alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Sanitized – Attachment 007 Page 1 of 2Sanitized – Attachment 007 Page 2 of 2
#### Henry A. Wess, Inc. (The A. B. Closson, Jr., Co.), et al. *v.*United States

No. 7687.

Invoices dated Montreal, Canada, June 26, 1947, etc.

Certified June 30, 1947, etc.

Entered at Cincinnati, Ohio, July 29, 1947, etc.

Entry Nos. 62, 72, 67.

(Decided March 18, 1949)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the defendant.

*427Oliver, 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 listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *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 importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar eases, 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 tbe 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.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12621-12622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04137]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

42 CFR Part 70

[Docket No. CDC-2012-0016]
RIN 0920-AA22

Control of Communicable Diseases: Interstate; Scope and 
Definitions

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (HHS/CDC), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Confirmation of effective date of Direct Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within 
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is publishing this 
document to confirm the effective date of the Direct Final Rule (DFR), 
published on December 26, 2012 (77 FR 75880).

DATES: The Direct Final Rule published at 77 FR 75880, December 26, 
2012, becomes effective on February 25, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this notice: 
Ashley A. Marrone, JD, Centers for Disease

[[Page 12622]]

Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E-03, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30333; telephone 404-498-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 26, 2012, HHS/CDC published a 
Direct Final Rule (DFR) amending 42 CFR part 70 to update the Scope and 
Definitions for that part (77 FR 75880). On the same date, HHS/CDC 
simultaneously published a companion Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) that proposed identical updates to the Scope and Definitions (77 
FR 75936). In both documents, HHS/CDC indicated that if we did not 
receive any significant adverse comments on the direct final rule by 
January 25, 2013, we would publish a document in the Federal Register 
withdrawing the NPRM and confirming the effective date of the direct 
final rule within 30 days after the end of the comment period. HHS/CDC 
received one public comment that was not a significant, adverse 
comment, but rather, was in support of the companion NPRM. Because HHS/
CDC did not receive any significant adverse comments to the NPRM within 
the specified comment period, we have published a document to withdraw 
the NPRM in this issue of the Federal Register. Therefore, consistent 
with the Direct Final Rule, the amendments to 42 CFR part 70 become 
effective on February 25, 2013 (77 FR 75880).

