alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 46429.

#### Protest 42897-K of Burns Lumber Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States (5*Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed only on the net footage imported. The protest was therefore sustained.
May 19, 1944

No. 49440.

Suit 4454.

#### United *States*v. *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.,*

Reap. Dec. 5858 affirmed April 4, 1944. C. A. D. 274.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1779 

To require the United States Trade Representative to notify the World Trade 

Organization if any member of the World Trade Organization fails during 

2 consecutive years to disclose subsidies under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. ENZI, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. 

LEVIN, and Ms. SNOWE) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To require the United States Trade Representative to notify 

the World Trade Organization if any member of the 

World Trade Organization fails during 2 consecutive 

years to disclose subsidies under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and for other purposes. 

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


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1779 IS

1 SECTION 1. MANDATORY DISCLOSURE BY THE UNITED 

2 STATES IF MEMBERS OF THE WORLD TRADE 

3 ORGANIZATION FAIL TO DISCLOSE SUB4 SIDIES UNDER THE AGREEMENT ON SUB5 SIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The United States Trade Rep7 resentative shall— 

8 (1) review each notification of subsidies sub9 mitted under Article 25 of the Agreement on Sub10 sidies and Countervailing Measures by a member of 

11 the World Trade Organization with which the 

12 United States maintains a material and persistent 

13 trade deficit; 

14 (2) identify any such member that, for 2 con15 secutive years— 

16 (A) fails to submit such a notification; or 

17 (B) omits information or includes inac18 curate information in such a notification that is 

19 material with respect to the totality of the sub20 sidies of the member; and 

21 (3) notify the Committee on Subsidies and 

22 Countervailing Measures under Article 25 of the 

23 Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Meas24 ures of the subsidies of a member identified under 

25 paragraph (2) not later than 180 days after— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1779 IS

1 (A) in the case of a member identified 

2 under paragraph (2)(A), the date on which the 

3 second notification not submitted by the mem4 ber was required to be submitted; or 

5 (B) in the case of a member identified 

6 under paragraph (2)(B), the date of the sub7 mission of the second notification in which the 

8 information was omitted or the inaccurate in9 formation was included, as the case may be. 

10 (b) AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTER11 VAILING MEASURES DEFINED.—The term ‘‘Agreement on 

12 Subsidies and Countervailing Measures’’ means the Agree13 ment on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures referred 

14 to in section 101(d)(12) of the Uruguay Round Agree15 ments Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(12)). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130400-1 & (50) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. EMILE RIHANI, Individually and as Stephen J. Markman, Next Friend of DEENA RIHANI, a minor, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant,

v SC: 130400-1 COA: 256921; 256941 Lapeer CC: 02-031545-NO L. D’AGOSTINI & SONS, INC., Defendant-Appellant,

and

GREELEY & HANSEN OF MICHIGAN, LLC, Defendant/Cross-Appellee,

and

CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross

appellant are considered, and they are DENI ED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.

p0522 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2006

Clerk
EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN DESCRIPTION



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Executive Bonus Plan Description 
 Plan Funding 
 The Plan will be funded based on a percentage of the Company’s adjusted pre-tax income as determined by the Compensation Committee. “Adjusted
pre-tax income” is the Company’s consolidated pre-tax income determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, before the payment of bonuses under the Plan, adjusted to exclude one-time acquisition related charges
such as in-process research and development, inventory write-up to fair market value and stock option costs related to the acceleration of vesting, and other one-time, non-recurring or unusual charges or gains as determined by the Compensation
Committee. The bonus pool and accrued allocation may be reduced or eliminated if minimum adjusted pre-tax income is not achieved. The Compensation Committee further reserves the right, from time to time, to review and adjust the overall bonus pool
for the fiscal year. The Company shall not have any obligation to establish any separate fund or trust or other segregation of assets to provide for payments under the Plan. 
 Plan Targets 
 100% of targeted payout levels will be achieved at a combination of corporate, divisional and/or
individual goals established for each participant. An individual’s bonus components and the weighting of those components are determined by such individual’s role. 
 Maximum Bonus Payout; Committee Discretion 
 The maximum bonus payouts will be 200% of target (e.g., an individual
with a 60% of base salary target bonus would be eligible for a 120% payout) However, the Compensation Committee reserves the right to make individual bonus payout amounts exceeding this maximum for individual performance and to enable full payout of
the established bonus pool or for any other reason. Conversely, even if performance targets have been achieved, the Compensation Committee may, in its sole and absolute discretion, reduce the amount of any bonus payout to any Plan participant to
reflect the Compensation Committee’s assessment of the participant’s individual performance or for any other reason. Moreover, neither the Plan, nor any action taken pursuant to the Plan, will be construed as giving any employee any right
to be retained by the Company or any of its subsidiaries.
(Reap. Dec. 9617)

