alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Radio Corporation of America RCA Int. Division *v.*United States

No. 7736.

Entry No. 800559.

(Decided August 31, 1949)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiff.

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

*275Lawrence, Judge:

This appeal for a reappraisement involves the question of the proper dutiable value of certain radio receivers imported from Canada.

The respective parties have submitted the appeal for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the issues herein are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States,*21 Cust. Ct. 314, Reap. Dec. 7624, and that the record in that case may be incorporated herein. The parties have also agreed that 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 of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, was the appraised value, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, and that there was no higher foreign value.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the value of said merchandise, and that such value is the appraised value, less additions made by importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
33991.

33992.

#### ROBINSON et al. v. MAYOR &c. OF DOUGLASVILLE et al. COATS et al. v. ROBINSON et al.

Jordan, Justice.

This appeal arises from a complaint seeking certain equitable relief by three property owners in the City of Douglasville against their adjoining property owners, Larry Coats and Shangrila West, Inc., and the Mayor and Council of Douglasville. Plaintiffs complaint alleged that *523the defendant City of Douglasville had improperly granted zoning variances and grading permits to defendants Coats and Shangrila West, Inc. for the construction of a housing subdivision and that this action resulted in the taking of plaintiffs’ adjoining property. Defendant Coats filed a counterclaim alleging an abuse of process. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed defendant Coats’ counterclaim and each count of plaintiffs’ complaint except Count 2 which the trial court held raised "a bona fide boundary line dispute between Plaintiff Robinson and Defendant Coats and Shangrila West, Inc. . .”

Submitted September 1, 1978

Decided November 7, 1978.

*Coney, Tinsley & Tinsley, John L. Coney,*for appellants (Case No. 33991).

*James & Johnson, Robert J. James, Dollar & Dettmering, W. O’Neil Dettmering, Jr., Thomas I. Kent, Jr.,*for appellees (Case No. 33991).

*Dollar & Dettmering, W. O’Neil Dettmering Jr., Thomas I. Kent, Jr.,*for appellants (Case No. 33992).

*James & Johnson, Robert J. James, Coney, Tinsley & Tinsley, JohnL. Coney,*for appellees (Case No. 33992).

Plaintiffs appeal the denial of Count 3 of their complaint. Defendant Coats cross appeals the denial of his counterclaim.

The enumerations of error in both the appeal and cross appeal can be consolidated by a review of whether the evidence presented at the hearing supports the judgment of the trial court. Neither party alleges errors of law committed by the trial court, but each argues that the evidence presented demanded a contrary result. Our review of theirecord in this case supports the trial court’s judgment.

*Judgment affirmed in Cases Nos. 33991 and 33992.*

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 65790.

#### Carmichael Forwarding Service, a/c Rex E. Staley, et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/9846, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of stone lanterns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Otagiri Mercantile Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 184, C.D. 2173), the claim of the *plaintiffs*was sustained.
. Case No. 14,006.

#### THORP v. ORR.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 335.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1822.

Deposition — Return—Proper Direction — Sealing — Evidence—Accounts—Copt.

1. It is no valid objection to a deposition taken under the act of congress [1 Stat 73] that its envelope is not directed to “the court,” if it be directed to “the judges” of the court.

2. It is sufficient evidence that the deposition was “sealed up” by the magistrate, if the envelope is sealed, and the name of the magistrate written across the seal.

3. It is not competent for the plaintiff to give parol evidence that the defendant saw and acknowledged the balance stated in the plaintiff’s ledger, without producing the ledger itself; a copy of the account is not competent evidence.

Hr. Key, for defendant,

objected to a deposition taken under the judiciary act, that it was not directed to this court; it was directed “To the Judges of the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, Washington City.” He also objected that it did not appear that it1 was sealed up by the judge who took it. He also certified that he intended to seal it up. The envelope was sealed with two seals, and the name of the judge written over each seal.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent),

overruled both objections. The deposition stated that the deponent showed the plaintiff’s ledger to the defendant, (the balance being $107.) who acknowledged '• to be correct. It stated also that the paper annexed to the deposition, was a true copy of that account, and that the deponent after-wards showed the balance, being $107, to the defendant, who promised to pay it.

THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent), rejected that part of the deposition.

Non-pros. Mr. Lear, for the plaintiff.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>






                                  Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Amended  Quarterly Report of Infinity Capital Group, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form  10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I,
Gregory H. Laborde, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 USC section  1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 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 results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: September 21, 2006

/s/Gregory H. Laborde
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory H. Laborde, Chief Executive Officer and President


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. 65812.

#### The Huffman Manufacturing Company *v.*United States,

protests 60/24143, etc. (Boston).

*545Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 4, 2020

No. 04-20-00380-CV

IN RE W.W.

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-CI-17241

Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice 

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice 

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

On July 31, 2020, this court issued its order denying Relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus and lifting this court’s stay of the trial court’s order at issue. 

Real party in interest’s motions (1) to vacate or modify the stay, (2) to strike Relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus, and (3) to require Relator to amend the record are DENIED AS 

MOOT.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 4th day of August, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7314

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DWIGHT LAMONT ASHE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:04-cr-00088-HEH-1)

Submitted: June 27, 2013 Decided: July 9, 2013

Before KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwight Lamont Ashe, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia L. Norman, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dwight Lamont Ashe appeals the district court’s order 

granting in part and denying in part his motion to correct a 

clerical error in sentencing reflected in the July 2, 2012 order 

granting a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Ashe, No. 3:04-cr-00088-HEH-1 

(E.D. Va. July 26, 2012). We deny Ashe’s motion to expedite as 

moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
No. 96-5707.

#### Rosenbalm *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Worklife Estimates: Effects of Race and Education

              																																																			Smith, Shirley J.					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics.								*Worklife Estimates: Effects of Race and Education : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 2254*.															Washington, D. C.: 										U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 												February 1986,												https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5246,				accessed on September 21, 2024.										    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. 2005N-0494]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Cosmetic Labeling Regulations” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of December 4, 2006 (71 FR 70411), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned                           ( print page 27575)                        OMB control number 0910-0599. The approval expires on May 31, 2010. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.fda.gov/​ohrms/​dockets*.                

Dated: May 10, 2007.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. E7-9436 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
Amendment No.2 to Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan



 Exhibit 10(iii)A(1) 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 
 TO 
 ACUITY BRANDS, INC. 
 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

 (As Amended And Restated Effective As of January 1, 2005) 
 THIS AMENDMENT made this 27th day of September, 2007, by ACUITY BRANDS, INC. (the “Company”); 
 WITNESSETH:

 WHEREAS, the Company established the Acuity Brands, Inc. 2002 Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, which Plan was amended
and restated generally effective as of January 1, 2005 (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company now desires to amend
the Plan in the manner hereinafter provided; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, as follows; 
 1. 
 Section 3.5 is hereby amended by
deleting the present section in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof. 
 “3.5 Vested Terminee Benefit: A Participant who qualifies as a Vested Terminee (as defined in Section 1.1(dd)) shall be entitled to a benefit equal to his Accrual Benefit, payable in the normal form described in
Section 3.7 and payment shall commence as of the first day of the calendar month coinciding with or next following the Participant’s 60th
birthday. Such a Participant may, however, elect to commence his Section 409A Benefit (but not his Pre-Section 409A Benefit) as of the first day of any calendar month after he 








 
attains age 55 and preceding his 60th birthday, provided that
an election for such earlier payment has been made as provided herein. A Participant shall elect at the time the individual becomes a Participant in the Plan the date the Participant wants to start his Section 409A Benefit (or shall make such
election in accordance with the transition rules of Section 409A) in the event he becomes entitled to a Vested Terminee benefit. A Participant may not less than 12 months prior to his Termination Date elect to change the start date of his
payments for his Section 409A Benefit, provided further that (i) only one such change is permitted and after such election change, the election is irrevocable, (ii) the payment date for the Participant’s Section 409A Benefit
will be deferred for 5 years; and (iii) the election shall not be effective for 12 months. In the event of early commencement, the benefit payable to the Vested Terminee shall be reduced-five-twelfths of one percent ( 5/12 of 1%) for each full month or portion thereof by which the commencement of his Section 409A Benefit precedes
his 60th birthday.” 
 2. 
 This Amendment No. 2 shall be effective as of September 27, 2007. Except as hereby modified, the Plan shall remain
in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Company has executed this Amendment No. 2 as of the date first written
above. 
  

