alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Otto L. Kuehn Co. *v.*United States

No. 8093.

Entry No. 411.

(Decided February 21, 1952)

*Richard J. McGinn*for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Arthur R. Martoccia*and *Samuel D. Spector,*special attorneys), for the defendant.

Foed, Judge:

The appeal to reappráisement listed above involves the proper dutiable value of certain brisling sardines imported from Norway and entered at the port of Milwaukee, Wis.

At the trial of this case the treasurer of the plaintiff corporation gave certain testimony to the effect that the proper dutiable export value of the involved sardines in question was the entered value of $6.05 per carton, and certain correspondence between the plaintiff and the exporter regarding the value of these sardines was offered and received in evidence. This correspondence tends to support the entered value.

The defendant offered and there was received in evidence an affidavit of the exporter in which the exporter confirms, on or about the date of exportation of the involved sardines, having sold for exportation to the United States in the ordinary course of trade and in the usual wholesale quantities, Norwegian brisling sardines, *%*dingley two layers, and *%*dingley cross-packed, in olive oil, at the price of $6.50. This is the value found by the appraiser.

The evidence offered by the defendant far outweighs that offered by the plaintiff and requires a finding that the proper dutiable export value of the sardines in question was the export value, as found by the appraiser. On the record before me, I therefore find the proper-dutiable export value of the sardines involved in this proceeding to be the value found by the appraiser. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          34,454
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,684
<ALLOWANCES>                                        31
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,198
<PP&E>                                           4,978
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,064
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,390
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           610
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,244
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,990
<SALES>                                         18,894
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,894
<CGS>                                            6,221
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,730
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (17,098)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,155)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,155)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,155)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (7.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.25)


</TABLE>
October 17, 1996

No. 96-6293 (A-263).

#### Bush *v.*Florida.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.
TfeiW AUM! ESTMOA K Pfc-HilZ-»M

V& X TfiIAL6iU*T ASO- F<n2kS72fJ

RECEIVED IU

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

YflflTlcflJ foft RFHfftATAir;. ftfl ftf IV r **)* Atones, MAR 022D1S

73 7U£ JU&TICLS OF TH£ feuATOf CAMMfiL /9M/MS AM Acosia, Clerk

Neut &>toe£ TuJWtf AUMLIO £sTrtAfl/V. Mtm& in Hi* dwe /w*tdanchfyUto&t

&i4Jiks. this ftitfuti f&< ABHMAW6 <&*< Mlf€fM€fifcrtc^ fr> this Courte*rdthe sfafe

3iifllS0lcTI(3AJ_

A, fi&X. <ws trttb mukitio fhk court a*) »*-fo-|^/ fileden IQi-lSIH. 7tmnrc

foik jMM&fP.OA. h)umvU-hthh *Wm da-oi-iy. 3cLu<s Uhr fiAft. MAS

nfuscJb^-fk tart&o WHS. oa) WhIS, Mt anrts ckrk muled/Mkc (rfftfus/tl

hjkhhme* Wz, inhrstet Courier fro-CX-TO) ,h£chim rece(tf4 iu fMmer oaj 03*5-15. Umj Zcfys k£U mohmSr reUr/Q. 1km>ti* UmL mU 01O

oa-^-15^^ in <**. tok rn*il &*£* i*cJU s&w fc4 /a. wi*;\.. StocmtdT of fortes) ° J

PeMmerk (ktem^lUttisPMmiKUdtofti A»etoJ»L..Jb tetifc his /&.

frmjmdKNlf^m^UM ^ders if hU PAR ummeikcU- Stix\

tasxr *» ton**** ftotiu <^T to km m torf ^ Jl, I

a***^„*. JEWESS"7 ^ u fc

itetf

int.

