alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 39134.

#### Protest 896370-G of W. Schwab (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Erom the evidence it was held that certain woolen blankets and metal household utensils and furniture are entitled to free entry under paragraph 1632. The protest was overruled as to a portable bar and wooden book shelf which were found to be new articles.
Exhibit 10.9


 


2007 Senior Management Incentive Bonus Plan


 


	
  Participants:

  	
  Marc
  D. Grodman, MD, CEO

  
	
   

  	
  Howard
  Dubinett, COO

  
	
   

  	
  Sam
  Singer, CFO

  
	
   

  	
  Charles
  T. Todd, Sr. VP Marketing & Sales

  
	
   

  	
  John
  Littleton, VP Sales

  
	
   

  	
  Warren
  Erdmann, VP Operations

  
	
   

  	
  Sally
  Howlett, VP Billing

  
	
   

  	
  Nick
  Papazicos, VP Financial Operations

  
	
   

  	
  Nick
  Cetani, VP Laboratory Director

  
	
   

  	
  James
  Weisberger, MD, CMO

  
	
   

  	
  Maryanne
  Amato, Director, Genpath

  
	
   

  	
  Richard
  L. Faherty, CIO

  



 


Proposed
Plan:


 


A.                                   The Senior Management Incentive Bonus Plan
will be based on Operating Income as a per cent of Total Net Revenues pursuant
to the standard financial documents of the Company.


 


B.                                     There will be one class of participation.


 


C.                                     Operating Income shall consist of the Total
Operating Income (hereinafter referred to as “TOI”) for the Entire Company
including all divisions and subsidiaries.


 


D.                                    In the event that TOI shall be equal to or
greater than 10% then and in such event, the participants will be entitled to a
bonus based on the participant’s annual gross wages exclusive of any bonus,
option exercise, auto expense charge-back,or other unearned revenue, pursuant o
the following schedule:


 


	
  If TOI is greater than

  	
   

  	
  and less than

  	
   

  	
  Percent Bonus

  	
   

  
	
  9.99

  	
  %

  	
  10.51

  	
  %

  	
  10

  	
  %

  
	
  10.50

  	
  %

  	
  11.01

  	
  %

  	
  15

  	
  %

  
	
  11.00

  	
  %

  	
  11.51

  	
  %

  	
  20

  	
  %

  
	
  11.50

  	
  %

  	
  12.01

  	
  %

  	
  25

  	
  %

  
	
  12.00

  	
  %

  	
  12.51

  	
  %

  	
  30

  	
  %

  
	
  12.50

  	
  %

  	
  13.01

  	
  %

  	
  35

  	
  %

  
	
  13.00

  	
  %

  	
  13.51

  	
  %

  	
  40

  	
  %

  
	
  13.50

  	
  %

  	
  14.01

  	
  %

  	
  50

  	
  %

  
	
  14.00

  	
  %

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


E.                                      The maximum bonus to be paid under this
program will be 50% of annual wages regardless of TOI.


 


1
# C_2013063EN.01000702.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 21 November 2012 — Mömax Logistik GmbH

(Case C-528/12)

2013/C 63/12

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mömax Logistik GmbH

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Bundesamt für Justiz

Other party to the proceedings:

Question referred

Question referred

Is a rule of national law under which the provisions of Article 57(1) of Directive 78/660/EEC (1) concerning the content, auditing and publication of the annual accounts are not applied to companies governed by the law of the Member State only if the parent undertaking is governed by the law of the same Member State and has prepared consolidated accounts in accordance with the law of that State compatible with the freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU)?

1

---

(1)  Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              UT
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       75,283
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      6,364
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          12,271
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         4,689
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   3,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,897
<COMMON>                                        24,625
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              8,911
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  33,536
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        321
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            34,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               7,085
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    6,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  20,595
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  101,897
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       54,601
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,655
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      14,061
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      20,340
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          7,238
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,603
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   8,841
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         4,392
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,794
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         16
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    2,778
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         2,606
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           6,809
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
----

----

|   | 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/  Thomas      W. Maher                                 |   |   |   |
| Thomas      W. Maher,Chief      Financial OfficerApril      3, 2008 |   |   |   |

----
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1589 

To extend the authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail in the State 

of New Jersey. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 

Mr. LAUTENBERG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To extend the authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail 

in the State of New Jersey. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION. 

