420, etc.

(Decided July 26, 1949)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley 8. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff..

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, 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:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States,*R. D. 7624, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is 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, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

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 entered accordingly.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-1106 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-084-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
<PAGE>
                       UGI UTILITIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES - EXHIBIT 12.1
                             (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three
                                                   Months
                                                    Ended                                Year Ended September 30,
                                                 December 31,        ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2001              2001              2000             1999             1998
                                                   --------          --------          --------          -------          -------
<S>                                              <C>                 <C>               <C>               <C>              <C>
EARNINGS:
Earnings before income taxes                       $ 23,346          $ 79,568          $ 82,882          $63,139          $57,007
Interest expense                                      4,187            18,724            18,135           17,317           17,383
Amortization of debt discount and expense                76               264               218              215              200
Interest component of rental expense                    349             1,541             1,318            1,539            1,624
                                                   --------          --------          --------          -------          -------
                                                   $ 27,958          $100,097          $102,553          $82,210          $76,214
                                                   ========          ========          ========          =======          =======

FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense                                   $  4,187          $ 18,724          $ 18,135          $17,317          $17,383
Amortization of debt discount and expense                76               264               218              215              200
Allowance for funds used during
    construction (capitalized interest)                   1                12                17               36               39
Interest component of rental expense                    349             1,541             1,318            1,539            1,624
                                                   --------          --------          --------          -------          -------
                                                   $  4,613          $ 20,541          $ 19,688          $19,107          $19,246
                                                   ========          ========          ========          =======          =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                     6.06              4.87              5.21             4.30             3.96
                                                   ========          ========          ========          =======          =======
</TABLE>
September 6, 1940

No. 44297.

Suit 4267.

#### F. *Vitelli & Son*v. *United States.*

C. D. 154 affirmed. C. A. D. 134.
# C_2015346EN.01000601.xml

| 19.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Trybunał Konstytucyjny (Poland) lodged on 20 July 2015 — Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO)

(Case C-390/15)

(2015/C 346/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Trybunał Konstytucyjny

Applicant in the main proceedings

Applicant in the main proceedings

Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (RPO)

Other parties to the proceedings: Marszałek Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Prokurator Generalny

Other parties to the proceedings:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is point 6 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system on value added tax (1), in the version amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards reduced rates of value added tax (2), invalid on the ground that, during the legislative procedure, the essential formal requirement of consultation with the European Parliament was not complied with? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is point 6 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system on value added tax (1), in the version amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards reduced rates of value added tax (2), invalid on the ground that, during the legislative procedure, the essential formal requirement of consultation with the European Parliament was not complied with?

1

2

| 2. | Is Article 98(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, referred to in Question 1, in conjunction with point 6 of Annex III to that directive, invalid on the ground that it infringes the principle of fiscal neutrality to the extent to which it excludes the application of reduced tax rates to books published in digital format and other electronic publications? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 98(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC, referred to in Question 1, in conjunction with point 6 of Annex III to that directive, invalid on the ground that it infringes the principle of fiscal neutrality to the extent to which it excludes the application of reduced tax rates to books published in digital format and other electronic publications?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2009 L 116, p. 18.

2

---
Before the Third Division,

March 4, 1942

No. 46999.

#### Protest 8421-K of International General Electric Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It appeared -that these articles were manufactured in Canada and were sent to -Canton Island, of the Phoenix group, via San Francisco. When the goods crossed the border at Port Huron, Mich., an immediate transportation entry was made by the customs brokers, under which the equipment was consigned to the collector of customs at San Francisco as the final designation. Upon arrival there another customs broker, acting for the plaintiff, attempted to file an export entry, which entry was rejected by the collector on the ground that Canton Island is part of the United States and that therefore the shipment would not constitute an exportation. In order to obtain possession of the- goods the customs broker filed a consumption entry and paid the duty, and the goods were shipped to Canton Island. This protest is filed to obtain refund of such duty. Counsel for the plaintiff contends that the entry for consumption was made under duress and that under such circumstances there was no importation and therefore no duty assessable *(Stein*v. *United States,*1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 36, T. D. 31007). In view of *Colonial Import & Export Co.*v. *United States*(5 id. 137, T. D. 34190) the court was of the opinion that there was no duress in this case if the plaintiff was “subjected to no other compulsion than a demand that he do that which he legally ought to do” in order to obtain possession of his goods. The question arises as to whether the United States or the United Kingdom is the owner of the island. From one of the exhibits it appeared that the countries had joint'control and that neither government waives its claim to the island. The plaintiff having, *476failed to prove ownership of Canton Island it was held that it failed to sustain its burden of proving that the action of the collector was illegal. It was also held that plaintiff’s claim that there was no intent to import the merchandise was not sustained for the reason that the goods were imported and consumption entry was made. No evidence was produced showing that the plaintiff was subjected to any compulsion. It was therefore found that the collector’s action did not amount to duress. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
#### Edward WEEKLY v. CAJUN BAG COMPANY.

No. 98-CC-2795.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

In re Weekly, Edward; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Office of Workers’ Comp. Dist. 4, No. 97-08278; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW98-1518.

Denied.

KIMBALL, J., not on panel.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BRIAN DAVID SMITH,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 348 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 32

                          Certification of CEO and CFO
                          ----------------------------
                       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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Urban Improvement Fund
- 1974 (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Paul H. Pfleger, as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of
the Partnership, and John M. Orehek as the equivalent of the Chief Financial
Officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of his knowledge:

     1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and 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 Partnership.











                                      /s/Paul H. Pfleger
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Name:  Paul H. Pfleger



                                      /s/John M. Orehek
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Name:  John M. Orehek


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. 44251.

#### Protests 821917-G, etc., of Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., et al. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Rockingham earthenware the same as that passed upon in *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303). The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 210 was therefore sustained.
<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 June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald D. LaBeau,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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/ Ronald D. LaBeau
---------------------------
Ronald D. LaBeau
Chief Executive Officer
August 12, 2003
No. 74-5880.

#### Hatfield *v.*Swenson, Warden.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA honors D-Day anniversary, sacrifices

By DLA Public Affairs

June 6, 2017, marks the 73rd anniversary of D-Day, when the Allies stormed the beaches at Normandy, France, to spark the beginning of victory in Europe.

Thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen and U.S. Marines were killed by German machine-gun nests, mortar shells, and anti-aircraft fire. Still others drowned in the English Channel, weighed down by wet clothing and heavy equipment.

The Defense Logistics Agency salutes their bravery and remembers their sacrifice, which led to the beginning of the end of World War II.

For additional history, photos and figures, see the Department of Defense D-Day 2017 observance page.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

People and CultureD-DayJune 6AlliesWWIIhistoryRemembranceVeteransMemorial
No. 96-7797.

#### Animashaum *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.