alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(V. D. 75)

#### D. C. Andrews & Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 833363.

(Decided April 9, 1958)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

This is a valuation proceeding which arose by virtue of a judgment issued by the third division of this court in the case of *D. C. Andrews & Company, Inc.*v. *United States,*38 Cust. Ct. 227, C. D. 1867, wherein the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement, pursuant to title 28, U. S. C. § 2636 (d).

Counsel for the parties in this proceeding have stipulated and agreed as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise involved herein consists of 550 pieces of washing machine parts imported from the United Kingdom.

> 2. That on or about the date of exportation of the said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption therein or for export to the United States; that such or similar imported merchandise was not at the aforesaid time freely offered for sale in the United States for domestic consumption therein; that cost of production, as defined in Section 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis of appraisement of said merchandise; and that such cost of production for the 550 pieces of washing machine parts in English pounds sterling is £51 19s. 7d.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the remand of protest herein, may be submitted on this stipulation.

*636Upon the agreed facts, I find that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis for determining the value of tbe merchandise covered by the above-enumerated remand of protest, and that such value for the 550 pieces of washing machine parts is £51 19s. 7d., English pounds sterling.

I further find such value to be the proper dutiable value of said merchandise.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 96-5763.

#### Smith *v.*Gomez, Director, California Department of Corrections.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
March 23, 2015

Mr. Ivan Boisson

Multimedia Systems Tech LLC

2436 Land O Lakes Boulevard

Land O Lakes, FL 34639

Dear Mr. Boisson:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your January 22, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Bruce Beard LLC into the 

public docket (No. FAA-2015-0167, but we are unable to process your request any further. 

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9521.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9082]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; Certification 
Notice--213; Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability 
Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act; Otay Mesa Energy 
Center, LLC

AGENCY: Office Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of filing.

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

SUMMARY: On April 26, 2007, Otay Mesa Energy Center, LLC, as the owner 
and operator of a new base load electric powerplant, submitted a coal 
capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) 
pursuant to section 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use 
Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 
61. Section 201(d) of FUA requires DOE to publish a notice of receipt 
of the self-certification in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of self-certification filings are available for 
public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Electricity Delivery 
and Energy Reliability, Room 8G-026, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Russell at (202) 586-9624.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 
et seq.), provides that no new base load electric powerplants may be 
constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another 
alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to FUA section 
201(d), in order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner 
or operator of such facilities proposing to use natural gas or 
petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify to the Secretary 
of Energy (Secretary) prior to construction, or prior to operation as a 
base load electric powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability 
to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes 
compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the 
Secretary. The Secretary is required to publish a notice in the Federal 
Register reciting that the certification has been filed.
    The following owner of a proposed new base load electric powerplant 
has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to 
FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 
Sec. Sec.  501.60, 61:
    Owner: Otay Mesa Energy Center, LLC.
    Capacity: 600 MW.
    Plant Location: San Diego, CA.
    In-Service Date: Second Quarter of 2009.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 7, 2007.
Anthony J. Como,
Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability.
[FR Doc. E7-9082 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         515,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,028,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    64,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,802,000<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,618,000
<PP&E>                                      17,244,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,389,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,953,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,356,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,605,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,719,000<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,953,000
<SALES>                                      6,043,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,191,000
<CGS>                                        5,584,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,584,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 69,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             69,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
<FN>
<F1>NET OF LIFO RESERVE OF $2,113,000
<F2>RETAINED EARNINGS
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 6117.

Invoice dated Sonneberg, Germany, August 14, 1939.

Certified August 16, 1939.

Entered at Baltimore, Md., November 29, 1939.

Entry No. 1796/10.

(Decided March 13, 1945)

*Sharreits & Hillis (Edward P. Sharretts*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for -decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission in the case listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoice with "xx” in green ink and the initials CHR of Examiner *365Charles H. Ritz, are in all material respects the same as the facts and'circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission specified in the invoices relating to glass tree ornaments, novelties, and figures covered by reappraise-ments 113038-A, 113040-A, and 113468-A of the F. W. Woolworth Co. and passed upon by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co., B. Shackman & Co., Rice & Co. Corp., Strauss-Echardt Co., Inc., K. W. Woolworth Co.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, wherein the court held that “A purchasing commission, charged for the handling of merchandise, is not a proper part of dutiable value.”

