alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sixto M., Appellant.

[614 NYS2d 111]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered November 13, 1991, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a youthful offender, to a term of 60 days imprisonment and 5 years probation, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court’s closing of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officer was no broader than necessary to protect the officer’s safety, and was otherwise a sound exercise of discretion, in view of the officer’s hearing testimony that he was then engaged in ongoing undercover work in a particular area that included the location of defendant’s arrest *(see, People v Martinez,*82 NY2d 436). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
Case No. 9,3(37.

#### MEAD v. PURDY.

[Cited in Perego y. Bonesteel. Case No. 10.-9TT. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
| 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      January 5, 2011                                   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                          |   |
| /s/ Rik J. Deitsch                                            |   |
| Rik      J. Deitsch                                           |   |
| Chief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
#### STATE ex rel. Ray P. LANDRY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 98-KH-1020.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Landry, Ray P.;—Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “K”, Nos. 9-78-143, 9-78-177.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the motion to the district court with instructions to the district judge to act on relator’s motion for production of documents filed via certified mail on or about September 2, 1997. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment. A copy of the application is attached.

VICTORY, J., not on panel.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)

**Title:** Annual report
2009,2011,2012,2013

 
SuDoc:PR 44.8/2:
Item Number:0851-J-21 (online)
CGP system Number:000670165
No. 55632.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

protest 132797-K (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
PUBLISHED

FILED: November 17, 2000

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1009

(CA-98-1817-3-19)

STERLING DREW, a minor under the age of

thirteen years, by guardian ad litem Martha

Drew; MARTHA DREW; JEBEDIAH DREW,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WIDENER, WILKINS, NIEMEYER,

LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit

Judges.

ORDER

This appeal having come on for oral argument before the en

banc Court on October 31, 2000, pursuant to Order of September 8,

2000, by which the panel opinion of June 27, 2000, 217 F.3d 193,

was vacated and en banc consideration was granted,

IT IS ORDERED, by virtue of an equally divided vote of the

active members of the Court, that the judgment appealed from be,

and it is hereby, AFFIRMED.

For the Court,

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
#### Meadows Wye & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6918.

Entry No. 747966.

Invoice dated Birmingham, England, February 27, 1946.

Certified February 28, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 28, 1946.

(Decided February 24, 1947)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiff.

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

La whence, Judge:

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

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

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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

# Defense Logistics Agency 60th Anniversary

By  DLA Aviation Public Affairs Office

                DLA Logistics Agency 60th Anniversary Puzzle - Aviation Edition                            DLA Logistics Agency 60th Anniversary Aviation Edition                            DLA Logistics Agency 60th Anniversary Puzzle - Aviation Edition            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Dominique SheltonVIRIN: 210902-D-QH078-1001

 

Answer Key:

                Defense Logistics Agency 60th Anniversary Answer Key                            Defense Logistics Agency 60th Anniversary Answer Key                            Defense Logistics Agency 60th Anniversary Answer Key            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Dominique SheltonVIRIN: 210902-D-QH078-1002

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA 60th AnniversaryDLA 60th Anniversary Aviation
# C_2013189EN.01000801.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 April 2013 — Glaxosmithline Biologicals SA, Glaxosmithkline Biologicals, Niederlassung der Smithkline Beecham Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

(Case C-210/13)

2013/C 189/15

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Glaxosmithline Biologicals SA, Glaxosmithkline Biologicals, Niederlassung der Smithkline Beecham Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Applicants:

Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is an adjuvant which has no therapeutic effect on its own, but which enhances the therapeutic effect of an antigen when combined with that antigen in a vaccine, an ‘active ingredient’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation 469/2009/EC (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is an adjuvant which has no therapeutic effect on its own, but which enhances the therapeutic effect of an antigen when combined with that antigen in a vaccine, an ‘active ingredient’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation 469/2009/EC (1)?

1

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is no, can the combination of such an adjuvant with an antigen nevertheless be regarded as a ‘combination of active ingredients’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation 469/2009/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is no, can the combination of such an adjuvant with an antigen nevertheless be regarded as a ‘combination of active ingredients’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation 469/2009/EC?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products

1

OJ L 152, p. 1

---
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John P. Powers, Chief Executive Officer of Intraop Medical Corporation,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Intraop Medical
Corporation;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant'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 registrant and we 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

(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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


                                         /s/  John P. Powers
                                        -------------------------------------
                                            John P. Powers
                                            Chief Executive Officer

                                            Date: May 9, 2008
No. 47068.

