alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9922)

#### Air Express International Agency, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 468059, etc.

(Decided February 23, 1961)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*William B. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in. the schedule, attached to and made part of this de-*602cisión, were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff. The cases were thereupon ordered submitted by the court.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2014292EN.01000701.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Stanislav Gross v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

(Case C-165/13) (1)

1

((Taxation - Directive 92/12/EEC - Articles 7, 8 and 9 - General arrangements for products subject to excise duty - Products released for consumption in one Member State and held for commercial purposes in another Member State - Whether excise duty is chargeable to a person holding those products who has acquired them in the Member State of destination - Acquisition at the end of the entry process))

2014/C 292/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stanislav Gross

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, read in conjunction with Article 7 of that directive, must be interpreted as allowing a Member State to designate as liable to excise duty a person who holds for commercial purposes, on the fiscal territory of that State, products subject to excise duty that have been released for consumption in another Member State, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, even though that person was not the first holder of those products in the Member State of destination.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1

---
Ex-10.2



 





Exhibit 10.2




May 31, 2007




Mr. Mark Fioravanti

6041 Jocelyn Hollow Road

Nashville, TN 37205




     Re:      Amendment No. 2 to July 15, 2003 Employment Agreement



Dear Mark:




     This letter will serve as Amendment No. 2 to your July 15, 2003 Employment Agreement with
Gaylord Entertainment Company (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.



     This letter will confirm that you have agreed to accept the job of Senior Vice President and
Treasurer of Gaylord Entertainment Company, and that you will report to the Company’s Chief
Financial Officer. As we have discussed, the base salary, target bonus and grade for this position
are slightly below that of the position of Executive Vice President and President of ResortQuest
International, Inc. which you currently hold. By executing in the space provided below, you hereby
acknowledge that this new position is acceptable to you, and that the Company has not breached any
of its obligations under the Agreement as a result of this change.



     By this Amendment No. 2 to the July 15, 2003 Employment Agreement, the Company and Executive
have now agreed to various amendments to the Employment Agreement effective as of May 31, 2007:



Paragraph 2(a)(i) is deleted in its entirety and replace with the following text:



“During the Employment Period, Executive shall serve the Company as its Senior Vice
President and Treasurer and report directly to the Chief Financial Officer of the Company.
Executive shall perform such duties as the Chief Financial Offers of the Company shall
reasonably determine.”



Paragraph 3(a) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following text:



“Base Salary. During the Employment Period, the Company shall pay to Executive an
annual salary of $250,000 (the “Base Salary”). The Company shall evaluate Executive for base
salary increases annually based on performance.”




 









 








     The Agreement is hereby deemed to be amended and supplemented in accordance with the
provisions set forth above. Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, all agreements and
provisions contained in the Agreement are hereby ratified, readopted, approved, and confirmed and
remain in full force and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours,





GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Colin V. Reed
 	 
	 	 	Colin V. Reed, Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 


ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	/s/ Mark Fioravanti
 	 	 	 
	Mark Fioravanti
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3
9th April 2002


PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL


Owen Best
Sales Asia Pacific

Dear Owen

EMPLOYEE RETENTION PROGRAM ("THE PROGRAM")

The purpose of the Program is to retain employees such as you who are critical
to maintaining the on-going operations of FLAG Telecom Limited ("FLAG"). This
includes key leadership, technical and functional professionals with critical
expertise and knowledge.

You will become entitled to a gross sum of USD100,000 ("RETENTION PAYMENT
AMOUNT") on 31 December 2002 (the "FINAL RETENTION DATE"). Any entitlement to
the Retention Payment Amount is CONDITIONAL UPON THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT
REMAINING CONFIDENTIAL TO YOU AND NOT BEING DISCLOSED TO ANY THIRD PARTY.

The Retention Payment Amount will be paid as an advance, on your signature to
this agreement. The payment is net and was subject to the usual statutory
payroll deductions.

If you have terminated your employment with FLAG or have given notice
terminating your employment or FLAG has terminated your employment or given
notice to terminate your employment for Good Cause prior to the Final Retention
Date then you will repay all advances made of the Retention Payment Amount to
FLAG immediately and you shall have no further entitlement under this agreement.

