alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 48204.

#### Protests 573386-G, etc., of Millinery Clearing House, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) the harvest hats in question were held dutiable as claimed. ..
#### F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7665.

Invoices dated Montreal, Canada, October 9, 1947, etc.

Certified October 10, 1947, etc.

Entered at Rouses Point, N. Y., October 22, 1947, etc.

Entry No. A-2153, etc.

(Decided February 15, 1949)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Tbe appeals for reappraisement fisted in schedule “A”, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon tbe following stipulation of counsel for tbe parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY^ STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject, to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached *407schedule are the same in all material respects as the issues 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 each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, 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 these cases may 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 rendered accordingly.
No. 96-7854.

#### Easter *v.*Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2014031EN.01001001.xml

| 1.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 — Smartbook v OHIM (SMARTBOOK)

(Case T-123/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SMARTBOOK - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 31/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Smartbook AG (Offenburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Milbradt, A. Schwarz and F. Reiling, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Qualcomm, Inc. (Dover, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Renck, A. Leister and V. von Bomhard, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2011 (Case R 799/2011-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SMARTBOOK as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Smartbook AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Smartbook AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.

1

---
# C_2015065EN.01000901.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014 — European Commission v Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR Srl, Parker-Hannifin Corp.

(Case C-434/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for marine hoses - Succession of legal entities - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Reduction of the fine by the General Court - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2015/C 065/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë, V. Bottka and R. Sauer, Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR Srl, Parker-Hannifin Corp. (represented by: F. Amato, F. Marchini Càmia and B. Amory, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Sets aside paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Parker ITR and Parker-Hannifin v Commission (T-146/09, EU:T:2013:258); |
| --- | --- |

1)

Sets aside paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Parker ITR and Parker-Hannifin v Commission (T-146/09, EU:T:2013:258);

| 2) | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the merits of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the merits of the action;

| 3) | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

1

---
Exhibit 32

THE HACKETT GROUP, INC

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 The Hackett Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Ted A. Fernandez, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, and Robert A. Ramirez, Executive Vice President,
Finance and 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) 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/ Ted A. FernandezTed A. FernandezChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 10, 2011/s/ Robert A. RamirezRobert A. RamirezExecutive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 10, 2011


A signed original of
this statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Hackett Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Hackett Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2014315EN.01002001.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany)) — Netto Marken-Discount AG & Co. KG v Deutsches Patent- und Marken

(Case C-420/13) (1)

1

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Identification of goods or services for which the protection of a trade mark is sought - Requirements of clarity and precision - Nice Classification - Retail trade - Bringing together of services))

2014/C 315/29

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Netto Marken-Discount AG & Co. KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Marken

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Services rendered by an economic operator which consist in bringing together services so that the consumer can conveniently compare and purchase them may come within the concept of ‘services’ referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Services rendered by an economic operator which consist in bringing together services so that the consumer can conveniently compare and purchase them may come within the concept of ‘services’ referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks.

| 2. | Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as imposing a requirement that an application for registration of a trade mark with respect to a service which consists in bringing together services must be formulated with sufficient clarity and precision so as to allow the competent authorities and other economic operators to know which services the applicant intends to bring together. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as imposing a requirement that an application for registration of a trade mark with respect to a service which consists in bringing together services must be formulated with sufficient clarity and precision so as to allow the competent authorities and other economic operators to know which services the applicant intends to bring together.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

1

---
# C_2013038EN.01001101.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 November 2012 — Andrea Lange v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

(Case C-529/12)

2013/C 38/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andrea Lange

Applicant:

Defendant: ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the first indent of Article 15(1) of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 (1), having regard to Article 31(1) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 (2), be interpreted as precluding a provision — such as the fourth sentence of Paragraph 5a(2) of the Versicherungsvertragsgesetz (Law on insurance contracts) in the version of the Drittes Gesetz zur Durchführung versicherungsrechtlicher Richtlinien des Rates der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (Third Law implementing directives of the Council of the European Communities on insurance law) of 21 July 1994 — under which a right of cancellation lapses one year at the latest after payment of the first premium even if the policy-holder has not been informed about the right of cancellation?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50)

1

(2)  Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (Third Life Assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1)

2

---
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 report on Form 10-Q/A of Advanced Technologies Group,
Ltd. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), the
undersigned, Alex Stelmak, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

Date: January 26, 2010

                                      /s/ Alex Stelmak
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      Alex Stelmak
                                      Chief Executive Officer,
                                      Chairman of the Board and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Future focused fair welcomes DLA employees

By Natalie Skelton, DLA Aviation Public Affairs

                Richmond, Va.  –              
Though the day-to-day tasks we tackle may keep us occupied from dawn til dusk, it’s still important to plan for the future. This is why the Defense Supply Center Richmond Health Benefits Fair continues to draw a sizeable crowd each year.