#### Protests 49936-K, etc., of Geo. Borgfeldt Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Certain of the plain woven cotton cloth table covers and napkins in question were held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 911 (b) in view of T. D. 50277, in accordance with stipulation of counsel.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00345-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.M.P.M. and N.J.M., Jr., Children

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-PA-00964

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding1

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s termination order is 

AFFIRMED. 

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant S.C. because she is indigent. 

SIGNED November 13, 2019.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

 1 The Honorable Genie Wright signed the order that is the subject of the appeal.
#### United States *v.*Railway Express Agency, Inc.

No. 6209.

Invoice dated Rawdon, Leeds, Yorkshire, England, September 1944.

Certified September 1944.

Entered at West Palm Beach, Fla., October 24, 1944.

Entry No. W-185.

(Decided August 22, 1945)

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Joseph E. Weil,*.special attorney), for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement under section 501 of the Tariff Act of 1930 filed by the collector of customs from, the value found by the United States appraiser at the port of West Palm Beach, Fla., on an importation of 36 orchid plants exported from England in September 1944.

The merchandise was appraised as entered at £1/0/0 each plus packing on the basis of export value. At the hearing at Miami, Fla., it was stipulated that the export value at the time of exportation at which the merchandise was freely offered for sale to all 'purchasers in the principal markets of England, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the regular course of trade, was 1 pound 5 shillings, plus packing; that the foreign value, if. any, is no higher. This stipulation was based on a price list issued by the exporters and offered in evidence by the Government (exhibit 1), the representative of the importer stating the entry was made by his assistant while he was in Cuba, under pressure due to the perishable nature of the plants and that since' then he has seen the price list and acknowledges the price is as stipulated..

I therefore find that the proper basis of appraisement for this merchandise is the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that the correct dutiable value of the orchid plants in question is £1/5/0 each plus packing.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT
32.2







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002







In
connection with the Quarterly Report of nFinanSe Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raymond P. Springer,
in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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.







/s/ Raymond P.
      SpringerDate: 
      May 13, 2008
            Raymond
      P. Springer
              Secretary
      and Chief Financial Officer
#### C. S. Emery & Co. *v.*United States

No. 7675.

Invoice dated Montreal, Canada, June 11, 1947, etc.

Entered at Newport, Vt., June 16, 1947, etc.; and Derby Line, Vt., December 8, 1947, etc.

Entry Nos. K-3466, etc.; M-300, etc.

(Decided February 28, 1949)

*John C. Ray*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief 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:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement as listed in the attached *418schedule, are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in 0. J. Tower & Sons vs. United States, R. D. 7624, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

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

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19815]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 8718]
RIN 1545-AS49

Arbitrage Restrictions on Tax-Exempt Bonds; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 
8718) which were published in the Federal Register on Friday, May 9, 
1997 (62 FR 25502). The final regulations relate to arbitrage and 
related restrictions applicable to tax-exempt bonds issued by State and 
local governments.

DATES: This correction is effective May 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David White, (202) 622-3980 (not a 
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections are 
under section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations (TD 8718) contain errors that 
may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of final regulations (TD 8718) which 
are the subject of FR Doc. 97-12062 is corrected as follows:
    1. On page 25505, column 3, in the preamble, under the paragraph 
heading ``F. Effective Dates'', line 2, the language ``effective for 
bonds issued on or after'' is corrected to read ``effective for bonds 
sold on or after''.
    2. On page 25505, column 3, in the preamble, under the paragraph 
heading ``F. Effective Dates'', the last line, the language ``issued 
before July 8, 1997.'' is corrected to read ``sold before July 8, 
1997.''.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 97-19815 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
```
#### Globe Shipping Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 7911.

Entry No. 777980, etc.

(Decided November 22, 1950)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

*David N. Edelstein,*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:

> .IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement enumerated herein, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including 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 and that there was no foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

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

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.