alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

,. Document Number: 

ii <£2tff ll-E-180 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:11 AM Sheet 220 of 264 
P.2 

08/31/1998 14:41 3178670740 CENTURY MARBLE CO IN PAGE 02 

A 94 52 

11?£"-,/SO 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company: 

Contact Report 

Robert Jemison, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

August 17 & 18,1998 

Mr. Ronald Maurer 

Century Marble, Inc. 

Telephone Number: (317)867-5555 

Fax Number: (317) 867-0740 

Contact Summary: 

Mr. Ronald Maurer was contacted on behalf of the U.S. EPA to update information provided 

in the 1993 EPA Reinforced Plastic Composites Screening Survey submitted by Century Marble, 

Inc. for their facility located in Indianapolis, Indiana. In response to my questions Mr. Maurer 

indicated the following: 

The facility uses polymer casting and atomized spray lay-up (gel coats only) to produce 

cultured marble vanities, bath tubs, and shower units. 

A clear gel coat is used for the overwhelming majority (>95%) of the facility's products. 

Occasionally, for special custom orders, the facility will use a translucent base gel coat with added 

pigments, to produce a product with the color specified by the customer. The facility uses very small 

quantities of tooling gel coats. The facility applies these tooling gel coats using hand lay-up. 

The facility uses atomized spray lay-up to apply the clear production gel coat in the 

fabrication of the facility's products. The clear gel coat currently used by the facility is manufactured 

by HK Research Corporation and contains 45.0% - 47.0% HAP by weight (45.0% - 47.0% styrene, 

0.0% methyl methacrylate). The product number for the clear gel coat is Gl 175. No additional 

HAP (styrene or methyl methacrylate) is added to the clear gel coat during or prior to the fabrication 

process with the exception of small amounts of HAP that may (or may not) be present in initiators, 

promoters and/or catalysts added to the gel coats. 

INFORMATION IS ACCURAT L g^/L, 

0 * & 
P.3 

08/31/1998 14:41 3178B70740 CENTURY MARBLE CO IN PAGE 01 f 

CENTUR Y 

Marble 

CENTUR A 

Solid Surfacing 

Luxurious Bath ft Kitchen Showroom 

To: 

Attn: 

ukr*+ <\ PmiaQtU From 

pa«« ^iq-qui-ftaa^ 

You are receiving the following: 

:JtW Rawer 

Date: ft- 3\- 9 ? 

Total number of pages including cover: • 2 -

ff this memo did not go through correctly, please call at 3*7-567-5555 

%
No. 96-5663.

#### Tesciuba *v.*Koch, Former Mayor of City of New York, et al.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
No. 42134.

#### Protests 715390-G, etc., of Industrial Chemical Sales Co., Inc., et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Rohner, Gehrig *&*Company, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7859.

Entry No. 702615.’

*380(Decided August 10, 1950)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

La whence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of this appeal are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming the judgment in, *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by this appeal was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Leonard F. E. Jarvis *versus*Joseph A. Deane.

In tlie trial of a real action, brought after foreclosure, by a mortgagee of lands against the mortgager, to recover possession of the mortgaged premises, the defendant is estopped to sot up a lease from the assignee of a senior mortgage of the premises, given by the defendant.

On Report.

Writ of Entry to recover possession of certain land in Ellsworth.

Plaintiff claimed by mortgage deed, dated Nov. 7, 1849, from the defendant to the plaintiff, and foreclosure of the same, dated July *28,*1859.

The defendant claimed to occupy the premises by permission of Amory Otis, who had authority as agent of one Charles Albro, of Taunton, Mass., who was the owner of a mortgage given by the defendant to one Cyrus Lothrop, dated March 4, 1844, which mortgage covers a portion of the property mortgaged by the defendant to the plaintiff. That Lothrop died more than twenty years since, and that Albro is his devisee and legatee. The defendant offered a lease from Charles Albro, by his attorney, Amory Otis, to the defendant, dated July 4, 1865, and a power of attorney from Albro to Otis, to which the plaintiff objected-

The case was reported to the full Court, with an agreement that, if the defendant can set up the alleged defence, *10the case was to stand for trial; otherwise the plaintiff to have such judgment as the law entitled him to.

*E. & F. Hale,*for the plaintiff.

*Wiswell,*for the defendant.

Dankorth, J.

