alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### McMillan & Camprell vs. Archibald Savage.

The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court by the Constitution embraces all matters, civil and criminal, and therefore extends to and embraces, a suit on a note for forty dollars.

This is an application for a *mandamus*to the Circuit Court of the Western circuit.

The facts fully appear in the opinion of the court.

*749
      *D. P.*Holland, for the application.

*T. J. PppeS) contra.*

BALTZELL, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an application to cause a suit instituted for the recovery of forty dollars, due by promissory note, to be reinstate by the Circuit Court:

It was dismissed, on account of the smallness of the sum,’ for the want of jurisdiction.

The Constitution of the State regulates the matter, and to it we must look as the guide for the determination of the question.

*“*The Circuit Court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters, civil and criminal, within this' State not otherwise excepted in this Constitution.”'—Art. 5,- sec. 6, Constitution.

This provision, it is admitted* embraces the case of the plaintiff, unless it is excluded by the exception, and it is insisted that the tenth clause of the same article, which declares “ that justices of the peace shall possess such jurisdiction as may be provided by law,” (Con., art. '5, sec. 10,): makes it. Hot that this of itself has that effect, but that it has in connection with an act of the Legislature of 1812 giving to justices of the peace *exclusive ¿jurisdiction*in suits for the collection of debts where the principal does not exceed the sum of fifty dollars.

It is sufficient to say that the exception to abiddge the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court must be by the Constitution. To do this, and by this means to effect a repeal of a constitutional provision, there must be an express and di. reet declaration of the constitutional will. The grant of power to one tribunal does not necessarily exclude the possession of it by another. The clause granting the juris*750diction confers it *in all matters.*An exception to take this away should be clear and manifest, and not the result of mere implication.

Whilst considering this view conclusive, we find ourselves sustained by the action of the constitutional convention on the very clause under consideration. As originally proposed to that body, the clause contained, in addition to its provisions, these words : “ *But. in civil cases only where the matter in controversy exceeds twenty dol*lars:” On motion they were stricken out so as to relieve the provision of this limitation. There could have been but one design on the part of the Convention in this action, and this was not to abridge or limit the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts in this respect.

The cause will then be reinstated on the docket of the Circuit Court.

It has not been the practice of the court to award a *mandamus,*conceiving that the intimation of the opinion of this court on the point would he sufficient to influence their action without the formal award of the writ.
Before the Third Division,

February 7, 1941

No. 45353.

#### Protest 717236-G of American Import Co. (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of cohnsel and on the authority of *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303) the merchandise was held dutiable as earthenware at 25 percent under paragraph 210 as claimed.
# C_2013207EN.01000601.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Francesco Acanfora v Equitalia Sud SpA and Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-181/13)

2013/C 207/08

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francesco Acanfora

Applicant:

Defendants: Equitalia Sud SpA — Agente di Riscossione Latina, Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Latina

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the 9 % commission premium (‘aggio’) [established by Legislative Decree No 112/1999, prior to the amendments which have been introduced] constitute State aid which is incompatible with the single market as regards fees for collection and with Community law pursuant to Article 107 TFEU?

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBERT J. SOVIS,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7078

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 14-258, Chief Judge Bruce E. 

Kasold.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

KATHERINE A. HELM, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, 

LLP, New York, NY, argued for claimant-appellant. Also 

represented by FRANCIS JOHN ACOTT. 

 SHARI A. ROSE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented 

by ALLISON KIDD-MILLER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER; Y. KEN LEE, MARTIN JAMES SENDEK, 
 

Office of General Counsel, United States Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, SCHALL, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 21, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
## { 

# RuLE.240 4!'.( •



## (, J. · **Co~oli~~cc Vc~ific~tion**  

### As

**~ co~ditio~**  **o~ ~**  

### (1) **·sa~d** 

### pe::rnit **co~citio~s** 

# .. 

# .. .

·'( ''

