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

No. 6899.

Entry No. 718973, etc.

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

Certified September 3, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 10, 1941, etc.

(Decided February 19, 1947)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

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

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2014421EN.01001502.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 October 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-478/13) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/18/EC - Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) - Placing on the market - Article 31(3)(b) - Locations of GMO crops - Obligation to inform the competent authorities - Obligation to establish a public register - Cooperation in good faith))

2014/C 421/21

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyba, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | In not laying down an obligation to inform the competent Polish authorities of the locations at which genetically modified organism crops are being grown pursuant to Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, and in not establishing a register of those locations and in not making public the information relating to them, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(3)(b) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In not laying down an obligation to inform the competent Polish authorities of the locations at which genetically modified organism crops are being grown pursuant to Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, and in not establishing a register of those locations and in not making public the information relating to them, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(3)(b) of that directive.

| 2. | The Republic of Poland is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Republic of Poland is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.

1

---
Before the Third Division,

June 15, 1950

No. 54408.

#### Northern Feather Works, Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 6750-R (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The consular invoices describe the shipper as the seller and list certain amounts as buying commissions, which amounts were deducted on entry. The merchandise was appraised as entered and appeals for reappraisement were taken by the collector. Thereafter, the parties stipulated that the dutiable export value was the unit price, without any deduction for buying commission, and judgment was rendered accordingly. From the testimony it appeared that the petitioning corporation and the shipper, Northern Feather Works, Ltd., of Hong Kong, were controlled by a Danish concern; that petitioner had been importing feathers for about 30 years and after the war resumed its business with China; that the invoices were made out in accordance with the advice of consular officials in Hong Kong who were given full particulars of the manner in which the business was carried on; and that after the collector appealed for re-appraisement, the petitioner followed counsel’s advice and agreed with the Government that the buying commission was not a deductible item. On the record presented it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
#### Chapal Donner Corp. *v.*United States

No. 6898.

Entry No. 749536.

Invoice dated. London, England, March 1, 1946.

Certified March 2, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 2, 1946.

(Decided February 19, 1947)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

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

Eewall, Judge:

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

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, 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, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of 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, is as follows:

> Hatters fur waste (Beaver Rabbit Pieces) 110 per lb.

> Hatters fur waste (Mixed Rabbit Pieces) 140 per lb.

> Hatters fur waste (Natural Rabbit Pieces) 330 per lb.

> Less nondutiable charges.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for • the merchandise herein at the time of exportation.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may 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 as follows:

> *V. S. dollars per pound*

> Beaver rabbit pieces_ 0. 11

> Mixed rabbit pieces_ . 14

> Natural rabbit pieces_ . 33

> Less cartage, handling, loading, wharfage, carriage, insurance, freight, and consular fee.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2013141EN.01002603.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/26

---

Order of the General Court of 12 March 2013 — Lafarge v Commission

(Case T-49/12) (1)

1

2013/C 141/49

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber (extended composition) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

1

---
No. 96-7993.

#### Pacheco-Chong *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2013114EN.01002302.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 January 2013 — Ferenc Tibor Kovács v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

(Case C-5/13)

2013/C 114/35

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Szombathelyi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ferenc Tibor Kovács

Applicant:

Defendant: Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Should the law on non-discrimination, freedom of movement for workers and the right to a fair trial, be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State such as Paragraph 25/B of Law I of 1988, according to which only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the Hungarian authorities may be used on the roads in Hungary, and the fulfilment of the requirements which allow exemption from that provision may be established only during the inspection?

---
#### PATTERSON et al. *v.*SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO et al.

No. A-765.

Decided March 21, 1975

Mr. Justice Douglas, Circuit Justice.

Applicants are two California reporters and the managing editor of their newspaper. In January 1975, they published a series of articles containing references to testimony offered in a Fresno County grand jury proceeding, despite the fact that the transcript of that proceeding had been ordered sealed by the local state-court judge before whom the grand jury’s indictment was returned. The judge instituted an investigation seeking to uncover any possible violations of his order sealing the grand jury transcript; in the course of that investigation, numerous witnesses were called, including applicants. Applicants state that they were excluded from the courtroom during the testimony of the other witnesses, and that their *1302counsel was prevented from cross-examining any of these witnesses. Applicants themselves, when called, refused to answer questions concerning the manner in which they had obtained access to the grand jury transcript, citing various state and federal privileges (not including, except as to one applicant, their privilege against self-incrimination). The judge refused to recognize these claims of privilege, and found applicants in contempt of court on many occasions, although the record before me does not disclose whether these contempt adjudications have ever been formalized in any sense and does not indicate that any sanction has yet been imposed. Applicants unsuccessfully sought extraordinary relief in the state appellate courts, and now state their intention to seek a writ of certiorari to review the denial of such relief, claiming that their confrontation rights and their due process rights, including the right to a fair and impartial hearing, have been violated and will continue to be violated in these proceedings.

