alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9911)

#### H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 40035, etc.

(Decided February 15, 1961)

*Barnes, Richardson & Oolburn*for tbe plaintiff.

*William H. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, that tbe issues in tbe appeals for reappraisement listed in tbe Schedule hereto annexed and made a part hereof are tbe same in all material respects as tbe issues .in *Paramount Import Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697 and that tbe record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that tbe appraised values of tbe merchandise involved in tbe cases listed in tbe Schedule hereto annexed less additions made by tbe importer on entry because of advances made by tbe Appraiser in similar cases is equal to tbe market value or tbe price at tbe time of exportation of such merchandise to tbe United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Czechoslovakia in tbe usual wholesale quantities and in tbe ordinary course of trade for exportation to tbe United States, packed ready for delivery, and that tbe foreign values of such or similar merchandise, were no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may bel submitted on tbe foregoing stipulation. I

In the incorporated case, I held that a charge of 15 per centuml paid by the American importer to a foreign commissionaire for servJ ices rendered in comiection with the purchase of merchandise in the! foreign market was a *dona fide*buying commission .and, as such, dicl not enter into the dutiable value of the merchandise. I

On the agreed facts and following my cited decision on the law® I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise ill question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tari:p¡ *593Act of 1930, and hold that snch statutory value therefor is the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1717 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1717

 To prevent the escapement of genetically altered salmon in the United 
                    States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 17, 2011

  Mr. Begich (for himself and Ms. Murkowski) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prevent the escapement of genetically altered salmon in the United 
                    States, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prevention of Escapement of 
Genetically Altered Salmon in the United States Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SALE OF GENETICALLY ALTERED SALMON.

    It shall be unlawful for a person to--
            (1) ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, or purchase 
        genetically altered salmon or other marine fish, or a product 
        containing genetically altered salmon or other marine fish, in 
        interstate or foreign commerce; or
            (2) have custody, control, or possession of, with the 
        intent to ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, or purchase 
        genetically altered salmon or other marine fish, or a product 
        containing genetically altered salmon or other marine fish, in 
        interstate or foreign commerce.

SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES.

    (a) Enforcement.--The Secretary of Commerce may enforce section 2 
in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, 
powers, and duties provided under sections 308, 309, 310, and 311 of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
1858, 1859, 1860, 1861).
    (b) Penalties.--A person who violates section 2 shall be subject to 
the penalties, and entitled to the privileges and immunities, under 
sections 308, 309, 310, and 311 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861).

