alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(V. D. 72)

#### Manufacturers Steel Corp. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 911448, etc.

(Decided April 3, 1958)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiffs.

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

*633La WHENCE, Judge:

The causes of action enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of this decision, arose by virtue of a judgment by the second division of this court in *Homestrand, Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*36 Cust. Ct. 470, Abstract 60012, wherein the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement, pursuant to the provisions of title 28, U. S. C. § 2636 (d).

The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed as follows:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise consists of instruments and cases which were held by the Court in Abstract 60012 to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of article.

> 2. That the market value or the price of the instruments and cases herein at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities 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 all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was as set forth below.

> [Statistical listing of market values or prices was here set forth.]

> 3. That there was no higher foreign value.

> 4. That the instant case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

Upon tbe agreed facts, I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the gauges, calipers, and micrometers, with wooden or leather cases, covered by the remands of protests enumerated in the attached schedule, and that such value is as indicated in paragraph 2 of the above quoted stipulation.

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

Judgment will issue accordingly.
##### 



O2Diesel Corporation
(A Development Stage Company)
September 30, 2004 EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATIONS I, David Koontz, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of O2Diesel
Corporation; 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
quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    [Omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8238 (September 5,
2003).]c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants




---



##### 



O2Diesel Corporation
(A Development Stage Company)
September 30, 2004  ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and  b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Date: November 12, 2004
    
    By: /s/ David KoontzName: David KoontzTitle: Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
Opinion issued May 16, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00801-CV

———————————

JUSTIN GORDON HOMES, LLC, Appellant

V.

DUSTIN BECK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2016-21070

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Justin Gordon Homes, LLC, has neither paid the required fees nor 

established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; 

see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.851(b), 51.941(a), 101.041(1) (West 
2

2013 & Supp. 2016); Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the 

Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. 

Docket No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). Further, appellant has not paid or made 

arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did 

not adequately respond. TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and 

for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Huddle, and Lloyd.
(Reap. Dec. 8424)

Entry No. 974923.

#### J. D. Smith-Interocean, Inc., a/c Dacora Camera Corp. *v.*United States

(Decided April 28, 1955)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

*490Olivek, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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 market value or price at the time of exportation of the cameras and cases covered by the invoice and entry herein at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including all costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was 32.30 Deutch Marks, net packed for the cameras and 5.60 Deutch Marks, net packed for the cases, and that there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

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

On tbe agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the cameras and cases here involved, and that such values were 32.30 deutschemarks each, net packed for the cameras, and 5.60 deutschemarks each, net packed for the cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1364 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1364

  To ensure the timely payment of Social Security benefits in August 
                                 2011.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 13, 2011

  Mr. Nelson of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To ensure the timely payment of Social Security benefits in August 
                                 2011.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Benefit Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. TIMELY PAYMENT OF AUGUST 2011 SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.

    (a) Guarantee of Social Security Benefit Payments.--In addition to 
any other authority provided by law and for the purpose of ensuring 
that payments to beneficiaries are not barred or delayed, the Secretary 
of the Treasury may issue under chapter 31 of title 31, United States 
Code, obligations of the United States in an amount equal to the 
monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the Social 
Security Act in August 2011.
    (b) Obligations Exempt From Public Debt Limit.--
            (1) In general.--Obligations issued under subsection (a) 
        shall not be taken into account in applying the limitation in 
        section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code.
            (2) Termination of exemption.--Paragraph (1) shall cease to 
        apply on the earlier of--
                    (A) the date of the enactment of the first increase 
                in the limitation in section 3101(b) of title 31, 
                United States Code, after the date of the enactment of 
                this Act, or
                    (B) August 31, 2011.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Joseph M. Naughton, 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 Go Online Networks Corporation and Subsidiaries on form 10-KSB for the
year  ended  December  31,  2003 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-KSB fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Go Online Networks
Corporation and Subsidiaries.