#### M. Farris & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 977363.

*588(Decided March 1, 1960)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

There was Ho appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing and the case was ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5(a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written requests to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2012379EN.01003402.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/34

---

Action brought on 28 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-108/12)

2012/C 379/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme, which decision applies the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 9 December 2011 concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights under Article 11(2) and (3) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations into the European Union pension scheme; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 9 December 2011 concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights under Article 11(2) and (3) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations into the European Union pension scheme;

| — | In so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting his claim of 20 June 2012 made against the decision of 9 December 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting his claim of 20 June 2012 made against the decision of 9 December 2011;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
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 quarterly report of Global Realty Development Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert Kohn, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities and 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.


Date:  August 19, 2005                   By: /s/ Robert Kohn
                                            -----------------------
                                            Robert Kohn
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            Chief Financial Officer
# PRODUC TSPECIFICATION S

Produc tNam e : Produc tCod e : Chemica l Nam e : Caprylic/Capri c Fatt yAcid s Propertie s Specification s Appearance , (melt ) clear , slightl yyello w- yello w Aci d Valu e , '•'> Saponificatio n Valu e Iodin e Valu e . Moisture , % Unsaponifiabl e (typical) , %0. 5 ma x Color , %Transmittanc e 440/55 0 m u 90/9 5 mi n Lovibon d 5-1/4" , Re d 1. 0 ma x Fatt yAci d Compositio n

Approve d B y: Dat e

Director , Quality/Produc tDevelopmen t Dat e Director , Manufacturin g

# PRODUC TSPECIFICATION S

Produc tNam e : Produc tCod e : Chemica l Nam e : Caprylic/Capri c Fatt yAcid s Propertie s Specification s Appearance , (melt ) clear , slightl yyello w- yello w Aci d Valu e , v Saponificatio n Valu e Iodin e Valu e •. . , Moisture , % <> . •. Unsaponifiabl e (typical) , %0. 5 ma x Color , %Transmittanc e 440/55 0 m u 90/9 5 mi n Lovibon d 5-1/4" , Re d 1. 0 ma x Fatt yAci d Compositio n

Approve d B y: Dat e :

Director , Quality/Produc tDevelopmen t Dat e : Director , Manufacturin g
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60129

Summary Calendar

AMALIA REBECA CHAY-ZAPETA,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, US ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A200 022 915

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Amalia Rebeca Chay-Zapeta (Chay), a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for

asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ found that Chay’s testimony that a

gang member had attempted to kill her brother while the family was living in

Guatemala was credible. Chay argues that she was a member of a social group

consisting of young Guatemalan women that was persecuted by gangs that

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60129

2

targeted them for recruitment. She contends that the incident involving her

brother establishes past persecution and that she has a well-founded fear of

future persecution if she returns to Guatemala.

We review the BIA’s determination that an alien is not entitled to asylum

or withholding of removalfor substantial evidence and will not reverse the BIA’s

decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Chen v. Gonzales,

470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). To obtain asylum, an applicant must

demonstrate “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution” on the basis of

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political

opinion. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 904 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000)). The standard for obtaining withholding of removal is

even higher, requiring a showing that it is more likely than not that the

applicant’s life or freedom would be threatened by persecution on one of those

grounds. Id. at 906. The BIA did not err in determining that Chay failed to

demonstrate that she was a member of a particular social group entitled to

protection. Her contention that as a young Guatemalan woman, she is a

member of a social group that gangs are targeting to recruit is overly broad and

does not establish a meaningful basis for distinguishing her from other people.

See Perez-Molina v. Gonzales, 193 F. App’x 313 (5th Cir. 2006); Sanchez-Trujillo

v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1576-77 (9th Cir. 1986). Additionally, she did not show

that gang members had ever threatened her or attempted to recruit her.

Accordingly, there is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s denial of asylum

and withholding of removal. See Efe, 293 F.3d at 904-06.

The petition for review is DENIED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1 Direct and Indirect Significant Subsidiaries of Ask Jeeves, Inc.(1)as of March 1, 2005 Jurisdiction ofName of Subsidiary
    
    Formation
    
    Doing Business As (if other than Ask Jeeves)A.J.J. Co., Ltd.(2)
    
    Japan
    
    Ask Jeeves JapanAsk Jeeves Kabushiki Kaisha AKAAqua Acquisition Holdings, LLC
    
    DE
    
    f/k/a Interactive Search Holdings, Inc.f/k/a Bulldog Holdings, Inc.Ask Jeeves Australia Pty. Ltd.
    