MS
# PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL SUPPORT

DOCUMENT: ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND CERTAIN

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT:

FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS

March 2010

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program

Appliances and Commercia l Equipment Standards

Washington, DC 20585This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy

by staff members of

Navigant Consulting, Inc., Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,

and the Lighting Research Center
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                 <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                            3,824,074               3,818,235
<SECURITIES>                              0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0                       0
<INVENTORY>                               0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1,535,795               1,490,998
<PP&E>                                    0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    5,359,869               5,309,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                21,351                  21,551
<BONDS>                                   0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                       0
<PREFERRED>                               0                       0
<COMMON>                                  0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                        5,338,518               5,287,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      5,359,869               5,309,233
<SALES>                                   0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     80,924                       0
<CGS>                                     0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     30,088                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      50,836                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<CHANGES>                                 0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                         50,836                       0
<EPS-BASIC>                               0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0                       0


</TABLE>
#### Covaleskie, Appellant, *v.*Schimpf.

Argued April 22, 1936.

Before Kephart, C. J., Schaffer, Maxey, Drew, Linn, Stern and Barnes, JJ.

*H. O. Bechtel,*with him *Walter*Sidoriak, for appellant.

*James L. Gallagher,*of *Gallagher &*Gallagher_, for appellee.

May 25, 1936 :

Opinion by

Mr. J ustice Drew,

Plaintiff brought this suit in trespass to recover damages for injuries caused by alleged negligent operation of defendant’s automobile. From the refusal of the *66court below to take off the compulsory nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, plaintiff has appealed.

The accident happened between nine and ten o’clock in the morning of a clear day, while plaintiff was attempting to cross the street at a point admittedly not a regular crossing. Plaintiff testified that he had a clear unobstructed view of one hundred feet in the direction from which defendant came. While still on the curb he looked in that direction and saw no cars coming. He then stepped down behind a car parked at the curb, and stopped and looked again before passing beyond the parked car. Upon seeing no approaching traffic, he stepped out into the street and was immediately struck by defendant’s automobile. It appeared that defendant stopped his car instantly, the stopping and the striking being almost simultaneous.

We think it is quite clear that plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The case is governed by *Dando v. Brobst,*318 Pa. 325. There plaintiff was crossing at a regular crossing and had just stepped down from the curb when the right front wheel of defendant’s automobile ran over her foot. The automobile stopped almost immediately. We said, at page 328, citing cases in support thereof: “As we have repeatedly pointed out, it is vain for a person to say he looked when, in spite of what his eyes must have told him, he moved into the path of an approaching car or train by which he was immediately struck. . . . Where one steps into a busy street and is immediately struck by a passing vehicle which he could have seen had he looked, he is barred by his own negligence.” There can be no doubt that in the present case if plaintiff had looked he must have seen defendant’s car, and therefore plaintiff will not be heard to say he did look. Accordingly, he is barred by his own negligence.

Judgment affirmed.
Case Wo. 8,705.

#### McCOBB v. TYLER.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 199.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1820.

Attachment — Garnishee—Effect.

The attachment first served on the garnishee binds the effects in his hands, although the marshal had other and prior attachments in his hands at the time of such service.

This'was an attachment served by summoning John Wheelwright as garnishee, by order of the plaintiff. The marshal had in his hands a prior writ of attachment upon which he was not required to summon Mr. Wheelwright as garnishee.

Mr. Mason, for the prior attachment.

The general rule is that the marshal must first serve that writ which comes to his hands, and upon any property upon which he has any knowledge.

Mr. Taylor, contra.

The attachment only binds from and by the levying of it.

THE COURT

(nem. con.) was of opinion that the prior attachment did not affect the money in the hands of Mr. Wheelwright.
No. 48867.

#### Protests 739088-G, etc., of Biddle Purchasing Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Nippon Dry Goods Co. (Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni) et al. *v.*United States

No. 6170.

Invoices dated Yokohama, Japan, March 29, 1935, etc.

Certified March 30, 1935, etc.

Entered at San Francisco, Calif., April 17, 1935, etc.

Entry No. 10238, etc.