I am informed that proceedings are scheduled to continue in the Superior Court at 10 a. m. today. Intervention in a pending state proceeding of this sort undoubtedly is warranted only in extraordinary circumstances. The facts of this case, however, raise disquieting echoes of the constitutional infirmities which we identified in *In re*Murchison, 349 U. S. 133 (1955), and *In re Oliver,*333 U. S. 257 (1948). If these proceedings continue in this fashion, applicants may well suffer a deprivation of constitutional rights which can never be adequately redressed. In light of applicants’ expressed intention to seek certio-rari from the denial of extraordinary relief below, I have this day entered an order staying further proceedings with respect to these applicants, pending my referral of this application to the full Court at the earliest opportunity.
(Reap. Dec. 9126)

#### D. P. Bushnell *&*Company et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2756, etc.

(Decided April 15, 1958)

*Stein & Shostak*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation reading as follows:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the Appeals for Reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule “A”, that, at the time of exportation to the United States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and covering of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised value less additions made to meet the advances by the Appraiser in similar eases covering the non-dutiable so-called (F. O. B.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage added by the importer on entry.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the unit prices of said binoculars and cases are as shown in the attached Schedule “A” in United States currency, less the deductions from said unit price as invoiced, net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals for Reappraisement, enumerated herein, may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and I hold that such statutory value is the appraised value, less additions made to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases covering the nondutiable charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling, and lighterage, added by the importer on entry, and that the unit export value for each of the binoculars and cases in question is as set forth in said schedule *“A,”*less the deductions from the unit price, as invoiced, net packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM IMATRON
INC.'S CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED
BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                        0000720477
<NAME>                                        Imatron Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     $
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997 
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         14,425
<SECURITIES>                                      180
<RECEIVABLES>                                   9,653
<ALLOWANCES>                                    2,758
<INVENTORY>                                    12,926
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               37,645
<PP&E>                                         19,379
<DEPRECIATION>                                  9,020
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 49,223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,595
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                       90,728
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,968
<SALES>                                        39,423
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               39,423
<CGS>                                          31,879
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  31,879
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             578
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,678)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,744)                              
<CHANGES>                                        0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,422)                              
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.15)
        


</TABLE>
#### Frank Erath v. W. M. Glenn.

No. 15,947.

Error from Greeley district court; Charles E. Lob-dell, judge.

Opinion filed April 10, 1909.

Affirmed.

*D. R. Beckstrom,*for the plaintiff in error.

*George A. Kline,*for the defendant in error.

*Per Curiam:*

The point of contention here is, Was there evidence to sustain the finding of the trial court that the defendant had notice of the commencement and pendency of the original action? It appears from the record that there was at least sufficient evidence to uphold the finding. The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Broadwind Energy, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, KevinE. Johnson, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/  Kevin E. Johnson                                         |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Kevin  E. Johnson                                             |   |
| Interim  Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer) |   |
|                                                          |   |
| Date:  August 10, 2009                                   |   |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19863]



[[Page 40527]]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than August 12, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Jasper Banking Company Second Amended and Restated Employee 
Stock Ownership Stock Bonus Plan (ESOP), Jasper, Georgia; to acquire an 
additional 1 percent for a total of 10 percent of the voting shares of 
JBC Bancshares, Inc., Jasper, Georgia.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Pat Marshall, Manager of 
Analytical Support, Consumer Regulation Group) 101 Market Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105-1579:
    1. John Isaac Bloomberg, Park City, Utah; to acquire a total of 
3.20 percent of the voting shares of Draper BanCorp, Draper, Utah, and 
thereby indirectly acquire Draper Bank and Trust, Draper, Utah. 
Notificant is part of a group that owns 50 percent of Draper.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 23, 1997.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-19863 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
-                          Home                     
-                          Data Products                     
-                 Food Environment Atlas            

# Food Environment Atlas

Food environment factors—such as store/restaurant proximity, food prices, food and nutrition assistance programs, and community characteristics—interact to influence food choices and diet quality. These interactions are complex and more research is needed to identify causal relationships and effective policy interventions.

The objectives of the Food Environment Atlas are:
          - to assemble statistics on food environment indicators to stimulate research on the determinants of food choices and diet quality, and
          - to provide a spatial overview of a community's ability to access healthy food and its success in doing so.

**Data Training Webinar:**ERS agricultural economist Alana Rhone provides an overview of the Food Access Research Atlas and Food Environment Atlas as well as a tutorial on how to find and use the data in this ERS Data Training Webinar.

**Errata:** On September 10, 2020, the Food Environment Atlas data files were reposted after duplicate county records were removed from the Local category. The two counties with duplicate records were Chester, PA (FIPS code = 42029) and Mecklenburg, NC (FIPS code = 37119).

No other values were affected.

Enter the Map

- Overview
- Go to the Atlas
- About the Atlas
- Documentation
- Data Access and Documentation Downloads

-  Food Choices & Health 
-  Child Nutrition Programs 
-  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 
-  WIC Program 
-  Food & Nutrition Assistance 
-  Food Markets & Prices 
-  ERS Celebrates World Statistics Day 2020 
-  Fruit and Tree Nuts 
-  Food Assistance Data & Collaborative Research Programs 
-  Food Security in the U.S. 
-  Poverty & Income Volatility 
-  Consumer Information and Labeling 
-  Food Access 
-  Obesity 
-  Local Foods 
-  Processing & Marketing 
-  ERS Coronavirus (COVID-19) Media Resources 
-  Diet Quality & Nutrition 
-  Food Prices, Expenditures, and Establishments 
-  Food Service Industry 
-  Food Consumption & Demand 
-  Retailing & Wholesaling 

**Last updated:** Friday, August 16, 2024

**For more information, contact:**Alana  Rhone