The plaintiff’s title to the premises claimed in his writ is founded upon a mortgage from the defendant to himself, dated Nov. 7, 1849, containing the usual covenants of warranty, with a foreclosure of that mortgage, which seems to have been in strict conformity to the statute and duly recorded. •

This entitles the plaintiff to recover unless the defendant can show a better title in himself. This he undertakes to do by producing a lease from Charles Albro, executed by an attorney, and dated July 4, 1865, and a mortgage from himself to Cyrus Lothrop, dated March 4, 1844, of which Al-bro claims to be the owner. The tenant does not disclaim any title to the premises and l’ely upon that of another, but claims title in himself by virtue of his lease. This, bearing date subsequent to the plaintiff’s mortgage, is not of itself sufficient, nor can it derive any vitality from the mortgage to Lothrop, for the tenant having, in his deed to the plaintiff, not only covenanted that no such incumbrance upon the land existed, but that he would " warrant and defend the same to the said Jarvis ** **against the lawful claims and demands of all persons,” is now, by a familiar principle of law, estopped by his covenants from setting up that deed. Hence, his title fails and there must be an unconditional

*Judgment for the plaintiff.*

Appleton. C. J., Cutting, Kent, Walton, Dickerson and Barrojvs, JJ., concurred.
# C_2013207EN.01002602.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2013 — Provincie Antwerpen v Belgacom NV van publiek recht

(Case C-256/13)

2013/C 207/42

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Provincie Antwerpen

Appellant:

Respondent: Belgacom NV van publiek recht

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 6 and/or Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted as precluding a public authority of a Member State from being allowed to tax, for budgetary or other reasons, the economic activity of telecommunications operators which arises in the territory or a part thereof through the presence on public or private property of GSM masts, pylons or antennae which are used for that activity?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

1

---
No. 55590.

#### Fung Chong & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 980851-G, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ulysses JONES.

No. 98-KD-3157.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 23, 1998.

In re Jones, Ulysses; — Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 96-6462; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 98-KW-1354.

Stay denied. Writ denied.

KIMBALL, J., not on panel.
SERVED: JANUARY 28, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0851 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. EIR 2011-GL-11-0026) has been 

assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Reza Soltanian, Respondent's President 

Regent Aerospace Corporation and Airbase Services, Inc. 

28110 West Harrison Parkway 

Valencia, CA 91355-4109 

TEL: 661-257-3000 

FAX: 661-702-0241 

JohnS. Hoff & Jeffrey Clement, Respondent's Counsel 

Hoff & Herran 

135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3300 

Chicago, IL 60603-4134 

TEL: 312-346-8111 

FAX: 312-853-3924 

Chris G. Zurales, Complainant's Counsel 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0851 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

. Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel, Great Lakes Region, AGL-7K 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon A venue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7713 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
# C_2014102EN.01002902.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Finland, intervention: Kingdom of Sweden, Czech Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Poland, Kingdom of the Netherlands, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Estonia

(Case C-111/13) (1)

1

2014/C 102/42

Language of the case: Finnish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

1

---
No. 39193.

#### Protests 715830-G, etc., of Nature’s Herb Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise in question was held free of duty as follows: (1) oregano leaves under paragraph 1722, *United States*v. *Strohmeyer*(25 C. C. P. A. 120, T. D. 49242) followed; (2) savory leaves under paragraph 1722, Abstract 37783 followed; (3) marjoram leaves under paragraph 1722, *Knickerbocker*v. *United States*(T. D. 48959) followed; and (4) thyme leaves under paragraph 1669, *Seeck*v. *United States*(T. D. 47383) followed.
No. 96-1149.

#### Trustees of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity et al. *v.*Federal Express Corp. et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae*granted. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 23

                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants
                    -----------------------------------------

        As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
    incorporation by reference of our report for Thermedics Inc. dated
    February 12, 1998, included in or made a part of this Form 10-K, into the
    Company's previously filed Registration Statement No. 2-93746 on Form
    S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-00183 on Form S-8, Registration
    Statement No. 2-93747 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-8992 on
    Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-31621 on Form S-8, Registration
    Statement No. 33-9215 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-43707 on
    Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-40866 on Form S-3, Registration
    Statement No. 33-64070 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-86972
    on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-86974 on Form S-8,
    Registration Statement No. 033-65279 on Form S-8, Registration Statement
    No. 033-61435 on Form S-8, Registration No. 333-2149 on Form S-3, and
    Registration No. 333-32035 on Form S-3.



