alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
University of Kentucky
    UK Libraries
    Special Collections Research Center
Menu
    About
                    About ExploreUK
            How to
                    Activate your Researcher AccountRequest MaterialsVisit SCRCFind Copyright and Use Information
            Contact Us
            Researcher Account LoginSearch Home |
    Back to Search Results

Download
    JPEGof this page
    PDFof entire itemCombined farming-industrial employment in the coal and iron subregion of Alabama, preliminary report, prepared by W. W. Troxell, et. al.
Date
1936Creator
United States. Works Progress Administration. Division of Social Research Rural Section.Language
EnglishCollection
Alabama Works Progress Administration PublicationsDescription
65 l. : ill., maps, charts ; 27 cm. Cover title has Research Bulletin (Not for Release). UK holds archival copy for ASERL Collaborative Federal Depository Program libraries. Call number Y 3.W 89/2:13/J4.

You may come across language in UK Libraries Special Collections Research Center collections and online resources that you find harmful or offensive. SCRC collects materials from different cultures and time periods to preserve and make available the historical record. These materials document the time period when they were created and the view of their creator. As a result, some may demonstrate racist and offensive views that do not reflect the values of UK Libraries.

If you find description with problematic language that you think SCRC should review, please contact us at SCRC@uky.edu.

Item Details
Text

Rights
This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws.Geographic Subject
AlabamaFormat
booksPermalink
https://exploreuk.uky.edu/catalog/xt7n028pfb9nXML Metadata
https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7n028pfb9n/data/mets.xml

The text may or may not be an accurate representation of the original.
#### B. Altman & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6875.

Entry No. 726519, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, October 3, 1941, etc.

Certified October 20, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 25, 1941, etc.

(Decided February 14, 1947)

*Marlow & Hines*for the plaintiff.

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

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (e)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values less additions, made on entry because of advances in similar cases.
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

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Snow Warriors working hard to reopen the installation

By Dana ThornburyDLA Land and Maritime Public Affairs

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
Defense Supply Center Columbus might be closed today, but the installation’s Snow Warriors are hard at work clearing the roads and sidewalks. 

For updates on the installation status, call the DLA Land and Maritime Weather Status Line at 614-692-1800 or check the website at www.dla.mil/landandmaritime. 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

ClosureSnow WarriorsSafety L&MDLA L&M
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, Edward A. Keible, Jr., certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Endwave Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  (b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.   Date: May 13, 2005 /s/ EDWARD A. KEIBLE, JR.   Edward A. Keible, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Joseph SCHOLZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-4515.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 26, 1999.

*527Richard L. Rosenbaum of Law Offices of Richard L. Rosenbaum, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Leslie T. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Scholz entered a no contest plea to DUI manslaughter and was sentenced to 126.4 months. • On appeal, he argues that the court erred by including an additional 120 points for victim injury on his sentencing guidelines scoresheet. Appellant contends that the addition of victim injury points constitutes “double scoring” because death of a victim is an element of DUI manslaughter. We disagree and affirm appellant’s sentence. *See Wendt v. State,*711 So.2d 1166, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) and *Martinez v. State,*692 So.2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA), *review denied,*697 So.2d 1217 (Fla.1997).

Appellant further argues that the trial court erred in refusing to order a downward departure sentence. Contrary to appellant’s assertions, the record reflects that the trial judge was aware of his discretion to deviate from the guidelines but declined to do so after fully evaluating evidence submitted by appellant of mitigating factors under section 921.0016, Florida Statutes. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to depart from the recommended sentencing range in this case.

AFFIRMED.

WARNER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
# C_2012243EN.01003102.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/31

---

Action brought on 15 June 2012 — Alfastar Benelux v Council

(Case T-274/12)

2012/C 243/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alfastar Benelux (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare and rule that the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 266 TFEU, since, despite having been formally invited to do so, it failed to take any measure to comply with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union issued on 20 October 2011 in Case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council and to define its position in that regard within the time limit set thereon; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare and rule that the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 266 TFEU, since, despite having been formally invited to do so, it failed to take any measure to comply with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union issued on 20 October 2011 in Case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council and to define its position in that regard within the time limit set thereon;

Alfastar Benelux

Council

| — | Order the defendant to take all necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union issued on 20 October 2011 in Case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council and to define its position in that regard; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to take all necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union issued on 20 October 2011 in Case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council and to define its position in that regard;

Alfastar Benelux

Council

| — | Order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages for the amount of EUR 20 000 based on Article 340 TFEU; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages for the amount of EUR 20 000 based on Article 340 TFEU; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 266 TFEU, since, despite having been formally invited to do so, it failed to take any measure to comply with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union issued on 20 October 2011 in Case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council and to define its position in that regard within the time limit set thereon.

Alfastar Benelux

Council

---
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11604

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LORENZO GAROD PIERRE, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20321-JEM-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-11604 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11604

Before NEWSOM, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Pierre appeals his conviction for possession of a 

firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 

arguing that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to his case, in 

light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 

2111 (2022), because it violates the Second Amendment and is inconsistent with this nation’s tradition of firearms regulations.

