alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nicholas Gal (Globe Shipping Co., Inc.) *v.*United States

No. 6001.

Invoice dated Teningen, Germany, March. 31, 1939.

Certified April 4, 1939.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 20, 1939.

Entry No. 832434.

(Decided May 9, 1944)

*Eugene R. Pickrell (Eugene A. Chase*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Tilson, Judge:

This appeal has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the market value or price at or about the date of exportation at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Germany, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including all costs, charges, and expenses specified in section 402 (d) of the act of 1930, *446was the invoice unit price, and that there was no foreign value higher than the invoice price.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, we hold the proper dutiable export value of the aluminum foil covered by this appeal to be the invoice unit price. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 47124.

#### Protests 829837-G, etc., of Ralph Randolph Adams et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70 -68

30 32 34 36 38 40 42 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 06/07 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
#### Oliver Clark, plaintiff in error, vs. John Gibson, defendant in error.

*Error to Linn.*

*A*verba] agreement between the plaintiff and defendant on a trial before a justice of the peace, that a verdict in his court should be final, may if broken, be the grounds of an action, but will not be allowed to be pleaded in bar to the action, when removed to the District Court by appeal.

The facts are embodied in the opinion of the court.

Hastings, for plaintiff in error.

Rorer & Whicheh, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace, and brought by appeal into the District Court of Linn county. It appears that upon the trial in that court, after the evidence was closed, the court charged the jury, that if they found that the parties had verbally agreed on the trial before the justice of the peace, that the verdict of the jury in the court below should be final, they must find for the defendant; that such verbal agreement was a circumstance for them to consider in bar to the action in the District Court, and that parol testimony was competent to prove such agreement. This is the only error assigned in the case.

We think this was an erroneous instruction. The agreement above alluded to might, if broken, bo the ground of an action, but would not be a bar to that already in court. The contract could not be specifically enforced in a court at law.

But it is contended that the bill of exceptions does not show that the instructions above set forth were material, and although erroneous ought not to avail the plaintiff in error. Where a party calls for instructions which are refused, and he endeavours to reverse a judgment for that cause, he must certainly show in his bill of exceptions that the evidence given rendered such instruction proper. Nor would a judgment be reversed on account of the statement by the court of an erroneous abstract proposition. But the instructions of the court in this case carry presumptive evidence of being practical and applicable to the case. The *329court would certainly not voluntarily give instructions in that shape, unless there were some testimony to render them applicable and if a party calls for such instructions he ought not afterwards to be permitted to deny their pertinency. Judgment set aside and a new trial ordered.
Case No. 9,383.

#### MECHANICS’ BANK v. TAYLOR.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 217.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1820.

Notes — Indorser—Protest—Demand—Evi-dence.

If a notary-public, after demanding payment from the maker of a promissory note, go to the snop of the indorser, (a coachmaker who had journeymen,) and there demand payment, but of whom he does not remember, and thinks he did not see the indorser, this is not sufficient evidence of notice, to the indorser, of non-payment by the maker.

Assumpsit against [Evan P. Taylor] the in-dorser of Peyton’s promissory note. The notary-public demanded payment from the maker on the last day of grace, after banking hours, and afterwards, on the same day, called at the shop of the defendant, and demanded payment, but did not remember whether he saw the defendant, and thought that if he had, he should have stated it in his protest, which he did not The defendant was a coach-maker, and employed journeymen. The witness did not remember of whom he made the demand.

THE COURT,

at the prayer of Mr. Taylor, for the defendant instructed the jury that the plaintiff could not recover that evidence, because, as they thought, the notice was not proved.
No. 43253.

#### Protests 949217-G, etc., of B. Shackman & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise in question was held dutiable as follows: (1) siren horns in chief value of metal similar to those passed upon in Abstract 39948 at 45 percent under paragraph 397; (2) place card ornaments or table favors in chief value of wood at 33)4 percent under paragraph 412, Abstract 37444 followed; and (3) animals in chief value of fur the same as those the subject of Abstract 37444 at 50 percent under paragraph 1519 (e).
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 22 ) ll-K - (B ) - 9 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:48 AM Sheet 22 of 325P. 2

H-K-CB)- 9 PROJECTE DNATURAL GA S SUPPLIES . Lette r fro

m M . Bonney , EPA-Washingto nt o Informa l Analysi s Workin g Group . Septembe r 24 , 1979 . THI S INFORMATIO

N CA N B E FOUNDI

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)- 9
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1987 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1987

  To provide for the release of the reversionary interest held by the 
United States in certain land conveyed by the United States in 1950 for 
       the establishment of an airport in Cook County, Minnesota.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 13, 2011

 Ms. Klobuchar (for herself and Mr. Franken) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the release of the reversionary interest held by the 
United States in certain land conveyed by the United States in 1950 for 
       the establishment of an airport in Cook County, Minnesota.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST AND USE CONDITIONS, COOK 
              COUNTY AIRPORT, COOK COUNTY, MINNESOTA.

