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

No. 6540.

Entry No. N-653.

Invoice dated London, England, October 25, 1945.

Certified October 26, 1945.

Entered at Newark, N. J., January 2, 1946.

(Decided November 22, 1946)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Cline, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 74-5803.

#### Barnes *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
| - About UT-Battelle
- The UT-Battelle Plan
- The Leadership Team
- About the Lab Director
- UniversityPartners
- Contact Information
- Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory
- The University of Tennessee
- Battelle

For information about UT-Battelle, pleasecontact the UT-Battelle Information Center, 1201 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Suite 100, OakRidge, TN 37830, (865) 220-5101, [email protected] |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 8099.

Entry Nos. 707733; 764887.

(Decided March 10, 1952)

*Sharretts, Hillis & Paley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(John J. Antus,*special attorney), for the defendant.

JohnsoN, Judge:

At the trial these appeals for reappraisement were submitted upon the following oral stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> Mr. Carter: And I offer to stipulate that the market value or the price at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by these appeals, 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 quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, was in each instance the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases, and that there is no foreign value.

> As to all other merchandise than that described in the foregoing paragraph, the appeals are abandoned, and I offer to submit upon the stipulation.

> Mr. Antus: May I make a statement? The examiner of earthenware approves this stipulation, that is our Government examiner.

> Otherwise agreed.

> The Government submits.

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 earthenware articles here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less the' amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 96-7737.

#### Allen *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 125]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 123 STAT. 3486]]

Public Law 111-125
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
        To extend the commercial space transportation liability 
             regime. <<NOTE: Dec. 28, 2009 -  [H.R. 3819]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION LIABILITY REGIME 
                              EXTENSION.

    Section 70113(f) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2009.'' and inserting ``December 31, 2012.''.

    Approved December 28, 2009.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3819:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
            Oct. 20, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 23, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2012355EN.01003301.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/33

---

Action brought on 14 September 2012 — Ubee Interactive v OHIM — Augere Holdings (Netherlands) (Ubee Interactive)

(Case T-407/12)

2012/C 355/69

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ubee Interactive Corp. (Jhubei City, Taiwan) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Augere Holdings (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 July 2012 in case R 1849/2011-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 July 2012 in case R 1849/2011-2; and

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs.

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 ‘Ubee Interactive’, for goods and services in classes 9 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 7397326

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: Community trade mark registration No 7130248 of the word mark ‘QUBEE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 37, 38 and 42; Community trade mark No 7224603 of the figurative mark ‘QUBEE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 37, 38 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

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

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

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

Pleas in law:

---
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-11055 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Justin Cale Jones, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:23-CR-13-1 

______________________________ 

Before Smith, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Justin Cale Jones 

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jones has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

July 3, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-11055 Document: 59-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2024
No. 23-11055 

2 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 23-11055 Document: 59-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2024
April 20, 1943

No. 48213.

Suit 4414.

#### *United States*v. *W. X. Huber Co.*

C. D. 669 reversed March 1, 1943. C. A. D. 231.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certificate 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 International Smart Sourcing, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Hale, Chairman, President (Principal Executive Officer) and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   | 1.     | The report fully complies   with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange   Act of 1934: and                                                                                 |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|   | 2.     | The information contained   in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial   condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period   covered by the Report. |

|   | /s/  David Hale                                                                                                |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                          |
|   | David Hale                                                                                                               |
|   | Chairman of the Board of   Directors, President  (Principal   Executive Officer) and Acting Chief Financial Officer |
|   | March 28, 2006                                                                                                           |
#### Joseph Horne Co. *v.*United States

No. 6897.

Entry No. 567.

Invoice dated London, England, March 27, 1946.

Certified March 27, 1946.

Entered at Pittsburgh, Pa., April 9, 1946.

(Decided February 19, 1947)

*Jeróme O. Clifford*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the invoiced unit prices, less the invoiced discount of *3%*per centum, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0638 WJG, LLC, a Montana Limited Liabilit y Co mpany,

Plaint iff and Appellee, v. BOBBI HURLEY & JOHN AND JANE DOES, 1 - 10,

Defendant and Appellant. O RDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parti es having failed to j oint ly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **John C. Schulte,** whose name appears next on the list of attorne ys desi

ring appo int me nt a s med iators fo r Money J udgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appo int ed to co nduct th e mediat io n process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th at th e time peri ods set fo rth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appoint me nt . A true copy

of this order is being mailed to counsel of record f or the parti es, or to th e parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED thi s January 10, 2022.

Bowen Greenwood , Cl erk of the Supreme Court c: Bobbi Hurley, Thomas Charl es Orr, John C. Schulte 01/10/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0638
EXHIBIT 32.2


                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of DCI USA, Inc. (the "Company"),
does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
that Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 20, 2006                     /s/Michael Gibbs
                                             --------------------
                                             Michael Gibbs
                                             Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2045 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require judges 

of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims to reside within fifty miles of the District of 

Columbia, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 2045 ES

1 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT THAT JUDGES ON UNITED 

2 STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS 

3 CLAIMS RESIDE WITHIN FIFTY MILES OF DIS4 TRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

5 (a) RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 7255 of title 38, 

7 United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘§ 7255. Offices, duty stations, and residences 

9 ‘‘(a) PRINCIPAL OFFICE.—The principal office of the 

10 Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims shall be in the 

11 Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, but the Court may 

12 sit at any place within the United States. 