(Decided June 18, 1945)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster-,.*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, 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:

> It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court:

> (1) That the merchandise involved in the appeals listed in attached schedule consists of articles or fabrics made of rayon, which in all material respects, is such or similar to the rayon in the articles the subject of decision in *United States*v. *Nippon Dry Goods Co.,*Reap. Dec. 5006, affirming Reap. Dec. 4704; that the issue herein and conditions as to the market value are the same as the issue and conditions as to market value in the cited case, and the record in said case is hereby incorporated herein.

> (2) That the appraised values of the rayon articles 8r fabrics covered by these appeals, less any additions made by the importer by reason of the so-called Japanese consumption tax, to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases, represent the prices at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that there were no higher foreign values at the time of exportation thereof.

> - (3) That the appeals herein are abandoned as to all merchandise except rayon articles or fabrics, and these cases are submitted on the foregoing stipulation. ■

*358On 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 rayon articles or fabrics here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less any additions made by the importer by reason of the so-called Japanese consumption tax to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

# DLA Indo-Pacific raises over $18,000 in 2018 CFC

By DLA Public AffairsDLA Indo-Pacific

                Pearl Harbor, Hawaii  –              
In a March 27 award ceremony aboard the USS Missouri, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command Chief of Staff Air Force Maj. Gen. Michael A. Minihan honored 94,000 civilians and military members for raising more than $1.8 million in pledges during the 2018 Combined Federal Campaign.

Among the 141 organizations in the Hawaii-Pacific area supporting local, national and international CFC charities, Defense Logistics Agency Indo-Pacific raised over $18,000.

Fifty-two awardees were named heroes, innovators and exceptional agencies and units for their contributions, and the platinum award was presented to 16 Hawaii-based agencies for achieving at least 60 percent participation and $95 per capita.

Minihan also lauded the efforts of project officers, the Honolulu-Pacific federal executive board, campaign chairs and outreach coordinators in the Hawaii-Pacific area.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

2018 CFCDLA Indo-PacificHawaii-Pacificuss missouriCFC award ceremony
#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. (D. G. Cruikshank), et al. *v.*United States

No. 7674.

Invoices dated Vancouver, Canada, June 5, 1941, etc.

Certified June 6, 1941, etc.

Entered at Seattle, Wash., June 17, 1941, etc.; and Spokane, Wash., November 21, 1947.

Entry Nos. 3853, etc.; 45-S.

(Decided February 28, 1949)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (Frank L. Lawrence*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the defendant.

*417Olives, Chief 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:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows between counsel for plaintiff(s) and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, concerning the merchandise referred to herein:

> 1) That the involved issues in these appeals are the same in all material respects as in Tower v. US, RD 7624, on Canadian sales tax, and that the record in that case may be incorporated herein.

> 2) That the appraised value of said merchandise, less 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.

> 3) That these cases may be deemed to 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 importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Herbert A. Smith, P.Eng.


AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Limited,


Suite 1330, 200 Granville Street,


Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 1S4,












To the Board of Directors of Rubicon Minerals Corporation










I, Herbert A. Smith, hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 of the technical report entitled “F2 Gold System - Phoenix Gold Project Bateman Township Red Lake, Canada Technical Report” dated effective August 8th 2011 (the “Technical Report”) and to extracts from, or a summary of, the Technical Report in the written disclosure contained in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the financial year ended December 31, 2011 (the “AIF”) dated March  27, 2011.






Dated as of this 27th day of March 2012










Original signed by






“Herbert A. Smith”




Herbert A. Smith, P.Eng.


Principal Mining Engineer and Mining Manager


AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd.
# C_2014421EN.01003301.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2014 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM

(Case T-515/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark The English Cut - Earlier national word and Community figurative marks El Corte Inglés - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No likelihood of association - Connection between the signs - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 421/45

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, J.L Rivas Zurdo and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: The English Cut SL (Málaga, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1673/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés SA and The English Cut S.L.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders El Corte Inglés SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders El Corte Inglés SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

1

---