alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 46544.

#### Protests 66077-K, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by.

Dellinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20) and Abstracts 43372 and 41633 the articles in question were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
No. 99-7917.

#### Tugwell *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-1440 

 MINNEAPOLIS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 

and THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 

Appellants, 

v. 

David L. Bibb, 

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 

Appellee. 

Charles N. Nauen, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, 

argued for appellants. With him on the brief was William A. Gengler. Of counsel on the 

brief were Susan L. Segal and Peter W. Ginder, Office of Minneapolis City Attorney, of 

Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

John S. Groat, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United 

States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With him on the 

brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and 

Bryant G. Snee, Deputy Director. 

Appealed from: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals 

Administrative Judge Martha H. DeGraff 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 2008-1440 

MINNEAPOLIS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 

and THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 

 Appellants, 

v. 

David L. Bibb, 

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 

 Appellee. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals 

in CASE NO(S). 385 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (MICHEL, Chief Judge and NEWMAN and RADER, Circuit Judges). 

 AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

DATED January 11, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO REINSURANCE AGREEMENT


 


                THIS AMENDMENT TO REINSURANCE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”),
effective December 1, 2007, is by and between American Heritage Life
Insurance Company (“Ceding Company”) and Allstate Life Insurance Company (“Reinsurer”).


 


RECITALS


 


                WHEREAS, Ceding Company and Reinsurer’s
predecessor, Columbia Universal Life Insurance Company (“CUL”), entered into
that certain Reinsurance Agreement, dated as of February 1, 1998 (the “Agreement”),
and CUL transferred and assigned all of its rights, duties, obligations and
liabilities under the agreement to Reinsurer effective June 30, 2004
pursuant to a Novation and Assignment Agreement dated July 26, 2004.


 


                WHEREAS, Ceding Company and Reinsurer desire to make certain
amendments to the Agreement as more particularly described herein.


 


AGREEMENT


 


                NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable
consideration and for the mutual covenants set forth below, the parties hereto,
intending legally to be bound, hereby agree as follows:


 


1.                                       Ceding Company
and Reinsurer hereby agree to insert the following to Section 5. Premium
Payments and Section 6. Claims Services respectively:


 


5.3              Ceding Company shall pay
premiums to Reinsurer no less frequently than quarterly and within 90 days of
receipt from insured.


 


6.4               Not withstanding the above,
Reinsurer shall pay claims to Ceding Company no less frequently than quarterly
and within 90 days of final determination and notification to Reinsurer of
claim amount.


 


2.                                       Unless
expressly modified by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Agreement
remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


3.                                       This Amendment
shall be binding on the parties hereto, including their successors and assigns.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
executed this Amendment as of the day and year first set forth above.


 


	
  AMERICAN
  HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/Samuel
  H.Pilch

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name:
  

  	
  Samuel
  H. Pilch

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Group
  Vice President

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ALLSTATE
  LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:
  

  	
  /s/Samuel
  H.Pilch

  	
   

  
	
  Name:

  	
  Samuel
  H. Pilch

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Group
  Vice President and Controller

  
	
   

  



 


 


1
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20554]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding Meeting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: July 29, 1997, 62 
FR 40520.

Previously Announced Time and Date of Meeting: July 30, 1997, 10:00 
a.m.

Change in the Meeting: The following Docket Numbers and Companies have 
been added to Items CAG-6 and PC-3 on Agenda scheduled for the July 30, 
1997 meeting.

Item No.: Docket No. and Company

CAG-6
    RP97-319-000, Williams Natural Gas Company
    RP97-173-000, Carnegie Interstate Pipeline Company
PC-3:
    CP97-238-000; Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. and Portland 
Natural Gas Transmission System
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20554 Filed 7-31-97; 11:20 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION, MAR-28-1997 AND IS QUALIIFIED IN ITS 
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1997
<CASH>                                           8,907
<RECEIVABLES>                                  217,106
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                             43,943
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            127,632
<PP&E>                                          19,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 501,968
<SHORT-TERM>                                    46,285
<PAYABLES>                                     100,132
<REPOS-SOLD>                                    67,151
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              48,350
<LONG-TERM>                                     25,000
<COMMON>                                        11,802
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     142,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   501,968
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               55,385
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            20,406
<COMMISSIONS>                                   79,907
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   73,611
<FEE-REVENUE>                                   25,136
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,629
<COMPENSATION>                                 152,708
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,256
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,656
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Plan Administrator

Total System Services, Inc.

2012 Employee Stock Purchase Plan

We consent to
the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-181790) on Form S-8 of Total System Services, Inc. of our report dated April 10, 2015, with respect to the statements of financial condition of the Total System Services,
Inc. 2012 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the Plan) as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 and the related statements of operations and changes in plan equity for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2014 and the
period from inception (July 1, 2012) to December 31, 2012, which report appears in the December 31, 2014 annual report on Form 11-K of the Plan, included as Exhibit 99.1 to the December 31, 2014 annual report Form 10-K/A Amendment
No. 1 of Total System Services, Inc.



|                
|----------------
|/s/ KPMG LLP    
|                
|Atlanta, Georgia
|April 10, 2015
No. 45390.

#### Petition 6049-R of David A. Peiros (Cleveland).

Bbown, Judge:

This case, which is a petition for the remission of additional duties, arose and was tried at Columbus, Ohio.

