alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 47026.

#### Protest 37003-K of Enbun Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial a package of “Cutted Dry Bonita” was presented to be analyzed by a Government chemist. The report shows that the sample contains no added flavoring materials or preservatives other than salt, and that the amount of salt is in excess of that normally present in dried unsalted fish. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is of the same character and description as that the subject of *United States*v. *Enbun*(19 C. C. P. A. 79, T. D. 45224) the claim at 1)4 cents; per pound under paragraph 717 (c) was sustained.
#### Penson & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6837.

Entry No. 770291.

Invoice dated Dundee, Scotland, May 1946.

Certified June 11, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 21, 1946.

(Decided February 5, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for tlie plaintiff.

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

Hínchelos, 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.
No. 74-5923.

#### Tate *v.*Gray, Correctional Superintendent.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 74-776.

#### Phelps *v.*Christison, Trustee in Bankruptcy, et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 23.1
   1.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-68968)
pertaining to the Manhattan Associates, Inc. 1998 Stock
Incentive Plan,2.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-45802)
pertaining to the Manhattan Associates, Inc. 1998 Stock
Incentive Plan,3.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-105913)
pertaining to the Manhattan Associates, Inc. 2007 Stock
Incentive Plan,4.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129272)
pertaining to the Manhattan Associates, Inc. 2007 Stock
Incentive Plan,5.
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-139598)
pertaining to the Manhattan Associates, Inc. 2007 Stock
Incentive Plan,6.
    
    Registration statement (Form S-8 No. 333-143611)
pertaining to the Manhattan Associates, Inc. 2007 Stock
Incentive Plan, and7.
    
    Registration statement (Form S-8 No. 333-159852)
pertaining to the Manhattan Associates, Inc. 2007 Stock
Incentive Plan
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 02-1181

CHARLES PALMER,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Respondent, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on May 30, 2003 is amended as

follows:

Page 2, line 16: "Counts Two and Four" is deleted and replaced

with "Counts One and Four."
# C_2013377EN.01002304.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/23

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Palleschi v Commission

(Case F-123/12) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Contract staff for auxiliary tasks - Article 3c of the CEOS - Application for reclassification of the contract as a temporary contract for an indefinite period - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

2013/C 377/55

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Maria-Pia Palleschi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to reject the applicant’s request that her contract as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks be reclassified as a temporary contract for an indefinite period

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

| 2. | Ms Palleschi shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Palleschi shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 15.12.2012, p. 9.

1

---
33759.

#### HAZELRIG v. HAZELRIG.

Nichols, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by the defendant husband in a divorce, alimony and child custody case. The appellant enumerates seven errors, but the brief filed contains only a statement of facts as to what transpired in the trial court. Therefore, the alleged errors are deemed abandoned under Rule 18(c) (2) of this court.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*76Submitted June 23, 1978

Decided September 6, 1978.

*James R. Venable,*for appellant.

*James B. Malcolm, Jr.,*for appellee.
Exhibit 10.3


 


AMENDMENT TO


THE NEW ATA HOLDINGS INC.


2006 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


 


Whereas,
the New ATA Holdings Inc. 2006 Long Term Incentive Plan provides in Section 6.1
thereof that grants of Options under the Plan shall terminate if a written
Agreement evidencing an Option grant is not signed by the grantee of the Option
(or his attorney) and delivered to the Company within 60 days after the
effective date of the grant of the Option; and


 


Whereas, there may be occasions when such Agreements are not signed and
returned within the 60-day period due to various reasons; and


 


Whereas, although every effort will be made by the Plan Administrator
to secure the prompt return to the Company of a signed Agreement evidencing an
Option grant, the Board does not deem it necessary to retain the requirement
that it be returned within 60 days; and


 


Whereas,
the Board therefore deems it advisable to eliminate the requirement that
Agreements evidencing the grant of an Option be signed and returned within 60
days of the effective date of the grant of such Option;


 


Now
therefore, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of August 14, 2007, by
amending Section 6.1 of the Plan so that Section 6.1, as so amended
shall read in its entirety as follows:


 


Section 6.1.  Written Agreement.  Each Option shall be evidenced by an
Agreement which may contain such terms as the Committee from time to time shall
approve provided that such terms are not inconsistent with the provisions of
the Plan.  Unless the Agreement specifies
otherwise, the effective date of the granting of an Option shall be the date on
which the Committee approves such grant. 
Each grantee of an Option shall be notified promptly of such grant and a
written Agreement shall be promptly executed and delivered by the Company and
the grantee.