Date:  April  14,  2004                            By:  /s/  Joseph M. Naughton
                                                    -----------------------
                                                Joseph M. Naughton
                                                Principal  Financial  Officer


A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  typed  from  within  the  electronic  version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Go Online Networks Corporation and
Subsidiaries  and  will  be  retained  by  Go  Online  Networks  Corporation and
Subsidiaries  and furnished  to the Securities  and  Exchange  Commission or its
staff  upon  request.
#### PITTSBURGH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, a West Virginia Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Leonard C. BROWN, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Security Agency, Bureau of Employees’ Compensation, Tenth Compensation District, and Myrtle Bundo Kochen Denessen, Defendants.

No. 46 C 1705.

United States District Court N. D. Illinois, E. D.

March 24, 1947.

Knapp, Cushing, Hershberger & Stevenson, of Chicago, 111., for plaintiff.

Walker Butler, of Chicago, 111., for defendant.

J. Albert Woll, of Chicago, 111., for the Government.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

The United States Attorney has today filed a brief on the question of burden of proof, relying chiefly on a recent Supreme Court decision in Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. et al., 1947, 330 U.S. 469, 67 S.Ct. 801, 91 L.Ed. 1028, and on Davis v. Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington, 1942, 317 U.S. 249, 63 S.Ct. 225, 87 L.Ed. 246. I find that these two cases do not in any way apply *288to the question of burden of proof on which I ruled at the last hearing on March 12, 1947, Pittsburgh Steamship Co. v. Brown, D.C., 81 F.Supp. 285.

The Cardillo case involved the question whether the death of the decedent arose out of and in the course of employment under the District of Columbia Workmen’s Compensation Act, D.C.Code 1940, §§ 36— 501, 36 — 502, which, by Section 1, made the provisions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. A, § 901 et seq., applicable “in respect to the injury or death of an employee of an employer carrying on any employment in the District of Columbia, irrespective of the place where the injury or death occurs.” Whether the accidental injury arose out of and in the course of employment, as I pointed out in my memorandum of February 6, 1947, Pittsburgh Steamship Co. v. Brown, D.C., 81 F.Supp. 284 was held by the Supreme Court in Voehl v. Indemnity Insurance Co., 1933, 288 U.S. 162, 53 S.Ct. 380, 77 L.Ed. 676, 87 A.L.R. 245 to be not such a fundamental jurisdictional fact as required a trial de novo under the doctrine of Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598. On the contrary, as the Supreme Court said in the Cardillo case, citing the Voehl case, the Deputy Commissioner’s finding that an injury did or did not arise out of and in the course of emr ployment is conclusive “if supported by evidence and not inconsistent with the law.”

The Davis case involved the twilight zone between the federal maritime jurisdiction and state jurisdiction in providing for workmen’s compensation, and held that the state court had erroneously concluded that the state could not constitutionally make an award under the state compensation law to the widow of a workman drowned in a navigable river. The court said that since the case involved a borderline situation in which the constitutionality of a state statute was involved, it would rely upon the presumption of constitutionality and resolve all doubts in favor of the statute.

I therefore find nothing new in the Government’s brief to change the opinion which I delivered from the bench on March 12.
#### Budd, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6514.

Entry No. 702815, etc.

Invoice dated Walsall, England, June 1944, etc.

Certified June 1944, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 2, 1944, etc.

(Decided November 14, 1946)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiffs.

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

Mollison, 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:

(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 importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 62120.

#### Empresas Rodriguez, S. A., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 232951-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States v. Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 667), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 76-2.

#### Griffin et al. *v.*United States.

Temp. Emerg. Ct. App. Certiorari denied.
(Reap. Dec. 9592)

#### Indianapolis Machinery Export Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 594; 375; 496.

(Decided February 11, 1960)

*Engene R. PicforeTl*for the plaintiff.

