alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### C. S. Emery & Co. *v.*United States

No. 7725.

Entry No. K-3421.

(Decided August 1, 1949)

*Brooks & Brooks (Frederick W. Brooks*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Rao, 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 issue in the appeal for reappraisement listed above is the same in all material respects as the issue decided in C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States, R. D. 7624, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in this case, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

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

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

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit No. 99.1
Form 10-QSB
Transform Pack International, Inc.
SEC File No. 000-31727

    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 Transform Pack  International,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  February 28, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Hans  Meier,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to 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  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.


Date: April 30, 2003            By: /s/ Hans Meier, Chief Executive Officer

     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Transform Pack  International,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  February 28, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Nathalie Cormier, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  that:  (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.


Date: April 30, 2003           By: /s/ Nathalie Cormier, Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Transform Pack International, Inc. and will be retained by Transform
Pack International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
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 Veterans Affairs

# AGENCY:

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

# ACTION:

Notice; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        In a notice document that published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on May 16, 2007 (72 FR 27637), the Department of Veterans Affairs gave notice of annual pay ranges for Veterans Health Administration (VHA) physicians and dentists as prescribed by the Secretary for Department-wide applicability. In that published notice, we inadvertently inserted an incorrect effective date. Accordingly, this document corrects that error. The “Dates Section” is corrected to read as follows:                     

*Effective Dates:*                         Annual pay ranges are effective on July 22, 2007.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna R. Schroeder, Director, Compensation and Classification Service (055), Office of Human Resources Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-9803. 

Dated: May 16, 2007. 

William F. Russo, 

Director of Regulations Management, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. E7-9763 Filed 5-21-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
# C_2014052EN.01005201.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/52

---

Order of the General Court of 7 January 2014 — Lifted Research and LRG Europe v OHIM — Fei Liangchen (Lr geans)

(Case T-390/12) (1)

1

2014/C 52/101

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.12.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0430

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

JEFFREY SCOTT ANDERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 4, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 25 2024

01/25/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0430
#### Robert W. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDLAND BRAKE, INC., a division of Echlin, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Equal Employment Advisory Council; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; City and County of Denver, Amici Curiae.

No. 96-3018.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 5, 1998.

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO, ANDERSON, TACHA, BALDOCK, BRORBY, EBEL, KELLY, HENRY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The court grants rehearing en banc in this case on the issue of interpretation of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101*et seq.,*specifically 42 U.S .C. § 12111(9)(B).

Appellant shall file a supplemental brief on or before June 4, 1998. Appellee shall file a response brief within 25 days of service of appellant’s brief.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted via teleconference. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, June 6, 2007, at 1 p.m., Eastern Time. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Toy at 1-888-912-1227, or (414) 231-2360. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) will be held Wednesday, June 6, 2007, at 1 p.m. Eastern Time via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the Joint Committee of TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or (414) 231-2360, or write Barbara Toy, TAP Office, MS-1006-MIL, PO Box 3205, Milwaukee, WI 53201-2105, or FAX to (414) 231-2363, or you can contact us at                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Barbara Toy.                 

The agenda will include the following: Discussion of issues and responses brought to the Joint Committee, office report, and discussion of next meeting. 

Dated: May 10, 2007. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E7-9537 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No. 50750.

#### Protest 590743-G of Draeger Shipping Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that certain'items of the merchandise consist of goatskins similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Winograd Bros., Inc.*(32 C. C. P. A. 153, C. A. D. 302). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
# C_2014151EN.01000501.xml

| 19.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Alpina River Cruises GmbH, Nicko Tours GmbH v Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti — Capitaneria di Porto di Chioggia

(Case C-17/13) (1)

1

((Maritime transport - Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 - Concept of ‘maritime cabotage’ - Cruise services - Cruise crossing the Venetian lagoon, Italian territorial sea and the river Po - Departure from and arrival at the same port))

2014/C 151/06

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alpina River Cruises GmbH, Nicko Tours GmbH

Applicants:

Defendant: Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti — Capitaneria di Porto di Chioggia

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) — Scope — Concept of maritime cabotage — Cruise service — Departure and arrival of passengers in one and the same port after calling at other ports

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

A maritime transport service consisting of a cruise which starts and ends, with the same passengers, in the same port of the Member State in which it takes place, is covered by the term ‘maritime cabotage’ within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage).

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

1

---
#### GEORGE GULF CORPORATION v. ANDERSEN 2000, INC.

No. 98-C-2706.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 18, 1998.

IN RE: Georgia Gulf Corporation;— Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review; Parish of East Baton Rouge 19th Judicial District Court Div. “C” Number 432,264; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number CA97 1993.

Denied.

LEMMON, J. not on panel.
#### D. C. Andrews & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6874.

Entry No. 732000, etc.

Invoices dated Birmingham, England, October 17, 1945, etc.

Certified October 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 8, 1946, etc.

(Decided February 14, 1947)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (George B. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Olives, Presiding 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.
# C_2014078EN.01000902.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Gandia Blasco v OHIM — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture (Cuboid Armchair)

(Case T-339/12) (1)

1

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cuboid armchair - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

2014/C 78/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gandia Blasco, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, Lda (Estarreja, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes and M. Paes, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

da

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 May 2012 (Case R 970/2011-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Gandia Blasco, SA and Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture, Lda.

da

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gandia Blasco, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gandia Blasco, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

1

---
Case No. 5,592.