In United States v. DuBois, No. 22-10829, manuscript op. at 9-

15 (11th Cir. 2024), we explicitly rejected this argument and ruled 

that our prior precedent in United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768 (11th 

Cir. 2010), in which we upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), 

remains good law. See Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1300 n.8

(11th Cir. 2001) (“Under the well-established prior panel precedent 

rule of this Circuit, the holding of the first panel to address an issue 

is the law of this Circuit, thereby binding all subsequent panels unless and until the first panel’s holding is overruled by the Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court.” (citing Cargill v. Turpin, 120 

F.3d 1366, 1386 (11th Cir. 1997))). As such, Pierre’s argument fails, 

and his conviction is AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-11604 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Page: 2 of 2
#### Debra NAUSSBAUM and Michael Naussbaum v. Dr. Duncan McKEE and Ochsner Foundation Hospital.

No. 99-CA-171.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

May 19, 1999.

Byron J. Casey, III, Metairie, for Plaintiffs/Appellants.

Charles F. Gay, Jr., Tara E. Bell, New Orleans, for Defendants/Appellees.

Panel composed of Judges JAMES L. CANNELLA, THOMAS F. DALEY and MARION F. EDWARDS.

| ¡¿DALEY, Judge.

Plaintiffs, Debra Naussbaum and Michael Naussbaum, appeal the trial court’s judgment dismissing their case for want of prosecution under LSA-C.C.P. art. 561. We affirm.

Plaintiffs filed their suit on August 1, 1989, against Dr. Duncan McKee and Ochsner Foundation Hospital for alleged acts of medical malpractice. The last substantive pleading filed in the case was plaintiffs’ Pre-trial Order on July 25, 1995. On July 1, 1998, the amendment to LSA-C.C.P. art. 561 became effective. That amendment changed the period for want of prosecution from five years to three years, and expressly applied to all pending cases. On August 4, 1998, defendants filed an ex parte Motion and Order, of Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, based upon the amendment of LSA-C.C.P. art. 561. This motion and order were granted on August 6, 1998, dismissing plaintiffs’ case with prejudice.

IsPlaintiffs filed a Motion to Set Aside Order of Dismissal, without any supporting reasons or memorandum, on August 18, 1998. They filed a Memorandum in Support on November 2, 1998. The trial court heard the matter on November 9, 1998, and denied the Motion to Set Aside, and further reiterated that plaintiffs case *931was dismissed with prejudice in its entirety for failure to prosecute the claim.

On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the amendments to LSA-C.C.P. art. 561 are substantive in nature and should not be applied retroactively to their cause of action, because at the time their action was filed, art. 561 allowed a period of five years before dismissal for want of prosecution.

This court has already addressed the retroactive application of amended art. 561 in *Dempster v. Louisiana Health Services & Indemnity Co. et al,*98-1112 (La.App.3/10/99), 730 So.2d 524. Therein, this court held that the amendment to art. 561 was procedural and not substantive, and further that the language of the amendment and its delayed effective date1 expressed the legislature’s intent that it apply to all pending actions. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ case with prejudice for want of prosecution, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

1

. The amendment to art. 561 was approved by the governor on July 15, 1997, was published on August 5, 1997, but by its specific language did not become effective until July 1, 1998.
Order filed October 13, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00460

- CV

____________ ALLEN F. CALTON , Appellant

V. JASON NEWMAN, LAUREN TANNER AND BAKER BOT TS, LLP , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014

- 09348



### ORDER
On June 26, 2015, this court notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal unless appellant filed a response with proof of payment for the record. In
response, a ppellant filed an affidavit of indigence

. The Harris County District Clerk filed a contest. On July 15, 2015, the trial court signed an order sustaining the District Clerk’s contest because appellant failed to comply with section 14.004of the Texas Civil Practice and Remed ies Code. Therefore, the court issues the

following order.
Appellant is ordered to file the clerk’s record with the clerk of this court on
or before October 30, 2015

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If appellant fails to file the clerk’s record in accordanc e with this order, the appeal will be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9635]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated February 5, 2007 and published in the Federal 
Register on February 12, 2007, (72 FR 6579), Mallinckrodt Inc., 3600 
North Second Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63147, made application by 
renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered 
as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in 
schedule II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phenylacetone (8501).......................  II
Coca Leaves (9040).........................  II
Opium, raw (9600)..........................  II
Poppy Straw (9650).........................  II
Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670).............  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for 
the manufacture of controlled substances in bulk for distribution to 
its customers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the 
registration of Mallinckrodt Inc. to import the basic classes of 
controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with 
United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or 
protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated 
Mallinckrodt Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is 
consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included 
inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, 
verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and 
a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant 
to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, 
the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the 
basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: May 14, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-9635 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
# C_2014071EN.01003402.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/34

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2013 — Arguelles Arias v Council

(Case F-122/12) (1)

(Civil Service - Contract staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Termination - Post held requiring security clearance - Clearance refused by the national security authority - Decision varied by the appeal body - Findings of the national security authority and the appeal body not binding on the AECE)

(2014/C 71/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Arguelles Arias (Awans, Belgium) (represented by: J. Lecuyer, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Council dismissing the applicant and for compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Arguelles Arias to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Arguelles Arias to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 72.

---
No. 74-983.

#### Maloney, dba Apalachicola Times *v.*Gibson et al.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.