*George Goehran Eoiib,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These three appeals for reappraisement are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorney for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the above mentioned appeals for reappraisement cover importations of the following machine tools imported a.t the Port of Indianapolis, Indiana, from London, England:

> Fiat Radial Drilling Machine

> Ninganti 2A 20'' sw. Turret Lathe

> Sant Andrea UFO 5 Horizontal Mill

> Noel Ernault No. 5 Capstan Lathe

> Somua 32" swing x 360" Lathe;

> that such or similar machine tools were freely offered to all purchasers in usual wholesale quantities, at or prior to the time of exportation of the said machine tools, for sale at the invoice prices of said machine tools, less five (5%) per-centum, both for home consumption in the United Kingdom and for export from the United Kingdom to the United States; that such or similar machine tools were not offered for sale or sold at or prior to the time of the exportation of the said machine tools covered by the above-mentioned appeals for reappraisement either for home consumption in the United Kingdom or for export to the United States, at prices higher than the invoice unit prices of said machine tools, less five (5%) percentum, plus packing.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above appeals for reappraisement are abandoned as to any other merchandise listed on the invoices, and that these appeals may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

*567On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the machine tools in question, as hereinabove identified, is foreign value, as defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the invoice unit prices, less 5 per centum, plus packing.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1453 

To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to allow the transport, 

purchase, and sale of pelts of, and handicrafts, garments, and art produced from, Southcentral and Southeast Alaska northern sea otters that 

are taken for subsistence purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 29, 2011 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. BEGICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to 

allow the transport, purchase, and sale of pelts of, and 

handicrafts, garments, and art produced from, 

Southcentral and Southeast Alaska northern sea otters 

that are taken for subsistence purposes. 

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


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1453 IS

1 SECTION 1. TRANSPORT, PURCHASE, AND SALE OF PELTS 

2 OF, AND HANDICRAFTS, GARMENTS, AND ART 

3 PRODUCED FROM SOUTHCENTRAL AND 

4 SOUTHEAST ALASKA NORTHERN SEA OTTERS 

5 TAKEN FOR SUBSISTENCE PURPOSES. 

6 Section 102 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

7 of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1372) is amended by adding at the 

8 end the following: 

9 ‘‘(g) SEA OTTER PELTS AND PRODUCTS.—Nothing 

10 in this Act prohibits— 

11 ‘‘(1) the transport, purchase, sale of, or any 

12 offer to purchase or sell, any pelt of an otter from 

13 the Southcentral or Southeast Alaska stock of north14 ern sea otters that is taken for subsistence purposes 

15 in accordance with section 101(b)(1); or 

16 ‘‘(2) the transport, purchase, sale, export of, or 

17 any offer to purchase, sell or export, any handicraft, 

18 garment, or art that is produced from the pelt of the 

19 Southcentral or Southeast Alaska stock of northern 

20 sea otters that is taken for subsistence purposes in 

21 accordance with section 101(b)(1), regardless of 

22 whether the handicraft, garment, or art— 

23 ‘‘(A) is traditional or contemporary; or 

24 ‘‘(B) is or is not altered significantly’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Case No. 10,029.

#### The NATHAN HANNAN.

District Court, S. D. Florida.

March 11, 1859.

Salvage — Vessel Lost — Cargo and Material Saved — Amount op Salvage.

[Cited in Pent v. The Ocean Belle. Case No. 10.961, as an instance in which salvage of 45 per centum was allowed, the amount saved being small.]

[This was a libel by Philip Baker and others against the cargo and materials of the ship Nathan Hannan for compensation for salvage services.)

Winer Bethel, for libellants.

S. J. Douglas, for respondent.

MARVIN, District Judge.

This ship being lost in this case and the materials sold for $1,682.14, and the cargo appraised at $2,872.25, making an aggregate of $4,559.-39. It is ordered, and decreed, that the libel-lants have, and recover in full compensation for their services, forty-five per cent, upon the net value of the property saved by them; the net value to be ascertained by deducting from the gross value the wharf-age, storage, labor bills in landing and storing the cargo and reshipping it, merchants’ commissions, and other charges; and upon the payment of said salvage, costs, and charges, the marshal restore said cargo to the master of said ship, for and on account of whom it may concern.
Exhibit 32

                           Section 1350 Certifications

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002,  each  of  the   undersigned   officers  of  DND
Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

      To my knowledge,  the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 16, 2005

                                           BY:  /s/ Douglas N. Dixon
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                      DOUGLAS N. DIXON
                                                   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Dated: May 16, 2005

                                           BY:  /s/ G. Dennis Key
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                        G. DENNIS KEY
                                                   CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


                                       23