> It is further stipulated and agreed that on the date of exportation of the merchandise involved in the case listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoices with *“xx”*in green ink and the initials CHR of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, articles such and similar thereto were freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus *3)4*per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> As to all other items, the appeal is abandoned.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the record in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co. et al.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, be incorporated herein and that the said appeal to reappraisement is submitted on this 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 represented on the invoice by the items marked‘“xx” in green ink and the initials CHR of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, and that such values are the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and hpliday costs, plus packing, as invoiced.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RICHARD DWAYNE TEEL, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 11

- 00216

- CR

Appeal from the

396th District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC#1206275D)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and A ntcliff, JJ.

Antcliff, J., not participating
1 

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

Filed: August 31, 20171

Refiled in Redacted Form: February 7, 2018 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * PUBLISHED 

C.B. and C.B., as Best Friends of Their *

Son, M.B., a Minor, * Chief Special Master Dorsey 

 *

 * No. 05-1168V 

 Petitioners, * 

 * Denial of Entitlement; Measles, Mumps 

v. * & Rubella (“MMR”) Vaccine; Hepatitis

 * A (“Hep A”) Vaccine; Varicella

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccine; Autistic Disorder (“AD”);

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Residual Human DNA Fragments; 

 * HERV-K Fragments; Insertional 

 Respondent. * Mutagenesis; Autoimmunity. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

John F. McHugh, Law Office of John McHugh, New York, NY, for petitioners. 

Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION DISMISSING PETITION

 

 On April 24, 2014, petitioners filed a memorandum in which they agreed to be bound by 

the ruling in the J.M. et al. (02-10V) case. 

 On August 31, 2017, I ruled against petitioners in J.M. et al. A copy of that decision is 

attached hereto as Appendix A and is incorporated herein. 

Accordingly, petitioners are bound by that decision, and this case is DISMISSED. In the 

absence of a motion for review,2the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in 

accordance with this decision.

 

1 When this decision was originally filed, I advised the parties of my intent to post it on the 

United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 

2002. 44 U.S.C. §3501 note (2012) (Federal management and Promotion of Electronic 

Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioners filed a motion to 

redact certain information. This decision is being reissued with minimal changes, including 

redaction of the petitioners’ name in the case caption to initials and redaction of the lead omnibus 

case name to initials. Except for those changes and this footnote, no other substantive changes 

have been made. 

2

 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of

notice renouncing the right to seek review. 
2 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master
No. 96-5808.

#### Robles *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIEL PONCE-RODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70059

Agency No. A091-115-690

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Gabriel Ponce-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. AvilaFILED

OCT 25 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70059

Sanchez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition

for review.

Because Ponce-Rodriguez’s June 18, 1996, deportation order was lawful

when he was deported and the record reveals that his waiver of appeal of that order

was “considered and intelligent,” the BIA did not err in concluding that he failed to

demonstrate a “gross miscarriage of justice at the prior proceeding” and he

therefore may not, at this point, collaterally attack his 1996 deportation order. 

Ramirez-Juarez v. INS, 633 F.2d 174, 175-76 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam); see also

Alvarenga-Villalobos v. Ashcroft, 271 F.3d 1169, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2001); Biwot v.

Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (waiver of right to appeal must be

“considered and intelligent”).

We reject Ponce-Rodriguez’s constitutional challenge to 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.44(k)(2). See Avila-Sanchez, 509 F.3d at 1040-41.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT 99.1


               WESTPAC SECURITISATION MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED
                    OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE


         The undersigned officer of Westpac Securitisation Management Pty
    Limited, a company organized under the laws of New South Wales,
    Australia ("WSM"), hereby certifies on behalf of WSM and on his own
    behalf for purposes of the Series 1998-1G WST Trust Class A and Class B
    Mortgage Backed Floating Rate Notes (collectively, the "Notes"), as
    follows:

         1.     I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Director of WSM;

         2.     I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this
                Officer's Certificate on behalf of WSM; and

         3.     To the best of my knowledge, the Issuer Trustee has
                complied with all conditions and covenants under the
                Transaction Documents, for the Series 1998-1G WST Trust
                issue of Notes for the period between June 30, 1998 and
                June 30, 1999.

         Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the
    meanings assigned to such terms in the Note Trust Deed related to the
    above-referenced issue of Notes.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of December 30, 1999.




                                         /s/ Marten Touw
                                    --------------------------------
                                    By:      Marten Touw
                                             Director
                                             Westpac Securitisation Management
                                             Pty Limited






                                                           33
RAY SCHREINER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 4482

__________ ___________________/

Opinion filed September 1, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark J. Borello , Judge

.

Ray Schreiner, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFI RMED.

LEWIS, RAY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

34 36 38 40 42 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
# O0T-05T

_ (^^?-3^^ ) •? io-jr;:";=ORi7iiiO N Worlan d Municipa l Airpor t Worland , Wyomin g . ; ESSENTIALAI R SERVIC E COMMENT S ' ' 

### July 21 , 201 0 Denni s J . DeVany , Chie f Essentia l Ai rServic e Divisio n Offic e o fAviatio n Analysi s Mr . DeVany , i woul d lik e t o star t of fbythankin g yo u fo rth e continue d suppor to fcommercia l ai rservic e i n smal l communities . Withou t th e Essentia l Ai rservice , I full ybeliev e ther e woul d no tb e a n ai rcarrie ri n Worland . Wit h that , I wis h t o submi t th e followin g comment s concernin g th e tw o (2 ) carrier s tha t submitte d proposal s fo rsubsidize d EA S a tWorland , Wyoming . A s yo u know . Grea t Lake s Aviatio n i s currentl yservin g Worlan d wit h 1 2 flight s a wee k t o Denver , C

O wit h a sto p i n eithe rLaramie , W Yo rCheyenne , WY . Th e mai n issu e I hav e wit h Grea tLake s i s wit h thei r inconsistency . O n average , twent ypercen to rmor e o fth e flight s ar e late , cancelle d o rearly . Thi s cause s a n inconvenienc e t o ou rcitizen s fo rth e lat e an d cancelled . Fo rAirpor tpersonnel , lat e an d cancelle d increas e th e overtim e fo rAircraf tRescu e an d Fire Fightin g standb yrequire d b yFA Awhe n we'r e no t notified . Earl yflight s pu t u s i n violatio n o fou roperatin g certificat e whe n ARF F personne l ar e no t a t th e airpor t fo rfligh t operations . I hav e talke d wit h Jo n Payn e o fSovereig n Air , Inc . o n a coupl e o foccasions . H e state s tha ti fSovereig n Air , In cwa s t o b e awarde d th e EA S contrac tfo rWorland/Laramie , the ywoul d mov e fligh tcre wan d maintenanc e personne l t o Worlan d whic h woul d b e goo d fo rou rcommunity . I hav e ha d severa l peopl e stat e the yd o no t wan t t o g o t o a 9-passenge raircraf tlik e th e Kin g Ai r200 . Mr . Payn e di d indicat e the y woul d upgrad e t o a 19-passenge rplan e hopefull ywithi n 6 months . I a m als o concerne d abou t Sovereig n Air , Inc . no thavin g thei roperatin g certificate s a tthi s time . Also , i t i s m yunderstandin g the yd o no t hav e gate s a tth e termina l i n Denver . A t thi s tim e I a m no t pleas e wit h th e servic e w e ar e receivin g fro m Grea tLake s Aviation , however , I a m a littl e reluctan t t o pu t m ysuppor t behin d Sovereig n Air , Inc . Kre g Lombar d Gar yJ . Thompso n Mayo rAirpor tManage r Cit yo fWorlan d Worlan d Municipa l Airpor t Worland , Wyomin g Worland , Wyomin g