    Dated: February 13, 2013.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2013-04137 Filed 2-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
```
Case No. 9,377.

#### MEAGHER v. The LIZZIE.

[2 Woods. 243.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Louisiana.

April Term, 1876.

Appeal — Admiralty — Facts not Averred in Pleadings nor Shown in Evidence.

Where, on a lib^l in rem to recover for repairs to a steamer, the jurisdiction of the district court was submitted to and the cause tried on its merits; after appeal to the circuit court, the claimants could not for the first time set up that the repairs were made in the home port of the steamer, and therefore did not create a maritime lien, no such fact being averred in the pleadings or shown by the evidence.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of Louisiana.

[This was a libel by M. Meagher and J. Meagher against the steamboat Lizzie, to recover a balance due for repairs.]

B. Egan, for libellants.

Thomas Gilmore, for claimants.

*1302BRADLEY, Circuit Justice.

This suit was brought to recover a balance claimed by the libellants to be due them for repairs made to the steamer Lizzie. The point is taken by the claimants in this court for the first time, that the repairs were made to the steamer in her home port, and therefore did not create a maritime lien. This point is made too late, and is not tenable now. It is not made by the pleadings, nor was it made in the district court, and I cannot find anything in the evidence even to show that the Lizzie belonged to the port of New- Orleans when the repairs were made. The jurisdiction of the court was submitted to, and the cause tried on its merits. The objection cannot be raised now.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20264]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of Defense


Meeting of the DOD Advisory Group on Electron Devices

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Working Group C (Electro-Optics) of the DoD Advisory Group on 
Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held at 0900, Tuesday and Wednesday, August 
19-20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Rome Laboratory, Holtzman 
Seminar Room, Phillips Laboratory Science Center, Building 1106, 31 
Grenier Street, Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-1631.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elise Rabin, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal 
Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Advisory Group is to 
provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology, to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering 
(DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and 
managing an effective and economical research and development program 
in the area of electron devices.
    The Working Group C meeting will be limited to review of research 
and development programs which the Military Departments propose to 
initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. This 
opto-electronic device area includes such programs as imaging device, 
infrared detector and lasers. The review will include details of 
classified defense programs throughout.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended, 
(5 U.S.C. App. Sec. 10(d) (1994)), it has been determined that this 
Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) 
(1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the 
public.

    Dated: July 25, 1997.
L. M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-20264 Filed 7-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
**Exhibit
        23.1**
 
 [LOGO
        OF
        CHERRY, BEKAERT & HOLLAND, L.L.P.]
 
 **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 The
        Board
        of Directors
 Citizens
        South Banking Corporation
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement
        Form
        S-3 of Citizens South Banking Corporation of our report dated March 3, 2007,
        related to the audits of the consolidated financial statements of Citizens
        South
        Banking Corporation as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, for each of the years
        in
        the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, which report is included in
        the
        December 31, 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Citizens South Banking
        Corporation, and to the reference to our firm under the heading “Experts” in the
        prospectus.
 
 /s/
        Cherry, Beckaert & Holland, L.L.P.
 
 Gastonia,
        North Carolina
 July
        18,
        2007
No. 48926.

#### Protest 888860-G, etc., of Eurasia Import Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consist of hats of grass, etc., the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract 47291. The claim at only 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was therefore sustained as to these items.
# C_2012287EN.01003402.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/34

---

Action brought on 27 July 2012 — Sartorius Weighing Technology v OHIM (Representation of a yellow curve)

(Case T-331/12)

2012/C 287/64

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sartorius Weighing Technology GmbH (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by K. Welkerling, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 May 2012 in Case R 1783/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 May 2012 in Case R 1783/2011-1;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: other mark, which represents a yellow curve at the bottom edge of an electronic display unit, for goods in Classes 7, 9, 10 and 11

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
#### Franklin Simon & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6933.

Entry No. 718986, etc.

Invoices dated Leicester, England, September 1, 1941, etc.

Certified September 2, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 10, 1941, etc.

(Decided February 28, 1947)

*Lane & Wallace*and *Lane, Young*efe *Fox*for the plaintiff.

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

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

The agreed set of facts, embodied in the stipulation of submission, establishes that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)) is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values of the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7069** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. KOVA DUAN WRIGHT , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:01

- cr - 00005

- RLV

- 12 )

Submitted : March 30, 2012 Decided: April 12, 2012

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kova Duan Wright, Appellant Pro Se
. John George Guise, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kova Duan Wright appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we a ffirm the district court ’s order
. United States v. Wrigh t , No. 5:01

- cr - 00005

- RLV

- 12 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 2011) ; see United
States v. Brown , 653 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 1003 (2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
mat erials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Michael Offerman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Form 10-QSB of IEH Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, is made known to me by others within the
company, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) Presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);

a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 6, 2006

/s/ Michael Offerman
-------------------------------
Michael Offerman
President (Principal Executive Officer)


                                       28
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 8122.

Entry Nos. 6351; 338.

(Decided June 3, 1952)

*Sharretts, Hillis & Paley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> *669IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on schedule *“A”*hereto attached and made part hereof, 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 quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus 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, was in each instance the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar cases and that there is no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that these appeals to reappraisement be submitted on this 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 earthenware articles here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2014

h1217

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2014

149241 & (17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149241

COA: 318976

Wayne CC: 01-003175-FC

ANTHONY T. LEGION,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file a pro per supplement to the application 

for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the March 17, 

2014 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the 

defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 

6.508(D).
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19851]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings of the National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis 
Panel:

    Agenda Purpose: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Committee Name: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: August 1, 1997.
    Time: 2 p.m.
    Place: Parklawn, Room 9C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md 
20857.
    Contact Person: Sheri L. Schwartzback, Parklawn, Room 9C-26, 
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md 20857, Telephone: 301, 443-4843.

    Committee Name: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: August 7-August 9, 1997.
    Time: 8 a.m.
    Place: Parklawn, Room 9C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md 
20857.
    Contact Person: Jean G. Noronha, Parklawn, Room 9C-26, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md 20857, Telephone: 301, 443-6470.

    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than fifteen days prior to 
the meetings due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations 
imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 93.242, 
93.281, 93.282)

    Dated: July 22, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-19851 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2014184EN.01002303.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Quimper — France) — CA Consumer Finance v Francine Crouan, née Weber, Tual Crouan

(Case C-77/13) (1)

1

2014/C 184/35

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

1

---