alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013164EN.01000901.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2013 — eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy

(Case C-119/13)

2013/C 164/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: eco cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

1

mutatis mutandis

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  If the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him, must the defendant respect certain time-limits in bringing his application for review? In that connection, must recourse be had in particular to the scheme established in Article 20(3) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

If the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him, must the defendant respect certain time-limits in bringing his application for review? In that connection, must recourse be had in particular to the scheme established in Article 20(3) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

| 3. | Also if Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Also if Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

mutatis mutandis

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

1

---
April 9, 1942

No. 47079.

Suit 4339.

#### Automatic *Totalisators, Inc.*v. *United States.*

Reap. Dec. 5063 affirmed. C. A. D. 195.
#### In the Matter of E.D.J. Quality Realty Corp., Appellant, v Village of Massapequa Park, Respondent.

[614 NYS2d 148]

—In a condemnation proceeding, the claimant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), dated April 17, 1992, as denied the claimant’s application for an additional allowance of $28,258.63 pursuant to EDPL 701.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the application is granted, the claimant is awarded an additional allowance in the amount of $28,258.63, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of an appropriate judgment.

In this condemnation proceeding, the Village of Massapequa Park initially offered the claimant $96,000. The Supreme Court ultimately awarded the claimant $151,734, based in part on an error in the method of valuation used by the Village’s appraiser.

We disagree with the conclusion of the Supreme Court that *322the award was not substantially in excess of the Village’s initial offer *(see,*EDPL 701; *Matter of Malin v State of New York,*183 AD2d 899; *Karas v State of New York,*169 AD2d 816). Because the Village does not dispute that the claimant incurred legal and appraisal costs totalling $28,258.63 in prosecuting the subject claim, we award the claimant that amount in order to "achieve just and adequate compensation” (EDPL 701; *see, Zappavigna v State of New York,*186 AD2d 557; *Matter of Malin v State of New York, supra).*Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
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 Distribution San Diego’s McVey retires after 55 years

By DLA Distribution Public Affairs

                SAN DIEGO, Calif.  –              
James McVey, a Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Diego, California, Industrial Support division supervisor, retired Feb. 26 after 55 years of government service

‘What a remarkable 55-year career in government service,” Navy Capt. Kerri Yarbrough, DLA Distribution San Diego, California, commander, said. In a small retirement ceremony including McVey’s wife, Ruthann, Yarbrough presented McVey with DLA retirement certificates, recognizing him for 55 years of outstanding service.

McVey was involved in many historical changes during his career, according to DDDC’s Acting Deputy Commander, Greg Levardo. “Jim, you were key in the 2009 BRAC [Base Realignment and Closure Program] from the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center to DLA,” Levardo said.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLADLA Distributionretirementaward
#### Dominique FRANCOIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-4551.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 21, 1998.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rochelle L. Kirdy, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s revocation of probation on the ground of battering a police officer and resisting arrest without violence. Although the trial court recognized at the hearing that he could not revoke on the other alleged violation, because it was based solely on hearsay evidence, the written order indicates revocation on that ground as well. We therefore affirm but remand for the striking of paragraph two of the order revoking probation.

GUNTHER, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
**UNITEDSTATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION**

**Washington****, D.C.****  20549**

** **

**Form10-K**

(MarkOne)

[X]   ANNUALREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For thefiscal year ended December 31, 2008

 

or

 

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For thetransition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number0-13309

 

**ANGELES PARTNERSXII**

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

55Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina 29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

 

Issuer'stelephone number    (864) 239-1000

 

Securities registered underSection 12(b) of the Act:

 

None

 

Securities registered underSection 12(g) of the Act:

 

Unitsof Limited Partnership Interest

(Titleof class)

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of theSecurities Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)of the Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days. Yes [X] No [ ]

 

Indicate by check mark ifdisclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (section 229.405 of this chapter) is notcontained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of theregistrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statementsincorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to thisForm 10-K.  [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of“large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company”in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).Yes [ ] No [X]

 

State the aggregate marketvalue of the voting and non-voting partnership interests held by non-affiliatescomputed by reference to the price at which the partnership interests were lastsold, or the average bid and asked prices of such partnership interests as ofthe last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscalquarter. No market exists for the limited partnership interests of theRegistrant, and, therefore, no aggregate market value can bedetermined.

 

**DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE**

**None**
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 5, 2019

No. 04-19-00067-CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellant

v.

Teresita CRUZ,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI05398

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED. 

Appellant’s brief is due on April 3, 2019.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of March, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### United States *v.*Pacific Customs Brokerage Co.

No. 7766.

Entry No. H-550.

(Decided December 20, 1949)

*David N. Edektein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Jerome Vale,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*I-Iubert S. Pierce*for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement, filed by the collector of customs at the port of St. Albans, involves the question of the proper dutiable value of six live chinchillas exported from Canada to the United States. These chinchillas were invoiced as follows:

> Purebred Chinchilla Female

> “Gibbon Cl N 78 (660) Tattoo CL L Ear N 78 R Ear

> Purebred Chinchilla Male

> “Gibbon 33 1142 (654) Tattoo 33 L Ear 1142 R Ear

> Purebred Chinchilla Male

> “Cap Sante SLR N 135 (664) Male Tattoo SLR L Ear N 135 R Ear

> Purebred Chinchilla Female

> “Yamaska 1C (697) Tattoo YR L Ear Ic R Ear

> Purebred Chinchilla Male

> Cap Sante CL P 251 (684) Male Tattoo CL Left ear P 251 R Ear

> Purebred Chinchilla Female

> “Yamaska Y R P3 (691)

The first four of the chinchillas thus enumerated were entered at $350 each. The last two at $300 each. They were all appraised as entered.