This was an importation of polished diamonds, the first shipment of diamonds the importer had ever received. He testified that he did not even know what was in the package, that they were small diamonds not of the quality he would use; so he sent them back to the man who arranged the shipment from Europe, Mr. Edward Fisher of New York. Also that he erred in his entry because he was unaware of the difference between a buying and a selling commission. He asked the customs clerk to figure it up for him and paid what he demanded, but that did not include this commission. The merchandise was appraised as entered.

Later the collector of customs made an appeal to reappraisement.

The addition of the commission to the dutiable value, as contended by the collector, was not seriously contested by the importer.

Consequently, the reappraisement resulted in the advance by the amount of the commission and the additional duties here petitioned for automatically were levied also.

The importer had been in business for 21 years and this was the first time he had had a dispute over value. Previous to entry he had disclosed all the information he had to the customs officials.

The examiner testified as to the importer’s general good character and said' he was open and above-board in all his dealings.

In our opinion these facts and circumstances negative any intent on the part of the importer to deceive the appraiser or to defraud the Government in making his entry.

The petition for remission is therefore granted. Judgment will issue accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32(B)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 on Form 10-QSB of Technology Acquisition
Corporation ("Registrant") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"),
I, Steve Obana, chief financial officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to the best of my knowledge:

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

(2) The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of Registrant at the end of the period covered
by this Report and results of operations of Registrant for the period covered by
this Report.


                        /s/ Steve Obana
                        -----------------------------------
                        Steve Obana
                        Chief Financial Officer
                        November 22, 2004

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification
shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

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


                                       19
**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**




The
      Board
      of Directors




Bioanalytical
      Systems, Inc.:




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
      333-56123 and 333-56127) on Form S-8 of Bioanalytical Systems, Inc. and
      subsidiaries of our report dated January 7, 2006, with respect to the
      consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive
      income (loss), and cash flows of Bioanalytical Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries
      for the year ended September 30, 2005, before the restatement
      described in notes 2 and 5 to the financial statements, which report appears
      in
      the September 30, 2007, annual report on Form 10-K of Bioanalytical
      Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries.






/s/
      KPMG,
      LLP


Indianapolis,
      Indiana


December
      27, 2007
#### W. T. Grant Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6966.

Entry No. 772031, etc.

Invoices dated St. Nicholas, Belgium, November 25, 1938, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 12, 1938, etc.

(Decided March 5, 1947)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*by *Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Kincheloe, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement 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 merchandise and issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule, which schedule is made a part of this stipulation, are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues decided in *United States*v. *Stephen Rug Mills,*Reap. Dec. 6283, and that the record in said case may be Incorporated herein. •

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the entered values of the merchandise involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule are 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 and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that there is no foreign value of such or similar merchandise.

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

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe export value, as tbat value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe merchandise here involved, and tbat such values are tbe entered values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 

RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT 

 

I, Roger D. Linquist, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MetroPCS, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat 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 controlsand 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an quarterly report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: July 27, 2004
#### Kramer & Hauser et al. *v.*United States

No. 6920.

Entry No. 713388/1, etc.

Invoices dated Wealdstone, England, July 29, 1941, etc.

Certified August 2, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 11, 1941, etc.

(Decided February 26, 1947)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Presiding 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:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 as to the items advanced in value by the appraiser, such values are the entered values, and that as to all other items involved, 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.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42115-42116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20529]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-660-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Request 
Under Blanket Authorization

July 30, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 24, 1997, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline

[[Page 42116]]

Company (Williston Basin), 200 North Third Street, Suite 300, Bismarck, 
North Dakota 58501, filed in Docket No. CP97-660-000 a request pursuant 
to Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under 
the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.211) for authorization to 
utilize an existing tap to effectuate natural gas transportation 
deliveries to Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (Montana-Dakota), for 
ultimate use by additional residential customers in Roosevelt County, 
Montana. Williston Basin makes such request under its blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-487-000, et al., pursuant to 
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the 
request on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Williston Basin states that it received a request from Montana-
Dakota, a local distribution company, for authorization to add 
additional residential customers to an existing transmission line tap 
located in Roosevelt County, Montana. The estimated additional volume 
to be delivered is 220 Mcf per year. Williston Basin is proposing to 
use the existing residential farm tap to effectuate additional natural 
gas transportation deliveries to Montana-Dakota for other than right-
of-way grantor use. Williston Basin indicates that the volumes to be 
delivered are within the contractual entitlements of the customer, and 
that the proposed volumes will be provided under Williston Basins Rate 
Schedule FT-1.
    It is averred that the proposed service will have no significant 
effect on Williston Basin's peak day or annual requirements.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the 
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the 
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day 
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and 
not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20529 Filed 8-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-203]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. EG97-11-000]


PMDC Netherlands B.V.; Notice of Amendment to Application for 
Commission Determination of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

December 31, 1996.
    On December 30, 1996, PMDC Netherlands (the ``Applicant'') whose 
address is 4e Etage, 3012 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands, filed with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an amendment to its application 
(the ``Application'') for exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to 
Part 365 of the Commission's Regulations, filed in the above-referenced 
Docket on November 4, 1996, as previously amended on December 11, 1996.
    Any person desiring to be heard concerning the amendment to the 
Application should file a motion to intervene or comments with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Commission will limit 
its consideration of comments to those that concern the adequacy or 
accuracy of the application. All such motions and comments should be 
filed on or before January 10, 1997 and must be served on the 
Applicant. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-203 Filed 1-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
February 7, 1940

No. 43231.

Suit 4245.

#### *United States*v. *Alfred Kohlberg, Inc.*

Reap. Dec. 4526 affirmed.