alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### F. W. Woolworth Company (The B. & O. R. R. Co.) et al. *v.*United States

No. 8097.

Entry Nos. 1665, etc.

(Decided March 6, 1952)

*Sharretts, Hillis & Páley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, 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: v

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on schedule “A” hereto attached and made part hereof, 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 *581amount added to meet advances made by the Appraiser, in similar cases and that there is no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that these appeals to reappraisement be submitted .on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that valué 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 bé entered accordingly.
No. 40514.

#### Protest 955392-G of Standard Importing Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of flasks, articles of hollow ware. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained. *Dow*v. *United States*(21 C. C. P. A. 282, T. D. 46816) cited.
Before the Second Division,

June 13, 1950

No. 54400.

#### I. Bauer, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 157184-K (New York).

*494Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of mats composed wholly of sisal fibers, which fibers are similar in all material respects to those contained in the handbags which were the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7481

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BERNARD DEON BEST,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-90-64, CR-90-88)

Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 14, 2001

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Deon Best, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Deon Best appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion for modification of sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Best, Nos. CR-90-64; CR-90-88 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 27,

2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2073 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2073

   To prohibit the permanent relocation of F-16 aircraft assigned to 
                        Eielson Air Force Base.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 6, 2012

  Ms. Murkowski (for herself and Mr. Begich) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the permanent relocation of F-16 aircraft assigned to 
                        Eielson Air Force Base.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON RELOCATION OF F-16 AIRCRAFT.

