alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6191.

Invoice dated London, England, June 1944.

Certified July 1944.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 27, 1944.

Entry No. 707497/1.

(Decided June 27, 1945)

*John D. Rode (Jacob L. Klingaman*of counsel) for the plaintiff..

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

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

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the issue in this appeal for reappraisement, enumerated above, is the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *United States*v. *Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc.,*suit No. 4481, C. A. D. 305, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appraised value of the merchandise here involved, less the addition made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the cost of materials and fabrication, manipulation, or other process employed in manufacturing or producing such or similar merchandise at a time preceding the date of exportation of the involved merchandise which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production thereof in the usual course of business, plus the usual general expenses (not less than 10 per centum of such cost) in the case of such or similar merchandise, plus the cost of all containers and coverings, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, and plus an addition for profit (not less than 8 per centum of the costs of materials and fabrication or manipulation and general expenses) equal to the profit which ordinarily is added to the cost of merchandise of the same general character by manufacturers or producers in the country of manufacture who are engaged in the manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the .value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the *395additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.02     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 Friendly Energy Exploration (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald Trapp, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.      /s/ Donald Trapp By: Donald Trapp Chief Financial Officer  Dated: June 17, 2010  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2013245EN.01000901.xml

| 24.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2013 — Kreyenberg v OHIM — Commission (MEMBER OF €e euro experts)

(Case T-3/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark MEMBER OF €e euro experts - Absolute ground for refusal - Symbols of the European Union and its spheres of activity - Euro symbol - Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 245/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Heinrich Kreyenberg (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2011 (Case R 1804/2010-2) concerning invalidity proceedings between the European Commission and Mr Heinrich Kreyenberg.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Heinrich Kreyenberg to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Heinrich Kreyenberg to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

1

---
34218.

#### CARTER v. THE STATE.

Hall, Justice.

Oscar V. Carter appeals his conviction and life sentence for the murder of Diane Stephens.

1. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for mistrial because of evidence introduced by the state which put his character in issue. The evidence related to pills and a syringe found at appellant’s premises and photographs depicting this evidence. Prior to the motion for mistrial, the state had already withdrawn the evidence stating that it had been offered only to show the condition of the deceased at the *696time of the shooting. After the motion for mistrial, the state offered to stipulate to the court in the presence of the jury that the pills and syringe were not the appellant’s property but were only offered to show the deceased’s condition. Appellant never requested that the stipulation be made. The trial court ruled that the appellant’s character had not been put in issue by this evidence and denied the motion for mistrial. We affirm. *Whippler v. State,*218 Ga. 198 (126 SE2d 744) (1962).

Submitted November 3, 1978

Decided December 5, 1978.

*August F. Siemon,*for appellant.

*Dewey Hayes, District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Mary Beth Westmoreland,*for appellee.

2. The trial court did not err in allowing a police officer to testify as to his opinion that the substance on a washcloth found at the scene looked like blood. *Wimis v. State,*216 Ga. 350 (116 SE2d 547) (1960).

3. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of guilty.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
condensed  consolidated balance sheet of ITSA Ltd. at September 30, 2000 and the
combined condensed  consolidated  statements of operations of TV Filme, Inc. for
the twenty  days ended July 20,  2000,  and of ITSA Ltd.  for the two months and
eleven days ended  September  30,  2000,  and is  qualified  in its  entirety by
reference to such financial statements.


</LEGEND>

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               6,379
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        2,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                           648
<INVENTORY>                                          2,745
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    16,941
<PP&E>                                              60,723
<DEPRECIATION>                                      42,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      71,228
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               17,900
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               100
<OTHER-SE>                                          17,742
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        71,228
<SALES>                                              6,744
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     6,744
<CGS>                                                2,449
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        4,290
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     3,013
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       318
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (2,131)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (5,333)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (5,333)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     84,364
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        79,031
<EPS-BASIC>                                           7.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         7.27



</TABLE>
89–008 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–421 

PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 2701) TO 

AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 FOR INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENCE-RELATED ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED 

STATES GOVERNMENT, THE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT, AND 

THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY 

SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2010.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CARDOZA, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 1113] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 1113, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for further consideration of H.R. 2701, 

the ‘‘Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.’’ The resolution provides that amendment number 1 printed in House Report 

111–419 shall be modified by striking the matter proposed to be inserted as section 506. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 143 (Friday, July 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19760]


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

ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE: August 5, 1997.

PLACE: ARRB, 600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Review and Accept Minutes of Closed Meeting
2. Review of Assassination Records
3. Other Business

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Eileen Sullivan, Press Officer, 
600 E Street, NW, Second Floor, Washington, DC 20530. Telephone: (202) 
724-0088; Fax: (202) 724-0457.
David G. Marwell,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 97-19760 Filed 7-23-97; 10:11 am]
BILLING CODE 6118-01-P
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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Intellon Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian
T. McGee, Senior Vice President, Finance 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, to the best of my knowledge:



| |  |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |                                                  
|----------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 8, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Brian T. McGee                               
|                  |  |  |  | Brian T. McGee                                   
|                  |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



51
Case No. 14,071.

#### TOBY v. RANDON.

[6 West. Law J. 218.]

District Court, D Texas.

1849.1

Slavekt is Texas.