    (a) Release of Reversionary Interest Required.--The Secretary of 
Agriculture, acting on behalf of the United States, shall release, 
without consideration--
            (1) the conditions imposed on the use of the parcel of land 
        originally conveyed by the Secretary pursuant to section 16 of 
        the Federal Airport Act (Act of May 13, 1946, ch. 251, 60 Stat. 
        170) to the State of Minnesota by deed executed May 31, 1950, 
        for the establishment of an airport in Cook County, Minnesota; 
        and
            (2) the reversionary interest retained by the United States 
        in connection with such conditions.
    (b) Instrument of Release.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
execute and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, amended 
deed, or other appropriate instrument reflecting the release of the 
reversionary interest and conditions under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20140]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #2965]


State of Michigan; (Amendment #1)

    In accordance with a notice from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency dated July 22, 1997, the above-numbered Declaration is hereby 
amended to include Genesee County, Michigan as a disaster area due to 
damages caused by severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding which occurred 
on July 2, 1997.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in the contiguous counties of Saginaw, Shiawassee, 
and Tuscola in the State of Michigan may be filed until the specified 
date at the previously designated location.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for physical damage is September 9, 1997 and for 
economic injury the termination date is April 13, 1998.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: July 23, 1997.
Becky C. Brantley,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-20140 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40340-40341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19744]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3510-000]

The Empire District Electric Company; Notice of Filing

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on June 23, 1997, The Empire District Electric 
Company (EDE), tendered for filing a service agreement between EDE and 
PanEnergy Trading and Market Services, L.L.C providing non-firm point-
to-point transmission service pursuant to the open access transmission 
tariff (Schedule OATS) of EDE.
    EDE states that a copy of this filing has been served by mail upon 
PanEnergy Trading and Market Services, L.L.C., 10777 Westheimer Suite 
650, Houston, TX 77042.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before July 31, 1997. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on

[[Page 40341]]

file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19744 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos. 333-09917, 333-10117, 333-47098 and 333-131044 on Form S-3 and Nos. 333-09911, 333-09909, 333-46086, 333-76812, 333-103101 and 333-131051 on Form S-8 of our report dated December 21, 2006, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Amtech Systems, Inc. as of September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2005 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for the years then ended, included in the 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Amtech Systems, Inc.

|                | /s/ Mayer   Hoffman McCann P.C. |
|---------------------|---------------------------------|
|                |                                 |
|                |                            |
|                |                            |
|                |                            |
| Phoenix,   Arizona  |                            |
| December 21,   2006 |                            |
# C_2015016EN.01000501.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou — Cyprus) — Cypra Ltd v Kypriaki Dimokratia

(Case C-402/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Animal health - Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 - Products of animal origin intended for human consumption - Official controls - Appointment of an official veterinarian - Slaughter of animals)

(2015/C 016/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cypra Ltd

Defendant: Kypriaki Dimokratia

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted, in principle, as not precluding the competent authority determining the time at which the slaughter of animals takes place, with a view to the appointment of an official veterinarian for the purposes of supervising the slaughter, and refusing to provide such a veterinarian on the day and at the time determined by the slaughterer, unless it is objectively necessary for the slaughter to take place on a specific day, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Davidson
Diversified Real Estate I, L.P. 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000721673
<NAME> DAVIDSON DIVERSIFIED REAL ESTATE I L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             637
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       11
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          12,694
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,111
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          8,537
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,481)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,891
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,998
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,047
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (49)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (62.53)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
124 STAT. 6 PUBLIC LAW 111–136—JAN. 29, 2010 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4508: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Jan. 27, considered and passed House. 

Jan. 28, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–136 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small 

Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION 

OF PROGRAMS UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND 

THE SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to 

extend temporarily certain authorities of the Small Business 

Administration’’, approved October 10, 2006 (Public Law 109–316; 

120 Stat. 1742), as most recently amended by section 1 of Public 

Law 111–89 (123 Stat. 2975), is amended by striking ‘‘January 

31, 2010’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘April 30, 2010’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection 

(a) shall take effect on January 30, 2010. 

Approved January 29, 2010. 