			
	ACUITY BRANDS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Vernon J. Nagel
No. 74-5980.

#### Finley *v.*Gunn, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SHIRE US HOLDINGS, INC. and §

SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, § No. 170, 2021

§

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below—Court of Chancery

§ of the State of Delaware

v. §

§ C.A. No. 2017-0863-KSJM

SHAREHOLDER REPRESENTATIVE §

SERVICES LLC, §

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

§

Submitted: November 3, 2021

Decided: November 17, 2021

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 

Justices.

O R D E R 

This 17th day of November, 2021, after careful consideration of the parties’

briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that the judgment of the

Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of its October 12, 2020 

Memorandum Opinion and May 7, 2021 Order and Final Judgment.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 

Chancery is AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
# C_2014388EN.01001201.xml

| 3.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2014 — Holcim (Romania) v Commission

(Case T-317/12) (1)

1

((Non-contractual liability - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Liability for fault - Commission’s refusal to disclose information on and to prohibit all transactions involving emission allowances allegedly stolen - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Strict liability))

2014/C 388/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Holcim (Romania) SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: L. Arnauts, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and E. White, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, an application, based on liability for fault, seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant because of the Commission’s refusal to disclose to it information concerning greenhouse gas emission allowances allegedly stolen from it and to prohibit all transactions involving those allowances and, secondly, an application for damages on the basis of strict liability.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Holcim (Romania) SA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Holcim (Romania) SA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Rene MADRID, Appellant.

No. 97-3959.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Nov. 18, 1998.

ORDER

The suggestion for rehearing en banc is denied. Judge Hansen would grant the suggestion.

The petition for rehearing by the panel is also denied.

HANSEN, Circuit Judge,

dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc.

Like the panel, I must assume, because neither the magistrate judge nor the district court made any fact-findings concerning them, that there were no exigent circumstances that justified the initial warrantless entry and search of the defendant’s house. Hence, the question becomes what evidentia-ry trial consequence, if any, should follow in this criminal case for the officers’ apparent wholesale violation of the Fourth Amendment. Unlike the panel, I believe that the magistrate judge’s Franks-type analysis demonstrates that the search warrant was premised on sound probable cause even when the additional information obtained by the officers’ “exploitation” of their warrantless presence is excised from the application for the warrant. It follows then that what was later seized in the warranted search of the house should not be suppressed from the jury’s consideration. In my view, because there was ample independent source support for the issuance of the warrant, the later seizure, during the execution of the valid search warrant, of the same items the invading officers initially observed, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. *Murray v. United States,*487 U.S. 533, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988). I would leave for another day the determination of whether the defendant may be entitled to any other redress for the apparent Fourth Amendment violation occasioned by the officers’ initial warrantless entry.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00224-CR

Armando David Fernandez

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

24th District Court of Jackson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2301-11386

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 20, 2024
34116.

#### HANNAH v. PUCKETT.

Argued November 14, 1978

Decided December 5, 1978.

*Garland, Nuckolls, Kadish, Cook & Weisensee, Mark J. Kadish, Rhonda A. Brofman,*for appellant.

*Howe & Sutton, Donald B. Howe, Jr.,*for appellee.

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

This appeal is from the order of the trial court directing that the parties’ 15-and 16-year-old-sons be jailed for refusing to visit with their father as provided in a divorce decree. Whatever the solution, if any, we are convinced a trial court cannot jail children for refusing to visit their father.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
**Exhibit 13.1**

----

**CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES–OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Thomas Henry Glocer, Chief  Executive of Reuters Group PLC (the “Company”), hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley  Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

a) This amendment to the Company’s  Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (this “Amendment”)  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

b) The information contained  in this Amendment fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition  and results of operation of the Company. 

Dated: 30 June 2005

|  | By | /s/ Thomas H Glocer |
|--|----|---------------------|
|  |    |                     |
|  |    | Thomas H Glocer     |
|  |    | Chief Executive     |