This year’s fair was held Nov. 20 at the Lotts Conference Center and featured federal benefits providers as well as Defense Logistics Agency of Human Resource Services specialists. In addition to addressing general questions, representatives and specialists provided one-on-one consultations with fair attendees on the day after the fair.

The consultations covered personal benefits as well as retirement benefits and options for individuals planning to retire within the next two years.

If you have questions about your benefits, contact DHRS-Benefits at (614) 692-0204. 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Aviationhuman resourcesDefense Supply Center Richmond VirginiaPeople and Culture
# 2011 **- 12**  **N ATIONAL**  

# P **OSTSECONDARY** 

# S **TUDENT** 

# A **ID** 

# S **TUDY** 

# (NPSAS:12)

**Ap pendix**  **E Script for Verification Calls** 

Submitted by National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

**March 9**  **, 2010**NPSAS:12 S UPPORTING S TATEMENT R EQUEST FOR OMB R EVIEW (SF83 I ) E - 1 

# Appendix **E Script for Ver**  **ification Calls**A PPENDIX E. E NDORSING ASSOCIATIONS FOR NPSAS:12

NPSAS:12 S UPPORTING S TATEMENT R EQUEST FOR OMB R EVIEW (SF83 I ) E - 3 **Script for Verification Calls** The first step in Institutional Contacting involves placing verification calls to sampled institutions. These calls will serve to confirm institutional eligibility and verify contact information prior to the initial mailing of the chief administrator packet. The calls will be made by trained institutional contactors. Below is a sample script that the institutional contactors will be given to use when making these verification calls.

**__________________________ ____________________________________________**  “Hello, my

name is ______________ and I am calling for the US Department of Education. I’m calling to verify

the contact information we have for your Chief Administrator and ask a few questions about your institution . We have (NAME OF CHIEF ADM IN IS TRATOR) listed as your Chief Administrator.” VERIFY SPELLING . “Is this correct?” UPDATE AS NEEDED . “We have your address as (STREET ADDRESS) in (CITY, STATE, ZIP).” VERIFY SPELLING . “Is that correct?” UPDATE AS NE ED ED. “Is (PHONE #) the best number for reaching (NAME OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR)?” UPDATE AS NEEDED . ASK TO BE CONNECTED WITH THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE TO ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS “What is (NAME OF CHIEF ADM IN ISTRATOR)’s e -mail address?” “Are there any

courses for postsecondary students?” o Yes o No o Don’t Know “Is there at least one academic, occupational, or vocational program lasting at least 3 months or 300 clock hours?” o Yes o No o Don’t Know “Is the institution open to the general public?” o Yes o No o Don’t Know “Is this institution eligible to participate in Title IV aid programs?” o Yes o No o Don’t Know THANK RESPONDENT.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 21

- 757

_____________________________
V INCENT G RAHAM , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Gilbert L. Feltel, Jr. , Judge

. September 14, 2021

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , M AKAR , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Vincent Graham, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Damaris E. Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 23.2



               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors



We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Form S-8 No.  333-50254)  pertaining  to the  Amended and  Restated  1997 Stock
Incentive  Plan and  Employee  Stock  Purchase,  and  (Form  S-8 No.  333-60583)
pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan,  Amended and Restated 1997 Stock
Incentive Plan,  Incentive Stock Option and Nonqualified Stock Option Plan 1994,
Incentive Stock Option,  Nonqualified Stock Option and Restricted Stock Purchase
Plan 1991, and Lehrberg Employment  Agreement,  and the Registration  Statements
and Related Prospectuses (Form S-3 No. 333-50252) pertaining to the registration
of 11,256,511 shares of common stock, (Form S-3 No. 333-59088) pertaining to the
registration of 12,283,020  shares of common stock, and (Form S-3 No. 333-60272)
pertaining to the registration of 28,715,970 shares of common stock of Interplay
Entertainment  Corp.,  of our report dated March 18,  2002,  with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Interplay  Entertainment Corp.
(a majority owned subsidiary of Titus Interactive S.A.) and Subsidiaries for the
year ended  December 31, 2001 included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2003.


                                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Orange County, California
April 26, 2004
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Project No. 2576-083] 

On August 2, 2006, the Commission issued a notice of application soliciting comments, motions to intervene, and protest for the Housatonic River Hydroelectric Project No. 2576, located on the Housatonic River, in Fairfield, Litchfield, and New Haven Counties, Connecticut. The notice established September 1, 2006, as the deadline for filing motions to intervene in the proceeding. 

                    On September 8, 2006, the Candlewood Lake Authority filed a late motion to intervene in the proceeding. Granting the late motion to intervene will not unduly delay or disrupt the proceeding, or prejudice other parties to it. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 214,[1]                                          the late motion to intervene filed by the Candlewood Lake Authority is granted, subject to the Commission's rules and regulations.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

# Footnotes

1.                             18 CFR 385.214 (2006).                     
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. E7-9460 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P