This case has been submitted for decision upon an oral stipulation of fact entered into by respective counsel at the time of trial. The stipulation provides as follows :

> Mr. Vale: If the Court pleases, this is a Collector’s appeal on three pairs of live chinchillas, exported, from Canada to the United States. The total invoice price and the entered value for the said chinchillas were $2,000. Subsequent investigation disclosed that the merchandise was undervalued.

> After conference with the Assistant Collector of Customs, Mr. Wallace, and the Appraiser, Mr. Bingham, both of St. Albans, Vermont, and with Mr. Pierce, attorney for the importer, it was mutually agreed to enter into the following stipulation:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the attorneys for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that at the time of exportation of the three pair of live chinchillas involved herein, such or similar merchandise was *499freely 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, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of the containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses, incident to the placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States at nine hundred dollars per pair of chinchillas.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof. It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may be submitted upon the foregoing stipulation.

> Mb. Piebce. We concur in the stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the value of said merchandise, and that such value is $900 per pair of chinchillas.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

October 15, 1943

No. 48873.

#### Protest 28405-K of Sprouse Reitz Co., Inc. (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the banks in question are the same as those the subject of Abstract 48518. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
#### Robert Derek LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-3460.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 28, 1998.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1998.

Harvey Ives Gutin and Tad A. Kokoszka of Kokoszka & Gutin, Cocoa, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberta J. Tylke, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Cox v. State,*711 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

COBB, W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20084]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984.
    Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the 
Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., Room 962. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement 
to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, 
within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register.

Agreement No.: 224-200043-002
Title: Long Beach/Forest Terminals Corporation Terminal Agreement
Parties:
    City of Long Beach
    Forest Terminals Corporation (``Forest Terminals'')
Synopsis: The amendment covers relinquishment of a portion of the 
assigned premises and renegotiation of the compensation paid by Forest 
Terminals.

Agreement No.: 224-201030
Title: Port of New Orleans/Gateway Terminal Services and I.T.O. Corp.
Parties:
    Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans (``Port'')
    Gateway Terminal Services, L.L.C. (``Gateway'')
    I.T.O. Corporation (``I.T.O.'')
Synopsis: The Agreement would authorize Gateway and I.T.O. to jointly 
lease from the Port 22 acres plus improvements at its Milan Street and 
Napoleon Ave. ``C'' Wharves for use as a public maritime cargo terminal 
until June 30, 2000.

    Dated: July 25, 1997.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20084 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
----

----

| (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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  May 17, 2010 |   |   /s/ Samuel W. Fairchild |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|                           |   | Samuel W. Fairchild            |
|                           |   | Chief Executive Officer        |
|                           |   | (principal executive officer)  |

----

----
#### The J. D. Richardson Co. *v.*United States

No. 7679.

Pro forma invoice dated Windsor, Canada, November 24, 1947.

Entered at Detroit, Mich., November 26, 1947.

Entry No. 5290.

(Decided March 7, 1949)

*Eugene R. Pichrell*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Speclor,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement from a finding of value made by the United States appraiser at the port of Detroit on certain auto parts, specifically mats.

The basis of value adopted by the appraiser is not in dispute and was apparently foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938. It appears that the appraiser adopted the invoice unit value of Can. $146.04 per mat, which was later ascertained to be incorrect, the correct unit value being Can. $146.04 per hundred mats, plus 10 per centum and 8 per centum, packed.

Counsel have stipulated in open court as follows:

> * * *- that the basis of appraisement on the matter the subject of this appeal to reappraisement was correct; that the extensions were correct, but that there was an error in the entered and dutiable value inasmuch as a unit value of $146.04 was used per mat rather than a unit value per mat of $1.4604.

Upon the agreed facts I find that foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis of value of the mats in question, and that such value is Can. $1.4604 per unit, plus 10 per centum and 8 per centum, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### Clyde R. ALLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-2535.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 1, 1998.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1998.

*348Clyde R. Allen, Miami, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Appellant’s post-conviction motion was untimely filed. *Howarth v. State,*673 So.2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

STONE, C.J., DELL, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,605                   5,251
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,091                     779
<ALLOWANCES>                                       133                     103
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,694                   8,278
<PP&E>                                          33,029                  26,166
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,856)                 (6,843)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,398                  56,833
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,639                   9,629
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,594                   4,698
<COMMON>                                         6,121                   5,831
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,339                  37,666
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,398                  56,833
<SALES>                                         80,980                  58,909
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                80,980                  58,909
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,858                  48,871
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (158)                   (482)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,046                   2,004
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (185)                   4,024
<INCOME-TAX>                                       250                   1,561
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (435)                   2,462
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    449                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (884)                   2,462
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)                     .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)                     .34


</TABLE>