 


Capitalized
term used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan,


 

















 


In
witness whereof, this amendment to the Plan has been executed by the
undersigned duly authorized officer, this      day of                              ,
2007.


 


	
   

  	
  Global
  Aero Logistics Inc.

  
	
   

  	
  (formerly
  known as New ATA

  Holdings Inc.)

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:
(Reap. Dec. 9648)

#### Masonite Company of Canada, Ltd. *v.*United States

Entry No. 472.

(Decided March 24, 1960)

*Bharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran DouT),*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, that the merchandise covered by the above named appeal for reappraisement, consists of Masonite Panelwood, Industrial grade, exported from Canada on or about October 12,1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there is no foreign value, export value, or United States value as those terms are defined in sections 402(c), (d), and (e), respectively, of the Tariff Act of 1930, for such or similar merchandise and that the cost of production as defined in section 402(f) of said Act is $40.53 (Canadian funds) per thousand square feet.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal for re-appraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) 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 value was $40.53 (Canadian funds) per thousand square feet.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Giovanni Barbarossa, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Avanex Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Avanex Corporation.



Date: September 5, 2008By:

/S/    GIOVANNI BARBAROSSAName:

Giovanni BarbarossaTitle:

Interim Chief Executive Officer




I, Mark
Weinswig, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Avanex Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Avanex Corporation.



Date: September 5, 2008By:

/S/    MARK
WEINSWIGName:

Mark WeinswigTitle:

Interim Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with TheSheridan Group, Inc. (the “Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscalyear ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, John A. Saxton, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, and Robert M. Jakobe, Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of our knowledge:

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 
| Date:  | March  31, 2005 | By:  | /s/  John A. Saxton                         |
|-------------|-----------------|-----------|---------------------------------------------|
|        |            |      | John  A. Saxton                             |
|        |            |      | President  and Chief Executive Officer      |
|        |            |      |                                        |
| Date:  | March  31, 2005 | By:  | /s/  Robert M. Jakobe                       |
|        |            |      | Robert  M. Jakobe                           |
|        |            |      | Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Marty V. ELLINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Appellee.

No. 97-02140.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 11, 1998.

Donald P. Day of Berry & Day, P.A., Naples, for Appellant.

Edward A. Dion, General Counsel, and Laura E. Taylor, Senior Attorney, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. *See Brown v. State, Dep’t of Labor & Employment Sec.,*705 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

PARKER, C.J., and DANAHY and QUINCE, JJ., Concur.
p.1 

OAR Box 1796 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

69) VI-B-20 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:38 PM Sheet 69 of 107 
P.2 

A-90-37 

VI-B-20 

This document has been moved to IV-D-333 at the request of the project 

officer. It was incorrectly categorize originally.
September 6, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DOMINION ESTATES HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00041-CV V.

MARY F. MASTERSON, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment 

signed by the court below on December 2, 2011. Having considered the motion and 

found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Dominion Estates Homeowner's Association.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# FILED

Novemb er 19, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT NA SHVILLE

WILLIA M TOWNE Y OUNG, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) Ruth erford Ch ancery No. 93DR- 1193 ) VS. ) A ppeal No. 01A 01-9610-CH- 00473 ) MA RTHA

McCOOL Y OUNG, ) ) Defendant/Appellant. )

OR DE R O N P ET IT IO N T O R EH EAR

The appellant has fil ed a petition to rehear, alle ging that the Court ov erlooked

her constitutional argument relative to the Tennessee Child Suppo rt Guidelines.

Appellant failed t o raise a cons titutional i ssue in the st atement of issues and

failed to giv

e notice to the at

torney g eneral of a consti tutional chall enge. See: T.R. A.P.

27(a) (4) and 32.

The petition to r ehear is res pectfully deni ed.

So ordered this

_________ day of Nov ember, 1997.

HIGHERS, J.

CANTRELL, J.

KOCH, J.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ KANEKA CORPORATION, Plaintiff

- Cross

- Appellant

v.