# . . aJ, 'I'hat t.'1c **rne;:-..~t:::!.~g inst:::-\.:.~cntc**  **r..cc~** minimc..01 

## ··

# . **~.** :o\Ca&t:::·c.-:oc:ot **~cct:r~cy,** C<llibration **p::-occc~.:::-e** and 

### ··._.:"=\i!que:ncy as **cpcc.i!io~** !:>y **th~** co:-.·.:::-ol **Of~**icc::-. .·.· 

# .··· . , ·, 

### a:;"tunc!.:l.::--cc **ca.:::.~:-at!.o;-.**

### o£ 

## .. :(b)· 

### . **·r~at** 

### t"he r\i!co:cing
**c~all** 

### bo 

### installed

**~n ~**  

### ncct:icn **loca~io:o o~**  **J~c~ ~e~su=i~;**  **i~st~~"~~i~ su~jcc~**  to **fre~ucnt opc:::-~to=**  (2.) 

## {3) 

# . .

**{~-)** 

# ....

. (6) **ta~rvoilla;.ce** o:: 

### bo oquippcd **wit~~ !;~.itu~lo**  

### ulu:7.i 

### c!avicc5. Tho **in~o::-rn~tion rcco~dcd**  **!;~u.ll** 

### bo **st:.-;utia::-.i~cd a.~d.**  rcpo:::-ted **a~d--fo::-~·** 

### uc **p::-c~c=~~cd** 

### by
**t~~0 co~~=\**  

### 'to t.'1CDTst:::ict: 

### of;:icc::. 

# ....., 

## ....... Eiili!.nion data ·obtained **f~o~** 

### ovmc:::-s or O?c::-a

### torn of **station'-~** 

## r.ourccs vriil 

## be **co=:?cY~."tc<:!** 

## .,.,ft-b 

## a??ffca1Jfcc;;lf5!.-f0:.-rrrili:;

# -.:{onz-

**~:-.d** 

### oth"Ci:=-cO..t:::ol **r:-.c.:\~urc!;** 4.41d 

### w{il bo 

### "'vailahlc 

### to **-t:~c** 

### p·_.S-1-ic ou::i:1g **nor.:.al-b~si"";1c~!:; -~ou:-s~f~~ni"Zt.3cto:':=lco,**  

### or **i~::l-:.:tcc** 

### to E?A 

### or **£~n~~~~-~cduc~t. Y.o~itori:og**  

### recorda 

# . . -oo=iod o: **~ot** lc!;s **th~~ ·-·~**  ... . 

# __ _.....__ 

### . cball 

### be **rct~i~cd** 

### two ycarc.. I I 

# .. by tilo

**Dizt.::ic~** 

### po::.::;on:-.ol**·~~ro ~o**  

### i:-.cpcct. ahc! 

### con!i= **c~li~::<lt:io:e o~**  **~~c~=i~g L~ctr~ontc,.~o**  **~ccoc!;~ry**

### •

**~,Y viol~tion**  

### of

**~n ·s"t\lnC~rd,**  o= **!l::-~::AkCow:-1** 

### of **c:ni~G.io~ :-:.~~~ur** **iu~** 

### in:;t::.:-U.'lt::!;-.tc, iz 

### to

**·~o ~~port~d**  

### to **t~e** 

### Dictrict in accorcanco with tho **prov~sionc** 

# o= Rulo **5~0, E~uip~ent**  **Drc~kclo~.**
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

# DLA Distribution Europe celebrates employees by hosting a Diversity and Employee Appreciation Day

By Diana Dawa, DLA Distribution Public Affairs

                NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa.  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Distribution EuropeDLA DistributionDLADiversity
No. 42113.