                                            Arthur Andersen LLP



    Boston, Massachusetts
    March 17, 1998
Order entered November 12 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00 306
- CR
KAREN PATRICIA BOWIE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. 380
- 81418
- 2011



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeal. On October 7, 2013, we denied appellant’s second motion to extend time to file his brief and ordered the trial court to make findings. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant des ires to pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court

- appointed counsel William Schultz; (3) Mr. Schultz’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is his workload; and (4) Mr. Schultz needs until December 23, 2013 to f ile appellant’s brief.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief by MONDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2013 . We note that appellant’s brief was originally due August 3, 2013 and appellant has already been granted one extension of time to file the brief. Therefore, if appe llant’s brief is not filed by the datespecified, the Court will order William Schultz removed as appellant’s attorney and will order

the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this o rder, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Benjamin Smith, Presiding Judge, 380th Judicial District Court; William Schultz; and the Collin County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 142 (Thursday, July 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 39828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19707]


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

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 
U.S.C. 552(b)), notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the 
Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community 
Service (Corporation).

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, July 31, 1997, from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via conference call.

STATUS: The meeting will be closed, pursuant to exemptions (4) and 
(9(b)) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. The basis for this 
closing has been certified by the Corporation's Acting General Counsel. 
A copy of the certification will be posted for public inspection at the 
Corporation's headquarters at 1201 New York Avenue NW, Suite 8200, 
Washington, DC 20525, and will otherwise be available upon request.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: This is a correction to the original Federal 
Register Notice, dated July 22, 1997, page 39214. The Board of 
Directors of the Corporation will meet to deliberate and make decisions 
on grant awards in the following areas. AmeriCorps*State formula 
programs, AmeriCorps Education Awards Program, and Learn and Service 
America fund for the advancement of service learning and local 
education agencies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhonda Taylor, Associate Director of 
Special Projects and Initiatives, Corporation for National and 
Community Service, 1201 New York Avenue NW, 8th Floor, Washington DC 
20525. Telephone (202) 606-5000, ext 282.

    Dated: July 22, 1997.
Stewart A. Davis,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-19707 Filed 7-22-97; 3:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
#### A. Benkin, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7900.

Entry No. 716396.

*452(Decided November 3, 1950)

*Abraham H. Goodman*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 merchandise the subject of this appeal are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by this appeal was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 96-5693.

#### Williams v. Fountain et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

                           INTRAOP MEDICAL CORPORATION
                      (FORMERLY DIGITALPREVIEWS.COM, INC.)

                            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 Intraop Medical Corporation (formerly
Digitalpreviews.com, Inc.) (the Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending
March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, David Shamy, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                                /s/   David Shamy
                                                -----------------
                                                David Shamy
                                                Principal Executive Officer
                                                Principal Financial Officer

                                                Date:  September 10, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Intraop Medical Corporation and will be retained by Intraop Medical
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

                                                                         Page 38
# C_2013207EN.01001102.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2013 — Impresa Pizzarotti & C. SpA v Comune di Bari

(Case C-213/13)

2013/C 207/20

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Impresa Pizzarotti & C. SpA

Applicant:

Defendant: Comune di Bari

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a contract to be concluded for the lease of something in the future — even in the form, suggested most recently, of an undertaking to lease — equivalent to a public works contract, albeit with certain characteristics of a lease contract, with the result that such a contract cannot be included among the contracts which are excluded, under Article 16 of Directive 2004/18/EC, (1) from the scope of the rules on public procedures? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a contract to be concluded for the lease of something in the future — even in the form, suggested most recently, of an undertaking to lease — equivalent to a public works contract, albeit with certain characteristics of a lease contract, with the result that such a contract cannot be included among the contracts which are excluded, under Article 16 of Directive 2004/18/EC, (1) from the scope of the rules on public procedures?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, may a national court — specifically, this referring court — hold that the ruling made regarding the events under consideration ... is ineffective in that it has enabled a situation which is contrary to Community law on public procurement to persist and, therefore, is it possible to enforce a final judgment which is contrary to Community law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, may a national court — specifically, this referring court — hold that the ruling made regarding the events under consideration ... is ineffective in that it has enabled a situation which is contrary to Community law on public procurement to persist and, therefore, is it possible to enforce a final judgment which is contrary to Community law?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

1

---