#### GOODYEAR DENTAL VULCANITE CO. v. GARDNER.

[Cited in Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Willis, Case No. 5,603. Nowhere reported. For opinion on reargument, see Id. 5,591.

GOODYEAR DENTAL VULCANITE CO. GARDNER v.). See Case No. 5,228.
No. 48856.

#### Protest 79282-K of A. D. Cohen Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of hats or hoods, not blocked or trimmed, and the manufacture of same was described. It appeared therefrom that rolls or sheets of colored paper are cut into strips of narrow width, the width depending upon the fineness of the texture desired for the finished articles; after due processes it is put up in skeins which are then woven into hats or hoods. The skeins also have other substantial uses in the formation of other articles, such as woven paper cloth. Counsel for the plaintiff relied principally upon the case of *Poons*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 310, C. A. D. 33). However, the court stated that the portion quoted by plaintiff might have been considered as supporting to some extent, but for the fact that later in the same decision the appellate court stated, among other things:

> If you start with paper and finish with an article in which paper is the component material of chief value, it is immaterial if in the process of manufacturing the article a completely manufactured article, which is in the form of material for future manufacturing efforts, results.

In view of the stipulation and the cited decision (in which the hats involved were imported during the life of the 1922 act) and the fact that in paragraph 1504 of the present act Congress inserted the present contested provision for hats wholly or in chief value of paper, the court overruled the protest on the authority of the said *Poons*case.
201/201a 7 dioxin/fur PM 

### 6 Source: 14.01b/hr 1,817rolling 12 mnt 0.40 ngldscm 0.237 4751b/hr North Silos Baghouse 

## StackTests .. Selected Companies 4/1411998 9.07 Ibs/hr 4/14/1998 329.8 Ib/hr 11/11/2005 03.83179E-02 

### , 10/16/2002 0.237 ngldscm 5/23/2006 116 Ib/hr 5123/2008 AIRS No.: 

### 5

2 3520001 NOW CEM

Comments:
AO DAQE: OPNo.: Five north siloswhich include rail unloading. 120 AMTS 39-9 4000 acfm
AO Date: OP Date: Location: Salt Lake Size: B NSPS Subpart: 8/8/1996
Method 201 (a) 201 (a) Source: Limitation 0.69lbs/hr 0.016gr/dscf Primary Crusher LastTest Result Test Due

AIRS No.: Period

2100017 Comments TestA. D. Test

### A. D.
Comments: LIMIT FOUND IN 40 CFR 60, 000. Location: Morgan Size: A NSPS Subpart: 000 AO DAQE: OPNo.: Method 2900001001 Limitation AO Date: OP Date:

LastTest 7/19/2004 Result Test Due Period Comments 201 (a) 0.022 gr/dscf 5/12/2004 0.0014 gr/dscf 5112/2009 

### 3 Source: Comments:
AO DAQE: OPNo.: South Bins Baghouse Two South Binswhich include rail unloading. 4000 acfm
AO Date: OP Date: AIRS No.: 3520001 Location: Salt Lake Size: B NSPS Subpart: 8/8/1996
Method 201 (a) 201 (a) Source: Limitation 0.69lbs/hr 0.016 gr/dscf Transfer Baghouse LastTest Result Test Due

AIRS No.: Period

2900001 Comments Test

### A. D. TestA. D.
Comments: LIMIT FOUND IN 40 CFR 60, 000 Location: Morgan Size: A NSPS Subpart: 000 AODAQE: OPNo.: Method 02900001001 Limitation AO Date: OP Date:

LastTest 11/7/2005 Result Test Due Period Comments 201 (a) 0.022 gr/dscf 5/1212004 0.0006 gr/dscf 511212009 5 Tuesday, August07,200710:00:35AM Page2 of2
EXHIBIT 32
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Michael Chou and Rachel Lin, hereby jointly certify as follows:

     (a) They are the Chief Executive  Officer and the Chief Financial  Officer,
respectively, of C&D Production Inc. (the "Company");

     (b) To the best of their knowledge,  the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended  September 30, 2003 (the "Report")  complies in all
material  respects  with the  requirements  of Section  13(a) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended;  and

     (c) To the best of their knowledge,  based upon a review of the Report, the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial  condition and results of operations of the Company for the period
certified.


                                  By:  /S/ MICHAEL CHOU
                                       _______________________________
                                        Name:  Michael Chou
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                  Date: November 19, 2003



                                  By:  /S/ RACHEL LIN
                                       _______________________________
                                        Name:  Rachel Lin
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer

                                  Date: November 19, 2003
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 10948 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Christopher Allen Ragsdale,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:22

- CR

- 72

- 1

**___________ ___________________**  Before **Jones, Smith,** and **Dennis,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
The attorney appointed to represent Christopher Allen Ragsdale has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ragsdale has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to a llow us to make a fair evaluation of Ragsdale ’s claims of

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 15, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10948 Document: 00517066001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2024No. 23

- 10948

2 ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims

w ithout prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ragsdal e ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2. Ragsdale’s motion to appoint counsel is **DENIED**

. See United States v. Wagner , 158 F.3d 901, 902

- 03 (5th Cir. 1998)

. Case: 23-10948 Document: 00517066001 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2024