#### Protests 788111-G, etc., of Cudahy Packing Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of Abstract 40880 and *Locatelli v. United States*(T. D. 48284) the court sustained the protests.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40468 Conference Calendar

JOHN W. BANOS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KATHY BROWN; WYLONDRA FINLEY; SHIRLEY MACENTEE; KATHY THOMPSON; TIA DIXON, Mrs., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:97-CV-11

- - - - - - - - - - August 15, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND DUHÉ, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
PER CURIAM: * The magistrate judge improperly granted John Wesley Banos, Texas prisoner # 545431, leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (IFP). Banos has at least three strikes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which bars Banos from IFP status. See Banos v.
Garner , No. 96-CV-92 (E.D. Tex. May 22, 1996) (case dismissed as frivolous; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution); Banos v.No. 97-40468 -2- Bush , No. 96-CV-219 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 1996)(case dismissed as frivolous; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution); Banos v. Shaw , No. 93-CV-45 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 1993)(case dismissed as frivolous; district court’s judgment was affirmed on appeal). Nothing in the record indicates that the exception to the statutory bar applies in this case. IT IS ORDERED that the earlier order granting leave to proceed IFP is VACATED. Banos has thirty days in which to pay the $105 filing fee. Failure to make a timely payment will result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. See 5th Cir. R. 42.3.1.2. Banos’s motion for temporary restraining order and/or for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED IF FULL FILING FEE NOT PAID.
No. 96-5736.

#### Davis *v.*Freeman, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 44393.

#### Protest 997686-G of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 43372 the tape measures in question were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
Land Sale Agreement, dated September 4, 2006



 EXHIBIT 10.23 
  

							
		 	(Translation)	 	(Thor.Dor. 13)
				
		 		 		 	Stamp duty paid Baht        5        
		 		 		 	Under BorRor volume      No.      
		 	GARUDA	 	Date         September 4, 2006        


							
		 		 		 	    - Signature
-                    
				
		 		 		 	Land official

 LAND SALE AGREEMENT 
 Description of Land 
 Land title deed No.     1634     Land No.
    6     Survey Page No.     264     Tambol Bangwaitai (Klong 1 Tok) Amphur     Klong Luang    
Province      Pathumthani     
 This Agreement is made on
    4     Month     September     B.E.     2549 (2006)     at Land Office of
    Pathumthani Province, Klong Luang Branch     
  

																							
	 between
	 	

	 	 Mr. Somchai Boonsri
 3 1014 00947 92 1
	 	

	 	Age	  	

	  	69	  	

	  	Years	  	Seller	  	Nationality	  	Thai
	
	Child of Mr.Sathien-Mrs.Saiyud residing at Soi Areesamphan 8, Rama VI Road No. 1 Moo
             Tambon Samsennai Amphur Phayathai Province Bangkok Metropolis
												
	 and
	 	

	 	Fabrinet Co., Ltd.
by Mr. Soon Kaewchansilp,
Director	 	

	 	Age	  	

	  	-	  	

	  	Years	  	Purchaser	  	Nationality	  	Thai

 Child of     -     residing at
    Vibhavadeerangsit Road     No.     294     Moo     8     Tambol
    Kukot     Amphur     Lamlukka     Province     Pathumthani     
 Both parties agree to enter into the Agreement with the terms and conditions as follows: 
 Clause 1. The Seller agrees to sell the above plot of land as a whole to the Purchaser in the amount of Baht     84,318,000     (Baht Eighty Four Million Three Hundred
and Eighteen Thousand Only). 
 Clause 2. The Purchaser agrees to purchase the land as mentioned in Clause 1. from the Seller. The Purchaser has made
full payment and the Seller has fully received such payment of land. 
  

 1 








 Clause 3. Only the land is purchased. No lease, no outstanding local development tax. 
 Clause 4. The land is purchased for use as the location of the factory. 
 Clause 5. The Purchaser has been granted approval of the Office of the Board of Investment, OrGor 0906/020395 dated August 31, 2006. 
 This Agreement is made in three originals with identical contents, two originals are for the Land Office and one original is retained by the Purchaser (this original is for the Purchaser). 
 Both parties, having thoroughly examined and understood the contents of this Agreement, have hereunder affixed their respective signatures or have their fingerprints
printed in the presence of witnesses and the Land Official. 
  