4 Section 6(c) of Public Law 100–515 (16 U.S.C. 1244 

5 note; 120 Stat. 1859) is amended by striking ‘‘2011’’ and 

6 inserting ‘‘2016’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 47003.

#### Protest 37773-K of F. C. Mader (Tampa).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

There was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff when this protest was called for trial. An examination of the papers disclosed nothing to support the claim made. The protest was therefore overruled.
Before the Second Division,

December 5, 1950

No. 54917.

#### Chase Watch Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 125006-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the items of merchandise marked *“A”*or “B” on the invoices consist of watch movements similar in all material respects to those which were the subject of *United States*v. *Helbros Watch Co. et al.*(38 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 430). Upon the agreed statement of facts and the cited authority, the items marked *“A”*were held properly dutiable at the base rate of 90 cents each as watch movements more than 1 inch but not less than 1.77 inches wide, and the items marked “B” were held dutiable at $1.20 each as watch movements more than %o of 1 inch but not more than 1 inch wide under paragraph 367 (a) (1), as modified, *supra.*
No. 39139.

#### Protests 306961-G, etc., of Globe Shipping Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

On the agreed facts the atomizers in question were, held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339. *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373) followed.
No. 45262.

#### Protests 37673-K, etc., of B. R. Anderson & Co. et al. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation, of counsel and on the authority of *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(C. D. 372) and Abstract 44821 some of the merchandise was held free of duty under paragraph 1669 and certain items were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34.
Case No. 5,668.

#### GOODYEAR v. DAY.

[1 Blatchf. 565; 1 1 Fish. Pat. Rap. 385.]

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

Oct. Term, 1850.

Courts — Jurisdiction—Citizenship.

A citizen of Connecticut brought a suit in equity in this court against a citizen of New Jers y. for a breach of contract, and prayed an account: *Held,*that this court had no jurisdiction of the case, neither party being a citizen of New-York, although the subject matter of the contract was a patent.

[Cited in Goodyear v. Union India Rubbar C%, Case No. 5,580; Blanchard v. Sprague, Id. 1.516; Randolph v. Robinson, Id. 11,561; Consolidated Fruit .Tar Co. v. Whitney, Id. 3.133; Teas v. Albright, 13'Fed. 412.]

[Cited in Slemmer’s Appeal, 5S Pa. St. 104; Middlebrook v. Broadbent, 47 N. Y. 448.]

In equity. The bill in this case was founded upon a special agreement entered into between the plaintiff [Charles Goodyear] and the defendant [Horace H. Day] on the 29th of October, 1846, adjusting several suits pending between them concerning patent-rights-claimed by the plaintiff relative to the manufacture of India-rubber. It charged a breach of the agreement, and prayed an account, &c. The plaintiff now moved for an - injunction. The facts appear by the opinion of the court.

F. B. Staples, for complainant.

George Sullivan, for defendant

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

The plaintiff is a citizen of Connecticut and the defendant a citizen of New-Jersey, as appears upon the face of the bill; and an objection has been taken to the jurisdiction of the court for the want of proper parties. The objection is undoubtedly fatal, as, in order to give jurisdiction, the suit must be between a citizen of the state in which it is brought, and a citizen of another state. Judiciary act of 1789, § 11 (1 Stat 78). Here neither party is a citizen of New-York, where the suit is brought

It was attempted to sustain the jurisdiction on the ground that the suit was brought under the patent act [of 1S3S(5 Stat. 117)], where jurisdiction depends on the subject matter, without reference to citizenship or residence; and that the gravamen laid was the' infringement of patent-rights. But there is no foundation for this ’ position. The bill is not constructed for the purpose of presenting a question of the infringement of a patent; but is brought for the violation of a contract. We can regard it in no other light Motion denied.
No. 42073.

#### Protest 986343-G of Marrash Importing Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

No evidence was oSered in support of the claim made. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 44287.