By signing this agreement you authorise FLAG to deduct any advances made from
any payments (which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, salary,
bonus, notice payments and the repayment of expenses) due to you from FLAG on
the termination of your employment. The Retention Payment Amount is in addition
to your salary and shall not be treated as an increase in your salary or as part
of your salary for the calculations of any other benefit.

Any entitlement to the Retention Payment Amount is subject to your continuing
good performance and contribution to the success of FLAG. Should FLAG, in its
absolute discretion, determine that your performance at any time prior to the
Final Retention Date has not been adequate to merit the Retention Payment Amount
then FLAG may request the repayment of the advance under this plan.

If you agree to these terms please sign and return to me the attached copy of
this agreement within 24 hours of receipt of this letter.


For and on behalf of FLAG Telecom Limited


     /s/ RICHARD A. LONG
     ---------------------------------


RICHARD A. LONG
VICE PRESIDENT CORPORATE SERVICES


Date:             9th April 2002
         -----------------------------------------------------



Signed:  /s/ OWEN BEST
       -------------------------------------------------------


Name:             Owen Andrew Best
         -----------------------------------------------------


Date:             15/04/02
         -----------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 10.25

ADDENDUM TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT

This Addendum (the Addendum) is
entered into effective as of January 1, 2007, by and between NORTH CAROLINA RADIATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a North Carolina corporation (MANAGEMENT SERVICES) and RADIATION THERAPY ASSOCIATES OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.,
a North Carolina professional corporation (the PA). This Addendum amends Section 3.1 of the Administrative Services Agreement dated January 1, 2002 between the parties (the Agreement) to adjust the monthly Service Fee of
$454.42 per external beam treatment billed as paid in 2006 to a monthly service Fee payable at the rate of $459.58 per external beam treatment billed (currently CPT codes 77372, 77373, 77401 - 77416, 77418 and 77781-77784) and replaces the Addendum
of that same Section dated October 1, 2006. The parties acknowledge that Management Services neither provides direct marketing services currently under the Agreement nor does this Amendment provide for Management Services to provide direct marketing
services.

From and after the date hereof, Section 3.1 shall read as follows:

3.1. Service Fee. For the services to be provided hereunder by MANAGEMENT SERVICES, the PC shall pay to MANAGEMENT SERVICES a
monthly Service Fee at the rate of $459.58 per external beam treatment billed (currently CPT codes 77372, 77373, 77401 - 77416, 77418 and 77781-77784). The parties agree that the Service Fee represents the fair market value of the services provided
by MANAGEMENT SERVICES hereunder and that the parties shall meet annually to reevaluate the value of services provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES and shall establish the fair market value thereof for purposes of this Section 3.1.



|          |  |                                                              |  |                             
|--------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------
|Accepted: |  | NORTH CAROLINA RADIATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC.  
|          |  |                                                             
|          |  | By:                                                          |  | /s/ David Koeninger         
|          |  |                                                              |  | David Koeninger             
|          |  |                                                              |  | Vice President and CFO      
|          | 
|Accepted: |  | RADIATION THERAPY ASSOCIATES OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
|          | 
|          |  |                                                             
|          |  | By:                                                          |  | /s/ Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.
|          |  |                                                              |  | Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.    
|          |  |                                                              |  | Vice President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0577 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RUSSELL KORTAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 24 , 202 2 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 14 2022

01/14/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0577
No. 47728.

#### Protest 915086-G of A. Schnuerer, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Steinberger*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 187, C. D. 229), the protest was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-88918, 333-65912,333-76633, 333-76635, 333-75763, 33-56693, 33-69840, 33-31556, and 2-76939 on Form S-8 and in No.333-127677 on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 13, 2006, relating to the financial statementsand financial statement schedule of Smith International, Inc. and management’s report on theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form10-K of Smith International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPHouston, Texas
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Sanding Tao, certify that:
1. I have reviewed the small business issuer's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 (this "report");
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting;
5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.
 Date:  November 13, 2006
By:  /s/ Sanding Tao              -------------------------------Sanding Tao Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 23.A

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
of FVNB Corp.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-75029 on Form S-8 of FVNB Corp. filed on March 25, 1999, of our report dated
January 26, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of FVNB Corp. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999, and the related consolidated statements of
income and comprehensive income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the
year then ended, which report is included in this December 31, 1999 annual
report on Form 10-K of FVNB Corp.

KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
March 28, 2000
No. 96-5696.

#### Bigpond *v.*Champion, Warden.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20

- 697

_____________________________
J OSHUA O NEAL D EMPSEY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jan Shackelford , Judge

. September 17, 2020

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , C.J., and B ILBREY and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Before the Second Division,

February 23, 1940

No. 43263.

#### Protests 383814-G, etc., of Central Madeira Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items consist of Alengon lace similar to that involved in *United States*v. *Caesar*(18 C. C. P. A. 106, T. D. 44067). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
Opinion filed March 10, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00091-CV

__________

GILBERT ARSIAGA, SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE, AND

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP

V.

VALENTE MENDES

On Appeal from the 161st District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. B-129,159

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants, Gilbert Arsiaga, Substitute Trustee, and BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 

and appellee, Valente Mendes, have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to 

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). In the motion, the parties state that they “have now reached an 

agreement to settle and compromise their differences in this appeal. Specifically, the parties 

have agreed to bound [sic] by the Amended Temporary Orders entered by the trial court on 

June 7, 2010, thereby disposing of the arguments made the basis of this appeal.” The parties 

further request the court to render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement pursuant to 
2

Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A) by affirming the Amended Temporary Orders entered by the trial court on 

June 7, 2010, and remanding this case to the trial court for further proceedings. 

Therefore, in accordance with the parties’ request, we affirm the Amended Temporary 

Orders entered by the trial court on June 7, 2010, and remand this case to the trial court for 

further proceedings.

The joint motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

March 10, 2011

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
No. 45318.

#### Petitions 6088-R, etc., of Arkell Safety Bag Co. (New York).

*531Opinion, by

Brown, J.

It appeared that the market value of the Kraft paper in question went, up and down in the course of 10 years and that there was no intention on the part of the importer to deceive the customs officials or to defraud the Government. The petitions were therefore granted.
NO COMME~JTS \VERE RECEIVED 

DURING THE 30-DA Y COMMENT PERIOD
#### Lu De ZHAO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72332.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 26, 2005.

Jesiros D. Bautista, Law Offices of Jesiros D. Bautista, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Robbin K. Blaya, Esq., Earle B. Wilson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Elizabeth L. Collins, Springfield, IL, for Respondent.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Lu De Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s (“I J”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition and remand in part; we deny in part.

Substantial evidence does not support the Id’s decision because the IJ failed to address the individual and cumulative effects of the hardships suffered by Zhao, including economic deprivation and harm to her family, because of her parents’ violation of China’s one-child policy and resistance to sterilization. *See Zhang v. Gonzales,*408 F.3d 1239, 1247-49 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we grant the petition as to asylum and remand so that the IJ may make a new determination of Zhao’s eligibility for asylum. *See id.*at 1249.

Substantial evidence does support the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal. De*907spite the errors which undermine the IJ’s asylum determination, the record does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that Zhao will be harmed if returned to China. *See id.*at 1250. We deny the petition as to withholding of removal.

Zhao waives review of her religious persecution and CAT claim by failing to raise the issues in her opening brief. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

GRANTED and REMANDED in part; DENIED in part.

Judge Rymer would deny the petition.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2012331EN.01002801.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/28

---

Action brought on 22 August 2012 — Demon International v OHIM — Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (DEMON)

(Case T-380/12)

(2012/C 331/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Demon International, LC (Orem, United States) (represented by: T. Krüger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (Thiene (VI), Italy)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 June 2012 in Case R 1845/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 June 2012 in Case R 1845/2011-4;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the action and of the appeal proceedings R 1845/2011-4. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the action and of the appeal proceedings R 1845/2011-4.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Demon’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark No 6 375 398

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Demon International, LC

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: International word mark ‘DEMON’ for goods in Class 28

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for a declaration of invalidity was granted in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was allowed and the application for a declaration of invalidity dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---