13 ‘‘(b) OFFICIAL DUTY STATIONS.—(1) Except as pro14 vided in paragraph (2), the official duty station of each 

15 judge while in active service shall be the principal office 

16 of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 

17 ‘‘(2) The place where a recall-eligible retired judge 

18 maintains the actual abode in which such judge custom19 arily lives shall be considered the recall-eligible retired 

20 judge’s official duty station. 

21 ‘‘(c) RESIDENCES.—(1) Except as provided in para22 graph (2), after appointment and while in active service, 

23 each judge of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

24 shall reside within 50 miles of the Washington, D.C., met25 ropolitan area. 
3 

†S 2045 ES

1 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to recall-eligible 

2 retired judges of the Court of Appeals for Veterans 

3 Claims.’’. 

4 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec5 tions at the beginning of chapter 72 of such title is 

6 amended by striking the item relating to section 

7 7255 and inserting the following new item: 

‘‘7255. Offices, duty stations, and residences.’’. 

8 (b) REMOVAL.—Section 7253(f)(1) of such title is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘or engaging in the practice of law’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘engaging in the practice of law, or violating 

11 section 7255(c) of this title’’. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 

14 7255 of such title, as added by subsection (a), and 

15 the amendment made by subsection (b) shall take ef16 fect on the date that is 180 days after the date of 

17 the enactment of this Act. 

18 (2) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by 

19 subsection (b) shall apply with respect to judges con20 firmed on or after January 1, 2012. 

Passed the Senate December 13, 2012. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2045 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require 

the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. Veterans Claims to reside within fifty miles of judges of the United States Court of Appeals for
No. 47061.

#### Protests 75247-K, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

*488Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the-atomizers in question are composed in chief value of decorated glass and are similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140 the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) was sustained.
Exhibit
99.9
 (English
Translation)
 
 Supplementary
Agreement to the Property Transfer Agreement
 
 
 Party A:
Shaanxi Suo’ang Biological Science and Technology Company Limited
 
 Legal
representative: Baowen Ren
 
 Party B:
Hanzhong Si Xiong Ke Chuang Business Company Limited
 
 Legal
representative: Yanjun Zhao
  With the
principle of equality and voluntary participation and good faith, and on the
basis of the original Property Transfer Agreement signed by Party A and B on
June 19, 2006, this Supplementary Agreement (“Agreement”) regarding the
remaining issues concerning Party B’s purchase of Floors 1-3 of Hanzhong City
International Trade Center Building (the “Property”) is entered into as
follows:
 
 1. Party
A warrants to complete the transfer procedures for the Property before May 31,
2008.
 
 2. Within
one month after Party A submits to Party B the documentation for the transfer of
the Property, Party B shall  make a lump-sum payment of the
outstanding balance of RMB 8,200,000.00, plus rents of RMB1,537,560.00 from June
2007 to May 2008 (820/1920*100%*30*12 = RMB1,537,560), for total payment of:
RMB9,737,560.00.
 
 3. Any
issues not addressed by this Agreement shall be resolved through mutual
consultation between Parties A and B, and if any issue remains unresolved, such
issue shall be arbitrated before the Hanzhong City Arbitration
Commission.
 
 4. The
Agreement shall have four copies, with each party to take two copies, and the
Agreement shall become effective after it is executed and stamped by Parties A
and B.
   Party A
      (Signature):
              Party B
      (Signature):Legal
      Representative: /s/ Baowen
      Ren
              Legal
      Representative: /s/ Yanjun ZhaoAgent:
              Agent:Signature
      Date: March 6,
      2008
              Signature
      Date: March 6, 2008
# C_2015398EN.01002801.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — Corporación Empresarial de Materiales de Construcción v Commission

(Case T-250/12) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Sodium chlorate market in the EEA - Amending decision reducing the determined duration of participation in the cartel - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Whether time-barred - Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003))

(2015/C 398/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Corporación Empresarial de Materiales de Construcción, SA, formerly Uralita, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer, and G. Forwood, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. von Lingen, R. Sauer and J. Bourke, and subsequently by M. Sauer and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 1(2) and of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2012) 1965 final of 27 March 2012 amending Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Corporación Empresarial de Materiales de Construcción, SA, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Corporación Empresarial de Materiales de Construcción, SA, to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
Exhibit 23.1

Independent Auditors' Consent

The
Board of Directors
Electronics Boutique Holdings Corp.:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-47684 and 333-65463) on Form S-8 of Electronics Boutique Holdings
Corp. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 11, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Electronics Boutique Holdings Corp. and subsidiaries as of January 31, 2004 and
February 1, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended January 31,
2004, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the January 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Electronics Boutique Holdings Corp. and
subsidiaries.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
April 14, 2004

---

QuickLinks
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-10-000015231-OCT-201201:18 PM
(Reap. Dec. 9637)

#### Filjay Imports *v.*United States

Entry No. 876473.

(Decided March 22, 1960)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Gochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain items of jewelry exported from Japan and entered at the port of New York.

*616Stipulated facts, upon which, the case is before me, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export, value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is the appraised unit values, less the items covering f.o.b. charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage,:hauling.and lighterage, and petties, as set forth on the invoice, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly. .