#### Protests 743622-G, etc., of Rubin Levine et al. (New York).

..Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 9629)

#### Fintimex, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 10931.

(Decided March 11, 1960)

*John O. Ray*for the plaintiff.

*George GoohranDoub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement is before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> *607IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto that the merchandise involved in Appeal to Reappraisement No. 286887-A, Collector’s No. 2493, consists of plywood exported from Finland in the years 1955 and 1956 and that the merchandise is properly dutiable on the basis of the foreign market value as defined in Section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price 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 quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised unit values less 4% packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher export value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the plywood in question 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 appraised unit values, less 4 per centum, packed.

Judgment will be rendered 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 Annual Report of Regeneca, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Matthew Nicosia, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and, I, Daniel R. Kerker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Matthew Nicosia By: Matthew Nicosia Principal Executive Officer  /s/ Daniel R. Kerker By: Daniel R. Kerker Principal Financial Officer  Dated: December 20, 2011  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Before the Second Division,

November 28, 1945

No. 50712.

#### Protests 103346-K, etc., of House of Portugal et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2016410EN.01003802.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/38

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 15 June 2016 — Wille and Skovsboell v Commission

(Case F-75/12) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposals concerning additional pensionable years - Act not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action - Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 410/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Daniel Wille (Mouscron, Belgium) and Bo Skovsboell (Brussels, Belgium) (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, subsequently J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and, lastly, J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Applicants:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision calculating the amount of the pension rights acquired prior to entering the service of the Commission to be credited and the rejection of the complaints brought by the applicants.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Daniel Wille and Mr Bo Skovsboell shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Daniel Wille and Mr Bo Skovsboell shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22/9/2012, p. 41.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1253

LIANG CHEN, Petitioner,

v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: January 9, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Liang Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Eric Warren Marsteller, Jem Colleen Sponzo, Office of Immigration Litigation, U NITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Liang Chen, who claims to be a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Chen first challenges the determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Chen fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks. Additionally, we uphold the denial of Chen’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Chen failed to show

23 that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, we deny t he petition for review. ∗ We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

∗ In his informal brief before this court, Chen has failed to raise any challenges to the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We therefore find that he has waived appellate review of this claim. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”); Ngarurih v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

The Board of Directors 

Brio Software, Inc.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (File Nos. 333-72770, 333-64888, 333-53164, 333-45090, 333-36802, 333-84527, 333-65109 and 333-88774) on Form S-8 of Brio Software, Inc., of our report dated April 17, 2003 (except for the matter discussed in Note 10, as towhich the date is June 23, 2003), with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Brio Software, Inc. as of March 31, 2003 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows forthe year then ended, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the March 31, 2003, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Brio Software, Inc. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

June 30, 2003
Case No. 13,343.

#### STEDMAN et al. v. HAMILTON et al.

[4 McLean, 538.] *1*

Circuit Court, D. Indiana.

May Term, 1849.

Continuance — Affidavit—Sufficiency op.

An affidavit that the defendant can show, by a certain witness, that the goods were damaged when bought, for which the note sued on was given, without alleging that the fact was unknown to the plaintiff, is not sufficient ground for the continuance of a cause.

[This was an action by Stedman, Maynard & Co. against Hamilton & Hamilton.]

OPINION OP

THE COURT.

A motion is made for a continuance on an affidavit, that the note on which the action was given was for merchandize — a part of which, at the time of sale, was damaged, which fact the affiant, one of the defendants, believes he can prove, if the case is continued. That process was served only a few days before the time expired for service of process; that the clerks of plaintiffs, and Composette, clerk of defendants, reside in Ohio; and their attendance can not be procured at the present term. This affidavit is insufficient. It does not show that the unsoundness of the goods was unknown to the defendants. It does not show the extent of the defects in the goods. The writ was served thirty-five days *1198before the commencement of the present term, and the material witness is in the employ of defendants, and, it is said, not more than thirty-five miles from his residence. These considerations are sufficient to deny the motion for a continuance, without going into the consideration whether the defense could be set up, if proved.