Thomas Toby sued David Randon on two promissory notes, amounting to $3,500. The defendant contended that the money was not justly due, as the property he received for the notes was slaves, natives of Africa, who were brought through Cuba contrary to the laws of Spain, and taken to Texas in 1835, in violation of the laws of Mexico. The plaintiff contended that at the time of the Revolution the negroes were held in slavery, their condition was fixed by the constitution of the republic of Texas of 17th March, 1846.

[The cause was-carried by writ of error to the supreme court, where the judgment of this court was affirmed, with costs. 11 How. (52 U. S.) 493.]

1

 [Affirmed in 11 How. (52 U. S.) 493.]

WATROUS, District Judge,

sustained the plea of the defendant, and gave judgment in his favor.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40349-40350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19796]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5864-5]


Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional Haze Implementation 
Programs Subcommittee Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: On September 11, 1995 (60 FR 47171), the EPA announced the 
establishment of the Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional Haze 
Implementation Programs Subcommittee under the Clean Air Act Advisory 
Committee (CAAAC). The CAAAC was established on November 8, 1990 (55 FR 
46992) pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 
app I). The purpose of the Subcommittee is to provide advice and 
recommendations on integrated approaches for implementing potentially 
new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and 
particulate matter, as well as a regional haze program.

DATES: Notice is hereby given that the Subcommittee for Development of 
Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional Haze Implementation Programs 
will hold its next public meeting on Wednesday, August 13, 1997 (from 
8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and Thursday, August 14, 1997 (from 8:30 a.m. 
to 5:00 p.m.).

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the Doubletree Columbia 
River, 1401 N. Hayden Island Drive, Portland Oregon, telephone (503) 
283-2111.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the 
Subcommittee for Development of Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional 
Haze Implementation Programs, please contact Mr. William F. Hamilton, 
Designated Federal Officer, at 919-541-5498, or by mail at U.S. EPA, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, MD-12, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711. When a draft agenda is developed, a copy can be 
downloaded from the: (1) Ozone/Particulate Matter/Regional Haze FACA 
Bulletin Board, which is located on the Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards Technology Transfer Network (OAQPS TTN); (2) the OAQPS 
TTN Web Site (http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov); or (3) by contacting Ms. 
Denise M. Gerth at 919-541-5550.


[[Page 40350]]


    Dated: July 21, 1997.
John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-19796 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

R.Q. WARD, K.M. MCDONALD, D.J. SMITH

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DWAYNE S. DRAYTON

ELECTRICIAN'S MATE SECOND CLASS (E-5), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201400085

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 5 Dec 2013.

Military Judge: CAPT Colleen M. Glaser-Allen, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, 

Norfolk, VA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: CDR S.J. Gawronski, 

JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: LtCol Richard Viczorek, USMCR.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

8 May 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
No. 54936.

#### Coro, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 159207-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed the protests.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

KENNETH KLINE, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3213

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed October 5, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; Chris Helinger, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Chelsea S. Alper, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
No. 5925.

#### SUCCESSION OF HONORS SIMON and MARY S. MON, HIS WIDOW.

Syllabus.

The burden of proving payment rests upon him who relies thereon.

Appeal from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Division <lB,” No. 101,626. Hon F. D. King, Judge.

P. W. Hart, for appellee.

Heath & Moise, for appellant.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Prior to her death, Mary Simon, colored, was sued for $377.50 by Adelaide Conrad, also colored, for services *71and supples furnished and expenditures advanced to her by the latter from March 4th, 1912, to July 7th, 1912. Mrs. Irvine, the executrix and beneficiary under the will of Mary Simon, having failed to place this claim in the pending safe upon her account, Adelaide Conrad thereupon filed opposition thereto, demanding the recognition of her aforesaid claim, together with the costs incurred in her suit. The opposition was dismissed and she now appeals.

The fact that opponent did render services to decedent is clearly established by the record. Her testimony to that effect is corroborated by that of the attending physician; by that of a sister of opponent; by that of a neighbor of decedent, and also to some degree by that of another physician, a witness for the executrix. The only other testimony in this connection, that of the executrix herself, tends to show, not that no services were rendered, but that they were not as extensive and continuous as opponent claims.

In fact the true defense of the executrix appears to be that opponent was paid in full for her services and expenditures during the lifetime of decedent. The only evidence to sustain this defense, however, consists of certain declarations of decedent prior to her death to the effect that she owed opponent nothing and had paid to the latter some small sums from time to time. In view of the fact -opponent, as a witness, positively denies that she has been paid, this evidence is wholly insufficient to sustain the burden resting upon the executrix of establishing the defense of payment.

It is clear, however, that opponent has greatly magnified the nature, extent and value of her services, and we are satisfied that an allowance of $108.50 will amply compensate and reimburse her for all services rendered *72and expenses incurred in the premises, .as well as the costs of her separate suit.

Opinion and decree, January 12, 1914.

It is accordingly ordered that the judgment be annulled and set aside and it is now decreed .that the account of the executrix herein be amended by placing thereon the opponent, Adelaide Conrad, as a creditor of the estate in the sum of $108.50, with interest thereon at five (5) per centum from November 4th, 1912, as well as the costs by her incurred herein in both courts. And. as thus amended the said account is approved and homologated.

Judgment reversed.
January 21, 1939

No. 40508.

Suit 4152.

#### Daprato *Statuary Co.*v. *United States.*

T. D. 49225 affirmed.