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act--
            (1) the term ``allotransgenic'' means a genetically 
        modified organism produced with genes from another species;
            (2) the term ``autotransgenic'' means a genetically 
        modified organism produced by rearranging a species' own 
        genome; and
            (3) the term ``genetically altered salmon or other marine 
        fish'' means transgenic, autotransgenic, or allotransgenic 
        salmon or other marine fish.
                                 <all>
```
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 17 

To repeal the job-killing tax on medical devices to ensure continued access 

to life-saving medical devices for patients and maintain the standing 

of United States as the world leader in medical device innovation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. BURR, Mr. COBURN, and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To repeal the job-killing tax on medical devices to ensure 

continued access to life-saving medical devices for patients and maintain the standing of United States as 

the world leader in medical device innovation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medical Device Access 

5 and Innovation Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MEDICAL DEVICE EXCISE TAX. 

7 Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 1405 of the 

8 Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 17 IS

1 and the amendments made thereby, are hereby repealed; 

2 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied 

3 as if such section and amendments had never been en4 acted. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
# C_2012355EN.01002802.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/28

---

Action brought on 21 August 2012 — Electric Bike World v OHIM — Brunswick (LIFECYCLE)

(Case T-379/12)

2012/C 355/61

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Electric Bike World Ltd (Southampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brunswick Corp. (Lake Forest, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 May 2012 in case R 2308/2011-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 May 2012 in case R 2308/2011-1; and

| — | Order the Office and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LIFECYCLE’ for goods in classes 12, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8546401

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 1271758 of the word mark ‘LIFECYCLE’, for goods in class 28

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision to the extent that it rejected the opposition for goods in class 12; rejected the CTM application for these goods; and dismissed the appeal for the remaining goods in class 12

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
October 12, 1943

No. 48854.

#### Protest 938202-G of International Harvest Hat Co.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-453V

(E-Filed: August 18, 2014)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

RICHARD BERRISH, * UNPUBLISHED

*

* 

 Petitioner, * Special Master

* Hamilton-Fieldman

v. * 

* Decision on Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * 

HUMAN SERVICES, * 

* 

Respondent. * .

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller, Brazil, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.

Darryl R. Wishard, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION1(ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2the 

undersigned issued a decision on August 18, 2014. That same day, the parties filed a 

stipulation concerning attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter. The parties’ stipulation 

requests a total payment of $15,100.00 representing total attorneys’ fees and costs. In 

 

1

The undersigned intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States 

Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 

Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 

3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within 

which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade 

secret or commercial or financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that 

are medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Otherwise, “the entire” decision will be available to 

the public. Id.

2

The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-10 et seq. (2006). 
2

accordance with General Order # 9, Petitioner’s counsel stated that no out-of-pocket 

expenses had been incurred for Petitioner.

I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a 

reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems 

reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award the amount of $15,100.00, 

in the form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, 

Maximillian J. Muller, Esq.

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of 

the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment 

in accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman

Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman

Special Master
# C_2013336EN.01003002.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/30

---

Order of the General Court of 3 September 2013 — Nemeco v OHIM — Coca-Cola (NU)

(Case T-549/12) (1)

1

2013/C 336/65

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofUSIP.Com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period endedJune 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Craig Burton, President of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Craig Burton          |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Craig Burton              |
| President, USIP.Com, Inc. |

 

 

Date: August 9, 2004

 

----
#### C. L. Davidson v. James E. McNair *et al.*

No. 16,137.

Limitation op *Actions*— Tolling *the Statute*— Absence *from the State.*The evidence held not to establish the absence of a ■ mortgagor from the state so as to toll the statute of limitations.

Error from Meade district court; GORDON L. Finley, judge.

Opinion filed July 3, 1909.

Affirmed.

*Francis C. Price,*for the plaintiff in error.

*H. Llewelyn Jones,*for the defendants in error.

*705
      *Per Curiam:*

This action was brought to recover judgment upon a promissory note and to foreclose a mortgage given to secure its payment. The note was due February 1, 1891. This action was commenced October 16, 1906, more than fifteen years afterward. The petition, to avpid the statute of limitations, alleged that the maker of the note and mortgage had been absent from the state of Kansas ever since 1892.

Defendant James E. McNair had succeeded to the .rights of the former owner and mortgagor, and was contesting the foreclosure of the mortgage. In his answer he filed a general denial, and also affirmatively pleaded the five-year statute of limitation.

The burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to establish the averments of his petition concerning the absence of the mortgagor from the state, for without such allegation it did not state a cause of action. When the case was called for trial the plaintiff produced the note and mortgage, and rested. McNair then demurred to the evidence. The court overruled the demurrer for the reason that McNair had himself pleaded the statute of limitation, upon which the plaintiff had formed an issue by a general denial. To establish his answer McNair then produced the depositions of the mortgagor and his mother, and these constitute the only testimony in the case. The plaintiff appropriated this testimony, and insists that it establishes the absence of the mortgagor from the state for the time necessary to remove the apparent bar of the statute. The district court found in favor of the defendants, whether on the ground that the evidence established the presence of the mortgagor within the state or because it failed to establish his absence does not appear.

We have carefully examined both depositions and are unable to say that they establish anything concerning the whereabouts of the mortgagor during the *706time since February 1,1891. They do not, as we think, establish the absence of the mortgagor from the state for a time sufficient to satisfy the statute, and therefore the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JUDE ANN PRISCO a/k/a JUDE-ANN PRISCO 

and SALVATORE PRISCO,

Appellants,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-3477

[February 9, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Richard L. Oftedal, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2016-CA013772-XXXX-MB.

Stuart J. Zoberg of Shir Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellants.

Albert A. Zakarian of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Atlanta, 

Georgia, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1859 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1859

  To provide that sections 3330a, 3330b, and 3330c of title 5, United 
   States Code, relating to administrative and judicial redress and 
  remedies for preference eligibles, shall apply with respect to the 
    Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security 
                            Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 10, 2011

   Mr. Akaka introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide that sections 3330a, 3330b, and 3330c of title 5, United 
   States Code, relating to administrative and judicial redress and 
  remedies for preference eligibles, shall apply with respect to the 
    Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security 
                            Administration.

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

SECTION 1. ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REDRESS AND REMEDIES FOR 
              PREFERENCE ELIGIBLES.

    Section 3330a of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(f) For purposes of this section and sections 3330b and 3330c, 
the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security 
Administration are agencies. This section and sections 3330b and 3330c 
shall apply to any individual who is a preference eligible with respect 
to the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security 
Administration.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 48226.

#### Protests 25659-K, etc., of Mutual Supply Co. et al. (San Francisco).

*443Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the-same in all material respects as that passed upon in Abstract 47026, which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the claim at 1% cents per pound under paragraph 717 (c) was sustained.
Exhibit 11

                             RIM.COM AND SUBSIDIARY
                 Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Six Months Ended           Three Months Ended
                                                              March 31,                   March 31,
                                                         2001          2000          2001         2000
                                                         ----          ----          ----         ----
<S>                                                    <C>           <C>           <C>          <C>
Earnings (Loss) Per Share

Basic EPS - Weighted Average Shares Outstanding        4,734,171     3,400,000     4,734,171    3,400,000
                                                      ==========    ==========    ==========   ==========

Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share                       $    (0.02)   $    (0.00)   $     0.00   $    (0.01)
                                                      ==========    ==========    ==========   ==========

Basic EPS - Weighted Average Shares Outstanding        4,734,171     3,400,000     4,734,171    3,400,000

Effect of Diluted Securities:
  Stock Options (1)                                           --            --       580,000           --
                                                      ----------    ----------    ----------   ----------

Diluted EPS - Weighted Average Shares Outstanding      4,734,171     3,400,000     5,314,171    3,400,000
                                                      ==========    ==========    ==========   ==========

Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share                     $    (0.02)   $    (0.00)   $     0.00   $    (0.01)
                                                      ==========    ==========    ==========   ==========
</TABLE>

----------
(1)  The Company's  outstanding stock options have an antidilutive effect on net
     loss per share for the three and six month periods ended March 31, 2000 and
     the six month period ended March 31, 2001.  As a result,  such amounts have
     been excluded from the computations of diluted loss per share.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 3731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1005]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 2007N-0241]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Institutional Review Boards

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Institutional Review Boards'' has 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen L. Nelson, Office of the Chief 
Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4816.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of October 11, 2007 
(72 FR 57948), 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 OMB control number 0910-0130. 
The approval expires on December 31, 2010. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: January 14, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-1005 Filed 1-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S