alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 9082)

#### A. W. Horton & Co. W. J. Byrnes *& Co.,*L. A., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. DE 13343.

(Decided February 19, 1958)

*Stein & ShostaJc (Richard M. Kozinn*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(William J. Vitale,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

The merchandise covered by this appeal consists of mild steel reinforcing bars imported from Chile and entered at the port of Los Angeles. The importation in question involves two different sizes, one, *){*inch by 20 feet, and the other, *%*inch by 20 feet.

The bars were appraised at the invoiced unit values, net, packed, that is, $143 per metric ton for the %-inch size and $145 per metric ton for the %-inch size, but no allowance was made for certain charges, such as loading charges, inland freight, and others.

The case was submitted upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> Mr. Kozinn: I offer to stipulate with counsel for the Government that such or similar merchandise is sold or freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal market of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantity, in the ordinary course of trade.

> I further offer to stipulate with counsel for the Government that such or similar merchandise is sold or freely offered for sale in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade in the principal markets of the country of exportation to all who care to purchase for export to the United States at the unit prices as invoiced, less $8,798.98 insurance and ocean freight, less $4.50 per thousand kilos for inland charges, loading, etc.

> I further offer to stipulate with counsel for the Government that the foreign value is not higher than the export value. (R. 2-3.)

On the agreed facts, I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the unit prices, as invoiced, less $8,798.98 insurance and ocean freight, less $4.50 per thousand kilos for inland charges, loading, etc.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-66620), (No. 333-66123), (No. 333-66121), (No.
333-66119) and (No. 033-63865) of ATC Healthcare, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our
report dated May 7, 2005, except for the last paragraph of Note 8 (a) as to
which the date is June 8, 2005, relating to the February 28, 2005 financial
statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.



 Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP
New York, New York
June 13, 2005




































                                       46
No. 44369.

#### Protest 954973-G of Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protest was dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1988 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1988

To amend the Federal Power Act to require the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to consider private landownership and private use of land in 
          issuing hydropower licenses, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 14, 2011

Mr. Blunt (for himself, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Coburn, and Mr. 
Enzi) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
            to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Power Act to require the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to consider private landownership and private use of land in 
          issuing hydropower licenses, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Supporting Home Owner Rights 
Enforcement Act''.

SEC. 2. HYDROPOWER LICENSES.