	 	(Signature	of the Seller)                     -
Signature-                         


	 	(Signature	of the Purchaser)              -
Signagure-                         

  

	 	(Signature	of Witness) - Signature-(Mrs. Srisuda Khachornpai) 

  

	 	(Signature	of Witness) - Signature-(Mrs. Pissamai Meelab) 

 This
Agreement is made in the presence of: 
  

			
	 - Signature - (Mr. Supoj Thammatee)
	 	Land Officer
	Official Seal	 	
		
	 - Signature-
	 	Writer
		
	 - Signature -
	 	Examiner


  

 2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 18, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 18, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0157. LEROY INGRAM v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

Y16793
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Al Haydar Group ) ASBCA No. 62477

)

Under Contract No. W912D1-15-C-0002 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Nazar Haider Shakir

 General Manager

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

 Army Chief Trial Attorney

CPT Eugenee M. Gray, JA

 Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

By correspondence dated April 29, 2020, Mr. Nazar Haider Shakir, General 

Manager for appellant, filed a notice of appeal by email. The Board docketed the appeal 

on May 3, 2020.

By Order dated May 4, 2020, appellant was directed to show that it is represented 

in this appeal by a person who meets the criteria of Board Rule 15(a), or to designate a 

proper person as its representative. This Order was sent to appellant via email to the 

address provided on appellant’s notice of appeal. The Board did not receive a response to 

this Order.

By Show Cause Order dated June 16, 2020, the Board ordered appellant to show 

that it is represented in these proceedings by a person meeting the criteria of Board 

Rule 15(a), or designate a proper person to represent it. The Order stated that if appellant 

did not comply, the Board intended to dismiss this appeal without further notice to the 

parties. The Order was sent to appellant via email to the address provided in the notice of 

appeal.

Appellant responded to the Board’s Show Cause Order the following day, June 17, 

2020, with an email stating “[t]hank you and let me prepare the apeal [sic] and send back 

via requested email.” The email did not include the information concerning appellant’s 

Rule 15(a) representative requested by the Board in its May 4, 2020 Order or its June 16, 

2020 Show Cause Order. The Board has received no further communication from 

appellant since its June 17, 2020 email.
2

Since the Board cannot proceed without a representative meeting the requirements 

of Board Rule 15(a), this appeal is dismissed.

Dated: July 9, 2020

I concur I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

OWEN C. WILSON

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62477, Appeal of Al Haydar Group, 

rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: July 10, 2020

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.4


                             AMERICAN BANCORP, INC.

                          DISCLOSURE ON CONTROLS BY THE
                     COMPANY'S PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICIER
                     PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
                     ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Disclosure controls and procedures appear to be in place and functioning
effectively during the period covered by this annual report. There appeared to
be no significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect these controls in the period covered by this annual report
and since the Evaluation Date.




/s/ RONALD J. LASHUTE
---------------------------------
Ronald J. Lashute
Chief Executive Officer


March 17, 2003
--------------------------
Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                            2006
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    79903
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2800
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 85953
<PP&E>                                           18206
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6124
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  156172
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            58708
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           238
<OTHER-SE>                                       59227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    156172
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                480355
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   301508
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  2740
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1601
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6716
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2955
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3761
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3761
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
No. 96-5973.

#### Segura-Del Real *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 44258.

#### Protests 946236-G, etc., of D. & L. Slade Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of ginger root similar to that passed upon in *Wilson*v. *United States*(28 C. C. P. A. —, C. A. D. 126). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1768 was therefore sustained.
Coast	2	Coast	Aerial	Imaging	|	805•204•1239	

Matt@c2caerialimaging.com

Pre-Flight Safety Checklist

 Transmitter Firmware up to date

 Drone firmware up to date

 Inspect UAS for obvious defects

 Batteries fully charged

 Propellers tightened and/or locked

 ND Filter needed? Yes/No

 SD card in camera, SD card formatted

 Monitor brightness set to high and hood installed

 Antennae up

 Transmitter turned on

 UAS turned on

 Compass calibrated

 Minimum return height adjusted

 Clear frequency chosen

 UAS placed in safe launch and recover position

 Area clear of people

Flight

 Warn bystanders of imminent takeoff

 Hover close for 20 seconds. Look/listen for defects

 Confirm expected stick operation

 Monitor battery power

 Keep line of sight with UAS at all times

 Monitor signal strength