    The Secretary of the Air Force--
            (1) may not plan or execute the permanent relocation of any 
        F-16 aircraft assigned to Eielson Air Force Base as of the date 
        of the enactment of this Act; and
            (2) shall ensure that the number of F-16 aircraft assigned 
        to Eielson Air Force Base as of September 30, 2012, equals or 
        exceeds the number of F-16 aircraft assigned to Eielson Air 
        Force Base as of October 1, 2011.
                                 <all>
```
No. 96-7742.

#### Bianchi *v.*Wood, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2014102EN.01001001.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/10

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil régional d'expression française de l'ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium)) — Disciplinary proceedings against Jean Devillers

(Case C-167/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Conseil régional d'expression française de l'ordre des médecins vétérinaires - Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

2014/C 102/12

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil régional d'expression française de l'ordre des médecins vétérinaires

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Jean Devillers

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil regional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1) — Question referred for a preliminary ruling by a professional association — Concept of court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Jurisdiction of the Court — Insufficient as to facts and law — Admissibility of the question.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Conseil regional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium) in its decision of 23 March 2013.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.

1

---
Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors
SJNB Financial Corp.:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference  in the  registration  statement  No.
33-31392 on Form S-8 of SJNB  Financial  Corp.  of our report dated  January 10,
1996,  relating to the  consolidated  balance sheets of SJNB Financial Corp. and
subsidiary  as of  December  31,  1995 and 1994,  and the  related  consolidated
statements  of income  shareholders'  equity,  and cash flows for the years then
ended,  which  report  appears in the  December  31, 1995 annual  report on Form
10-KSB of SJNB Financial Corp.



S/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

San Jose, California
January 29, 1996
# C_2014439EN.01000501.xml

| 8.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 439/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 439/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-252/13) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2002/73/EC and 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment for men and women - Employment and occupation - Access to employment - Return from maternity leave - Formal requirements for the application initiating proceedings - Coherent summary of the pleas - Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought))

(2014/C 439/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1

---
No. 39229.

#### Protests 213176-G, etc., of A & H Veith et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items are in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to the merchandise involved in Abstract 37230, The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 32.1


          CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Nutra Pharma Corp. on Form 10-QSB for
the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rik J. Deitsch, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.


/s/ Rik J. Deitsch
---------------------------
Rik J. Deitsch
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
Date: August 23, 2005
# C_2012217EN.01002802.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/28

---

Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Unister v OHIM (fluege.de)

(Case T-244/12)

2012/C 217/59

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Unister GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by H. Hug and A. Kessler-Jensch, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2012 in Case R 2149/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2012 in Case R 2149/2011-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘fluege.de’ for goods in Classes 25, 28, 35, 39, 41 and 43

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009

| — | infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009

---
### Memorandum

Date: April 9, 2014

To: Docket EPA

‐ R10

‐ OAR

‐ 2011

‐ 0916

From: Donna Deneen, Air Planning Unit

Subject: 18 AAC 50.090

I reviewed the Alaska submittal EPA received on December 11, 2009 (state effective date

7/25/2008), and have concluded that Alaska did not submit subsection (b) of 18 AAC 50.090 for

SIP approval. This subsection relates to volatile liquid loading racks and delivery tank emission

standards.

18 AAC 50.090 is not currently in the SIP and Alaska’s cover letter does not specifically state

that it intends for any part of 18 AAC 50.090 to be approved into the SIP. Further, a table in the

submittal entitled “DEC SIP Submittal” indicates that 18 AAC 50.090, including revisions to

subsection (b), is not part of the SIP. Although the state has acknowledged this table is not part

of the official submittal, the entry in the table is a strong indication of Alaska’s intentions with

respect to 18 AAC 50.090. For these reasons I have concluded that Alaska did not submit

subsection (b) of 18 AAC 50.090 and therefore 18 AAC 50.090 is not addressed in this proposal.
Exhibit 10.20

# FIRST AMENDMENT TO
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
(300-306 W. Fayette Street)

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE
AND SALE AGREEMENT (this First Amendment) is made, and shall be
effective for all purposes, as of September 7, 2004 by and between PKLB Limited
Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership (Seller), and The Kevin
F. Donohoe Company, a Pennsylvania corporation (Purchaser).

RECITALS:

R-1.        
Seller and Purchaser entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of July
26, 2004 (the Original Agreement). Unless otherwise provided in this
First Amendment, all capitalized terms shall have the same meaning as defined in
the Original Agreement.

R-2.        
Seller and Purchaser desire to amend the Original Agreement as hereinafter set
forth.

IN
CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and agreement contained in the Original Agreement
and this First Amendment, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Purchaser and Seller hereby covenant and
agree as follows:

1.        
Incorporation of Recitals.    The foregoing Recitals are incorporated in
this First Amendment and made a part hereof by this reference to the same extent
as if set forth herein in full.

2.        
Amendment of Original Agreement.    The Original Agreement is hereby
modified to extend the time and date of expiration of the Inspection Period to
5:00 PM (E.S.T.) on September 20, 2004.

3.        
Ratification of Agreement.    Except as set forth in
this First Amendment, all the terms and conditions contained in the Original
Agreement are hereby ratified and shall remain in full force and effect. In the
event that any of the terms, conditions and provisions of this First Amendment
shall conflict with any of the terms, conditions and provisions of the Original
Agreement, then, and in such event, the terms, conditions and provisions of this
First Amendment shall prevail and be controlling.

4.        
Effective Date of Amendment.    The effective date of this First Amendment
shall be September 7, 2004.

5.        
Counterparts.    This First Amendment may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which, when
taken together, shall be deemed to be a single instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and
intending to be legally bound, the undersigned have duly executed this First
Amendment under seal.

|WITNESS/ATTEST:
/s/  Douglas R. Veasey
/s/  Linda L. Reeves Kenner | PURCHASER:
THE KEVIN F. DONAHOE COMPANY, INC.
By:  /s/ Henry B. Glover, Jr.
Name:  Henry B. Glover, Jr.
Title:  Vice PresidentSELLER:
PKLB LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By:  BASi Maryland, Inc., General Partner
By:  /s/ Michael Silvon
Name:  Michael Silvon
Title:  Secretary
|------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2014409EN.01001501.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen

(Case C-328/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses - Obligation on the transferee to maintain the terms and conditions agreed in a collective agreement until the entry into force of another collective agreement - Concept of collective agreement - National legislation providing that a rescinded collective agreement continues to have effect until the entry into force of another collective agreement))

2014/C 409/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund

Applicant:

Defendant: Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(3) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that the terms and conditions laid down in a collective agreement, which, pursuant to the law of a Member State, despite the rescission of that agreement, continue to produce their effects as regards the employment relationship which was governed by them before the agreement was terminated, constitute ‘terms and conditions agreed in any collective agreement’ so long as that employment relationship is not subject to a new collective agreement or a new individual agreement is not concluded with the employees concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

1

---
Order entered July 26, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00317-CV

DELORIS PHILLIPS, Appellant

V.

PORSHALA PHILLIPS AND WILLIAM BRENT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-00541

ORDER

Before the Court are appellant’s (1) July 11, 2018 emergency expedited motion to 

correct/amend reporter’s record; (2) July 19, 2018 request for documents to be included in 

clerk’s record; (3) July 19, 2018 request for supplementation of clerk’s record; and (4) July 23, 

2018 “request for preservation of any/all records/files/documents, etc.” We DENY the July 11th

motion and July 19th requests. We DENY as moot the July 23rd request for preservation because 

all records and documents filed in this appeal will be retained in accordance with applicable 

statutes and the Court’s record retention policy. 

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 3.4

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          INTERPLAY ENTERTAINMENT CORP.
                             A DELAWARE CORPORATION

         INTERPLAY  ENTERTAINMENT  CORP., a Delaware  corporation  organized and
existing  under and by  virtue  of the  Delaware  General  Corporation  Law (the
"Corporation"), does hereby certify:

         1. The Board of Directors of the Corporation  duly adopted a resolution
proposing  and declaring  advisable  the following  amendment to the Amended and
Restated  Certificate of Incorporation  of the  Corporation,  and directing that
said  amendment  be  submitted  to  the  stockholders  of  the  Corporation  for
consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as
follows:

         "NOW, THEREFORE,  BE IT RESOLVED,  that the first sentence of the first
grammatical  paragraph of Article 4 of the Amended and Restated  Certificate  of
Incorporation  of the Corporation is hereby amended and restated to read in full
as follows:

         "The  total  number  of  shares  of all  classes  of stock  which  this
Corporation  shall  have  authority  to  issue  is  105,000,000,  of  which  (i)
100,000,000 shares shall be designated "Common Stock" and shall have a par value
of $0.001 per share;  and (ii) 5,000,000  shares shall be designated  "Preferred
Stock" and shall have a par value of $0.001 per share."

         2. The holders of the  necessary  number of shares of capital  stock of
the Corporation voted in favor of the foregoing amendment in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

         3. Said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  Interplay  Entertainment  Corp.  has caused  this
certificate to be signed by its duly authorized Chief Executive  Officer,  Brian
Fargo, and attested by its duly authorized Secretary,  Robert Katchen, this 25th
day of October, 2000.

                                          INTERPLAY ENTERTAINMENT CORP.,
                                          a Delaware corporation


                                          By: /s/ Brian Fargo
                                              ----------------------------------
                                               Brian Fargo,
                                               Chief Executive Officer
ATTEST:
/s/ Robert Katchen
----------------------------
Robert Katchen,
Secretary