SKC KOLON PI, INC., SKC, INC. , Defendants

- Appellants

______________________

2018

- 1313, 2018

- 1399

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 2:11

- cv

- 03397

- JGB

RZ, Judge Jesus G. Bernal.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
A NTHONY J. D AIN , Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff

- cross -appellant. Also represented by R AYMOND K. C HAN , D AVE D EONARINE , J OHN C HRISTOPHER J ACZKO , F REDERICK K. T AYLOR

.
J. M ICHAEL J AKES , Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants

- appellants. Also represented by C HARLESC OLLINS -C HASE , M INDY E HRENFRIED ; C HARLES H YUK S UH , Reston, VA.

______________________
T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN , O’M ALLEY , and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges ).
AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 15, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
Case No. 9,285.

#### MATTHEWS v. LYALL.

[6 McLean, 13.] 1

Circuit Court D. Michigan.

June Term, 1853.

Removal or Causes— Alien — Right to Deny Removal.

[Where all the requisites of the act of congress relative to removals have been complied with, the state court has no right to deny the removal; and, if it should so deny, all its subsequent acts in the cause are coram non judice and void.]

[Cited in Ellerman v. New Orleans, M. & T. R. Co., Case No. 4,382.]

[Cited in Lange v. Benedict 73 N. Y. 36; Sharp v. Gutcher, 74 Ind. 364.]

The defendant being an alien, and being sued before the state court of Oakland county, filed a petition at the first term to remove the cause into the circuit court of the United States. Bond was given, to which there was no objection, and it appeared that the matter in dispute exceeded the sum of five hundred dollars. The state court refused to permit the removal. This court held, that the requisites of the act of congress having been complied with in this case, the state court had no right to deny the removal. The law declares, that, under such'circumstances, the state court shall proceed no further in the case. And the supreme court have held, that all subsequent proceedings in the state court are coram non judice. [Gordon v. Longest] 16 Pet. [41 U. S.] 101. But in this case, the complainant dismissed his bill. This we suppose he had a right to do, whether the cause be considered in the state court, or in this court.
No. 55527.

#### L. Bamberger & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 168909-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 44248.

#### Protests 730400-G, etc., of A. L. Tuska Son & Co. (New York).

*302Opinion 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.
**Exhibit 23.4**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM ON**

**FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE**

Board of Directors and Shareholders 

Mannatech,Incorporated 

We have audited in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) theconsolidated financial statements of Mannatech, Incorporated and subsidiaries referred to in our report dated March 16, 2007, which is included in the annual report to shareholders and included in Part II of this form. Our audits of the basicfinancial statements included the financial statement schedule listed in the index appearing under Item 15 for 2005 and 2006, which is the responsibility of the Company’s management. In our opinion, this financial statement schedule, whenconsidered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein. 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Dallas, Texas 

March 17,2008
No. 54950.

#### Interatlantic Trading Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 161160-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
# C_2016222EN.01004101.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/41

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 3 May 2016 — Noël v Commission

(Case F-31/12) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Initial proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years, made by the appointing authority and accepted by the person concerned - Withdrawal of that proposal - New proposal based on new general implementing provisions - Objection of inadmissibility - Concept of an act having adverse effect - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 222/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marc Noël (Bergen, the Netherlands) (represented by: initially, D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, then D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and lastly, J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents, then J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, then G. Gattinara, Agent, and lastly, G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions to transfer the pension rights acquired prior to entering the service of the Commission on the basis of the PMO’s recalculated proposition.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Marc Noël shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Marc Noël shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5/5/2012, p. 31.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                          Correctional Properties Trust
                          3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 750
                        Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
                        (561) 630-6336 Fax (561) 630-6311

March 26, 2002

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Judiciary Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have received, on the date hereof, representation from Arthur Andersen LLP
that their audit of the financial statements contained in Correctional
Properties Trust's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2001, of which this Exhibit 99.2 is a part, was subject to their quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
standards, and that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen
personnel working on the audit and availability of national office consultation
to conduct the relevant portions of the audit. The Company has been advised by
Arthur Andersen LLP that the availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of
Arthur Andersen LLP was not relevant to the Company's audit for the year ended
December 31, 2001.

Sincerely,


/s/ David J. Obernesser
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
Correctional Properties Trust
Before the Third Division,

June 16, 1949

No. 53291.

#### Maryland Distillers Products Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 103182-K, etc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
No. 96-7836.

#### Moore *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.