    Australia
    
    (inactive)Ask Jeeves B.V.
    
    NetherlandsAsk Jeeves España, S.L.
    
    SpainAsk Jeeves Europe, Ltd.
    
    Ireland, residentAsk Jeeves International, Inc.
    
    DEAsk Jeeves Internet Limited
    
    U.K.Ask Jeeves (Jersey) Ltd.
    
    Jersey, U.K.Ask Jeeves Technologies, Ltd.
    
    Ireland, nonresidentAsk Jeeves U.K. Partnership
    
    U.K.Focus Interactive, Inc.
    
    DE
    
    f/k/a The Excite Network, Inc.f/k/a iWon, Inc.f/k/a CTC Bulldog, Inc.The Excite NetworkiWon.comMy WayMy SearchMy Web SearchFun Web ProductsSmiley CentralCursor ManiaPopular ScreensaversPopSwatter.comMy Mail StationeryMy Mail SignatureMy Mail StampiWon Holdings Inc.
    
    DE
    
    (inactive and will be merged into parent)iWon Points, LLC
    
    DEMaxOnline, LLC
    
    DEMy Way, Inc.
    
    DE
    
    (inactive and will be merged into parent)Targeted Media Solutions, LLC(3)
    
    DETrustic, Inc.
    
    DE
    
    (will be merged into parent)
 
  (1)
    
    Significant subsidiaries is used as defined in SEC rules. This list
includes all significant subsidiaries and some (but not all)
insignificant subsidiaries of Ask Jeeves, Inc.(2)
    
    Ask Jeeves holds a minority stake in this unconsolidated subsidiary.(3)
    
    Ask Jeeves holds a 90% stake in this subsidiary and is in the process
of exercising its right to purchase the minority interest.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 10.8


                             TERMINATION AGREEMENT

     This TERMINATION AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as
of the 10th day of January, 2000 by and between DOUBLECLICK. INC.
("DoubleClick") and ZAP.COM CORPORATION ("Zap.Com").

                                  WITNESSETH:

     WHEREAS, DoubleClick's predecessor in interest, NetGravity, Inc. and
Zap.Com entered into a NetGravity AdServer Services Agreement dated November 4,
1999 (the "Services Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, Zap.Com has exercised its rights under the Services Agreement to
license certain Adserver technology in connection therewith DoubleClick and
Zap.Com are on even date herewith entering into the DoubleClick AdServer
Network License Agreement (the "License Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, DoubleClick and Zap.Com desire to terminate the Services
Agreement upon and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
set forth below and of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto intending
legally to be bound, hereby agree as follows:

     1.   DoubleClick and Zap.Com hereby agree that effective as of the
Installment Date (as defined in the License Agreement), the Services Agreement
shall be terminated in all respects and neither party shall have any further
obligation to the other thereunder, except that all indemnification
obligations of the parties thereunder shall survive such termination.

     2.   This Agreement shall be binding, subject to its terms, only upon
execution by both DoubleClick and Zap.Com.

     3.   This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York
without reference to conflicts principles. This Agreement may not be modified
except with a writing signed by the parties hereto.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parities hereto have executed this Agreement as of
the date first above written.

                                        DOUBLECLICK, INC.

                                        By:    /s/ David Mansur
                                              ---------------------
                                        Name:      David Mansur
                                        Title:

                                        ZAP.COM CORPORATION

                                        By:  /s/ Gaetano Gugielmino
                                             -----------------------
                                        Name:    Gaetano Gugielmino
                                        Title:
# C_2012303EN.01001301.xml

| 6.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 9 July 2012 — Novontech-Zala Kft v LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH

(Case C-324/12)

2012/C 303/24

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant and defendant: Novontech-Zala Kft

Appellant and defendant:

Respondent and applicant: LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH

Respondent and applicant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the failure on the part of a party’s lawyer to comply with the time limit for opposing a European order for payment constitute fault on the part of the defendant for the purposes of Article 20(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the failure on the part of a party’s lawyer to comply with the time limit for opposing a European order for payment constitute fault on the part of the defendant for the purposes of Article 20(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure? (1)

1

| 2. | If fault on the part of the lawyer representing the defendant is not to be regarded as fault on the part of the defendant itself, is the failure of the former to take note of the correct date of expiry of the time limit for opposing a European order for payment to be regarded as an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If fault on the part of the lawyer representing the defendant is not to be regarded as fault on the part of the defendant itself, is the failure of the former to take note of the correct date of expiry of the time limit for opposing a European order for payment to be regarded as an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation 1896/2006?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

1

---