Jan. 29, 2010 

[H.R. 4508] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with PUBLIC LAWS
Amendment to the Fortune Brands, Inc. 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.8 
 FORTUNE BRANDS, INC. 
 1999 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
 Amendment 
 Section 12(a)
of the Plan is amended by replacing the first sentence with the following: 
 “In the event of any merger, consolidation, stock or other
non-cash dividend, extraordinary cash dividend, split-up, spin-off, combination or exchange of shares, reorganization or recapitalization or change in capitalization, or any other similar corporate event, the Committee may make such adjustments in
(i) the aggregate number of shares subject to the Plan and the number of shares that may be made subject to Awards to any individual Participant as set forth in Sections 7(a) and
 10(a) as well as the aggregate number of shares that may
be made subject to any type of Award, (ii) the number and kind of shares that are subject to any Option (including any Option outstanding after termination of employment) and the Option price per share without any change in the aggregate Option
price to be paid therefor upon exercise of the Option, (iii) the number and kind of Rights granted or that may be granted under the Plan, (iv) the number and kind of shares of outstanding Restricted Stock, (v) the number and kind of
shares of Common Stock covered by a Performance Award or Other Stock-Based Award and (vi) the number of outstanding dividend equivalents, as the Committee shall deem appropriate in the circumstances; provided that, the Committee shall make such
adjustments in the event of an equity restructuring (as defined in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised)) as are necessary to prevent the dilution in value of a Participant’s Award.” 
  

					
		 	FORTUNE BRANDS, INC.
			
	Date: September 25, 2007	 		 	
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Mark A. Roche

		 	Its:	 	Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fernando Perdomo, Appellant.

[614 NYS2d 105]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.), rendered June 3, 1992, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 6 to 18 years and 2 to 6 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant failed to raise any further objection or request a mistrial following the court’s prompt curative instruction as to certain hearsay testimony, the instruction must be deemed to have corrected the error to defendant’s satisfaction *(People v Williams,*46 NY2d 1070).

*129Defendant did not request that the trial court include in its charge the specific language he now cites *(People v Acevedo,*181 AD2d 596, 597, *lv denied*79 NY2d 1045), and his subsequent exception did not alert the court to his current claim that, by failing to give this additional charge, he was denied his right to a fair trial *(People v Jackson,*76 NY2d 908). In any event, the court’s charge, taken as a whole, properly conveyed to the jury how it should evaluate witness testimony *(People v Canty,*60 NY2d 830, 831-832; *People v Robinson,*36 NY2d 224, 227-228).

Finally, the prosecutor’s summation did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument *(People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 399). Defendant’s sentence is legal and appropriate and we decline to reduce it in the interest of justice. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Tom, JJ.
1

Ton, Huan

From: Burt, Stephanie (S) [sburt@dow.com]

Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 10:31 PM

To: Semeniuk, Michael

Cc: Kasakevich, Jean (JC)

Subject: DOW CD for EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0182

Attachments: Mor-Free L 75-149 C117 TDS.pdf; Mor-Free L 75-164 C-411 Controlled Tear TDS.pdf; MorFree L 75-164 C-78F TDS.pdf; Mor-Free L 75-164 BHT-Modified C-411 TDS.pdf; Mor-Free L 

75-173 C-132-2 TDS.pdf; Robond PLA-WB CR WB-PLA TDS.pdf; FW: DOW CD for EPA 

Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0182

Dear Michael‐ Per your conversation with Jean Kasakevich in July, I understand you are having difficulty opening several

of the documents we submitted to you as part of the September 2012 data call.  Your original request is attached.  I am

having difficulty locating the latter half of your request. However, while I track down those documents I wanted to fulfill

the first part of your requests for the Technical Data Sheets (TSDs).  The public and CBI versions are the same.  As soon

as I locate the remaining relevant files, I will forward them to you.   

Thank you.

Stephanie M. Burt Associate EH&S Product Stewardship Manager The Dow Chemical Company (P) 303-694-1130

(F) 866-876-7940
Transport Airplane Directorate

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W.

Renton, Washington 98057-3356

October 30, 2012

Mr. Douglas M. Lane

ODA Deputy Lead Administrator

The Boeing Company

P.O. Box 3707 MC 03-56

Seattle, WA 98124-2207

Dear Mr. Lane:

We have received your October 18, 2012, petition for exemption from the requirements of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25-981(a)(3) Amendment 25-125 and 25-

901(c) Amendment 25-126 for the 737-600/-700/-800/-900/-900ER airplanes. The 

exemption, if granted, would allow the planned changes to the Fuel Quantity Indication 

System (FQIS).

This request, which you submitted to the Department of Transportation’s Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS), has been given Docket No. FAA-2012-1137. We are in the 

process of reviewing your request, and will contact you if we need additional information.

A summary of your petition will be published in the Federal Register for public comment, in 

accordance with the requirements of § 11.85. You will be advised of the agency's decision 

on your petitions as soon as possible.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Mike Dostert by phone at 425-227-2132 or by e-mail at mike.dostert@faa.gov.

Sincerely,

Theresa White

Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service