    (a) Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 797(e)) is 
amended--
            (1) by designated the first, second, and third sentences as 
        paragraphs (1) through (3) respectively; and
            (2) in paragraph (3) (as so designated), by inserting 
        ``private landownership by any nonlicensee and private use of 
        land,'' before ``recreational opportunities''.
    (b) Section 10 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 803) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``private 
        landownership by any nonlicensee and private use of land,'' 
        after ``water supply''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(k) Private Landownership.--
            ``(1) In general.--In developing any recreational resource 
        within the project boundary, the licensee shall consider 
        private landownership by any nonlicensee as a means to 
        encourage and facilitate--
                    ``(A) private investment; and
                    ``(B) increased tourism and recreational use.
            ``(2) Licenses.--
                    ``(A) Future licenses.--The Commission shall 
                include the text contained in paragraph (1) in any 
                license issued after the date of enactment of this 
                subsection.
                    ``(B) Existing licenses.--Any licensee may include 
                the text contained in paragraph (1) in any license in 
                effect as of the date of enactment of this 
                subsection.''
                                 <all>
```
June 1, 1950

No. 54363.

Suit 4624.

#### United States *v.*Helbros Watch Co. and Emil Leichter.

C. D. 1166 affirmed April 3, 1950. C. A. D. 430.
No. 96-5684.

#### Tobias *v.*Young, Judge, District Court of Texas, Tarrant County, et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Case *No.*6,625.

#### In re GORHAM.

• [The case reported under above title in 2 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 38S, is the same as Case No. 7,-537.]
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

NATCO Group Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statement (Nos. 333-138847, 333-71480, 333-111298, 333-117164, and 333-32020) on Form S-8 of NATCO Group Inc., of our reports dated February 26, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of NATCO Group Inc. andsubsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,2008, and the related financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which reports appear in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of NATCO Group Inc.

Our report dated February 26, 2009 with respect to the consolidated financial statements refers to changes in accounting for planned majormaintenance activities and income tax uncertainties in 2007. 

KPMG LLP 

Houston, Texas 

February 26, 2009
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00007-CR

CHRISTOPHER ARRON BOECKERS,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 396th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1534440D)

February 6, 2020

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment and incorporated order to 

withdraw funds are modified to reduce the amount of reparations owed to $360. It is 

ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Heavy Metal

By Staff Sgt. Callie Ware307th Bomb Wing

                BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La.   –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the 307th Bomb Wing website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

307th Bomb Wing307th Maintenance Squadronmaintenancerepairaircraft maintenanceaircraft parts
#### Charles Goldblatt & Co. *v.*United States

No. 7782.

Entry No. 709807.

(Decided January 24, 1950)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*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.

*526Upon the agreed facts, 1 find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), 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 entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40840

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SEVERN RODGERS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:00-CR-13-1

- - - - - - - - - -

December 19, 2001

Before JOLLY, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Severn Rodgers, Jr., appeals the district court’s imposition

of a two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(3) for

possession of a sawed-off shotgun. He argues that selfincriminating statements made to the probation officer, which

served as the basis of the sentence increase, were protected

under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(a) and should not have been used in

determining the applicable guideline range. Rodgers further

contends that the error was not harmless because the evidence,
No. 01-40840 

-2-

absent Rodgers’ self-incriminating statement, was not sufficient

to support a finding that he possessed a sawed-off shotgun.

Rodgers did not object to, nor does he challenge on appeal,

the presentence report’s (PSR) finding that a sawed-off shotgun

was discovered on the front seat of a stolen vehicle that he was

driving. Consequently, there were indicia of reliability in the

PSR that prior to the cooperation agreement the probation officer

knew that Rodgers possessed a sawed-off shotgun. See United

States v. Gibson, 48 F.3d 876, 879 (5th Cir. 1995)(holding that

§ 1B1.8 was not violated because probation officer relied on

information independent of that presented by defendant); United

States v. Marsh, 963 F.2d 72, 74-75 (5th Cir. 1992); United

States v. Shacklett, 921 F.2d 580, 584-85 (5th Cir. 1991). Thus,

the provisions of § 1B1.8(a) do not apply to restrict the

district court’s use of the previously known information

regarding the sawed-off shotgun when calculating the offense

level. See § 1B1.8(b)(1). Accordingly, Rodgers’ sentence is

AFFIRMED.
# C_2014409EN.01000901.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Essent Energie Productie BV v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

(Case C-91/13) (1)

1

((EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 - Scope - Introduction of new restrictions on the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the conditions for access to employment - Prohibition - Freedom to provide services - Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU - Posting of workers - Nationals of non-Member States - Requirement for a work permit for the deployment of labour))

2014/C 409/12

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Essent Energie Productie BV

Appellant:

Respondent: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where workers who are nationals of non-member countries are made available by an undertaking established in another Member State to a user undertaking established in the first Member State, which uses them to carry out work on behalf of another undertaking established in the same Member State, such making available is subject to the condition that those workers have been issued with work permits.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

1

---
(December 9, 1999)

#### Adalgisa Perez et al., Appellants, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[699 NYS2d 390]

—Order, *53Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 24, 1998, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff, a non-tenant, was assaulted on an elevator in a building owned and maintained by defendant Housing Authority shortly after 1:00 p.m. as she was reporting to her job as a home health care attendant. Allegedly, no locks or intercoms at the front door or guards prevented access to the building from the street. A group of people had waited for the elevator in the lobby, including the perpetrator, who was the last to arrive and did not interact with anyone else present. Several persons got on and off at various floors, none of whom seemed to recognize the perpetrator, who seemed to make no effort to conceal himself. When only plaintiff and the perpetrator remained, he stopped the elevator and, without seeming concerned that he would be subsequently recognized, assaulted her until she passed out. Since these facts as alleged by plaintiff make it “more likely or more reasonable than not that the assailant was an intruder who gained access to the premises through a negligently maintained entrance” *(Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp.,*92 NY2d 544, 551), a factual issue on proximate cause is presented for trial. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

National Defense Panel Meeting

AGENCY: DoD, National Defense Panel.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for the 
meeting of the National Defense Panel on August 7, 1997. In accordance 
with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 
No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1982)), it has been 
determined that this National Defense Panel meeting concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)(1982), and that accordingly this meeting 
will be closed to the public from 0830-1700, August 7, 1997 in order 
for the Panel to discuss classified material.

DATES: August 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Suite 532, 1931 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Defense Panel was established 
on January 14, 1997 in accordance with the Military Force Structure 
Review Act of 1996, Public Law 104-201. The mission of the National 
Defense Panel is to provide the Secretary of Defense and Congress with 
an independent, non-partisan assessment of the Secretary's Quadrennial 
Defense Review and an Alternative Force Structure Analysis. This 
analysis will explore innovative ways to meet the national security 
challenges of the twenty-first century.

Proposed Schedule and Agenda

    The National Defense Panel will meet in closed session from 0830-
1700 on August 7, 1997. During the closed session on August 7 the Panel 
will be meeting at the Crystal Mall 3 office to receive briefings on 
developing alternative military strategies for achieving American 
national security objectives in the year 2020--Strategy Option 
Development Task Plan, and determining existing and future potential 
solutions to capability requirements and assess those candidate 
solutions relative to feasibility/performance, cost, risk and other 
appropriate measures of merit-Capabilities Assessment Work Plan.
    The determination to close the meeting is based on the 
consideration that it is expected that discussion will involve 
classified matters of national security concern throughout.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact the National Defense 
Panel at (703) 602-4176/6.

    Dated: July 22, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-19830 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1976 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1976

   To authorize educational assistance under the Armed Forces Health 
  Professions Scholarship program for pursuit of advanced degrees in 
               physical therapy and occupational therapy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 8, 2011

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize educational assistance under the Armed Forces Health 
  Professions Scholarship program for pursuit of advanced degrees in 
               physical therapy and occupational therapy.

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

SECTION 1. EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR ADVANCED DEGREES IN PHYSICAL 
              THERAPY AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY UNDER THE ARMED FORCES 
              HEALTH PROFESSIONS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--In accordance with guidance issued by the 
Secretary of Defense for purposes of this section, assistance under the 
Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship program under subchapter I 
of chapter 105 of title 10, United States Code, shall be available for 
pursuit of a master's degree and a doctoral degree in the disciplines 
as follows:
            (1) Physical therapy.
            (2) Occupational therapy.
    (b) Termination.--The guidance under subsection (a) shall provide 
that the availability of assistance as described in that subsection for 
pursuit of a degree in a discipline covered by that subsection shall 
cease when the Secretary certifies to Congress that there no longer 
exists a current or projected shortfall in qualified personnel in that 
discipline in either of the following:
            (1) The military departments.
            (2) Any major military medical treatment facility 
        specializing in the rehabilitation of wounded members of the 
        Armed Forces.
    (c) Sunset.--
            (1) In general.--The authority to commence the provision of 
        assistance under this section shall expire on the date that is 
        two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, if not 
        terminated earlier in accordance with subsection (b).
            (2) Continuation of ongoing assistance.--Nothing in 
        paragraph (1) shall be construed to terminate the provision of 
        assistance under this section after the date specified in 
        paragraph (1) to persons provided assistance under this section 
        before or as of such date.
                                 <all>
```