alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 14,639.

#### UNITED STATES v. BRENT.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 525.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1808.

Marshal — Escape of Debtor.

The marshal is liable upon his official bond if he suffers a debtor to escape after arrest upon a ca-pias ad satisfaciendum, although he has him in* court at the returr day.

Debt on the marshal’s official bond.

The facts agreed were that the marshal [D. C. Brent] arrested Jane Burch on a capias ad satisfaciendum at the plaintiff's suit, and voluntarily suffered her to gp out of prison for three days, after which she returned and was discharged under the insolvent act before the return day of the writ

J. Law, for plaintiff

[the United States, for the use of James & Benson McCormick]. After a voluntary escape the sheriff cannot retake the defendant; and whether in custody again or not is of no importance, as the sheriff has made himself liable. 3 Bl. Comm. 415. It is not important whether the escape is before or after the return of the capias ad satisfaciendum. Hawkins v. Plo-mer, 2 V. Bl. 1049; Pitcher v. Bailey, S East, 171.

The law and the form of the capias ad satisfaciendum are the same in Maryland as in England. 1 Har. Ent. 642. So, also, are the forms of the pleadings. The acts of Maryland, 1768 (chapter 10), 1794 (chapter 54), and 1779 (chapter 23), do not alter the law of England.

F. S. Key, and Mr. Morsell, contra.

That part of the common law of England was not adopted in Maryland, because not applicable to the circumstances of the country; there being no jails in Maryland for a long time; and even now there are some counties without public jails.

No case has been produced of such a suit in Maryland. The sheriff there is not considered liablp if he has the body at the return of the capias ad satisfaciendum.

The act of assembly, 1768, c. 10, has pointed- out another Temedy, viz. by judgment against the sheriff on his return.

CRANCH, Chief Judge,

mentioned Judge-Chase’s letter to Mr. Tilghman, October 20„ 1798, in which he says the act 1 Rich. II. e. 12, giving the action of debt for escape of' prisoners in execution, is in force in Maryland.

After consideration, THE COURT, in-April, 1811 (nem, con.), rendered judgment for the plaintiff, observing that the law of •England is admitted, and no practice in Maryland is sufficiently proved to the contrary.
#### O. Maire, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 7917.

Entry No. 719964, etc.

(Decided December 8, 1950)

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

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

Lawbence, Judge:

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

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by each of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the annexed schedule, which is marked “A” and made a part of this decision, was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value in each case, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500),. and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 9686)

#### Fed. Tele. *&*Radio Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 909296, etc.

(Decided April 27, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain telephone apparatus and other equipment exported from Belgium.

By stipulation of the parties hereto, it has been agreed that, on or about the date of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in Belgium either for home consumption or for export to the United States. It was further stipulated and agreed that, on or about that date, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the United States and that the cost of production of said merchandise, as defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(f)), is the invoice unit values, plus 2.91 per centum.

Upon the agreed facts, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f), supra, is the proper basis of value for the telephone apparatus and other equipment in issue and that said value is the invoice unit values, plus 2.91 per centum.

As to any other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 42186.

#### Protests 982679-G, etc., of Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp. et al. (Los-Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstracts' 36724 and 38185 the protests were sustained.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-10932) pertaining tothe 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Global-Tech Appliances Inc. (the “Company”) of our report dated August 31 2002, except for the effects of the restatement detailed in notes 20, 21 and 27, for which the date is July 9, 2003,relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 20-F/A. 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers 

Hong Kong 

 

September 14, 2005
No. 55635.

#### Jones Brothers Co. *v.*United States,

petition 6783-R (Boston).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial petitioner’s witness testified that entry was made at the invoice price; that he understood at that time that the official price of granite for export from Finland had been raised; that no granite was available at that time at the higher price; that it would have taken 4 to 6 months to obtain granite then ordered at the higher price; and that he was advised by counsel that he might use the invoice price. Counsel for the Government stated that according to a report of an investigation made by the Customs Agency at Boston, petitioner had been entirely cooperative with customs officials with respect to this transaction and'had notified them of price changes. On the record presented it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40543-40544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19834]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Boundary Revision; Golden Gate National Recreation Area

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Boundary Revision, Golden Gate National Recreation 
Area.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a revision of the boundaries of Golden 
Gate National Recreation Area to include within the boundaries six 
unimproved parcels of land adjacent to the southwest corner of the 
Presidio of San Francisco along Lobos Creek.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sondra S. Humphries, Chief, Pacific 
Land Resources Program Center at (415) 427-1416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby provided that the 
boundaries of Golden Gate National Recreation Area, established October 
27, 1972, pursuant to Public Law 92-589, 86 Stat. 1299, as amended, are 
revised, effective as of the date of publication of this notice, to 
include all that certain property situated in the City and County of 
San Francisco, State of California, commonly referred to as Assessor's 
Parcels 1338-001, 1338-021, 1339-001, 1341-022, 1341-023, and 1341-024. 
The above parcels owned by four private parties aggregate approximately 
one acre and are identified as tracts 01-144, 01-145, 01-146 and 01-147 
on Sheet 2 of 26, Segment Map 01, Drawing No. 641/80,046, dated April 
2, 1997, and on file at the National Park Service, Pacific Land 
Resources Program Center, 600 Harrison Street, Suite 600, San 
Francisco, California 94107-1372.


[[Page 40544]]


    Dated: April 29, 1997.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 97-19834 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          37,385
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,217
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    157,454
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           7,270
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             7,245
<LOANS>                                        260,116
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 512,361
<DEPOSITS>                                     442,984
<SHORT-TERM>                                    11,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,249
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        58,713
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,585)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 512,361
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,207
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,683
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   607
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,497
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,761
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,952
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,545
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      228
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 267
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    738
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         738
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       738
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.93
<LOANS-NON>                                      9,315
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 3,870
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  9,574
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   854
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      868
<RECOVERIES>                                        18
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,393
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,393
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
No. 99-7747.

#### Barrios *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
----

Form 10-KSB Exhibit 32.3**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350
(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002) 

I, Guangyu Wu, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, asadopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based upona review of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31,2007 of the Registrant (the "Report"): 

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

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

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by theRegistrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request. 
**SIGNATUREDate: April 15, 2008/s/Guangyu Wu                                   Guangyu Wu   Chief Executive Officer
 ******
# C_2013215EN.01000602.xml

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2013 — Holger Priestoph and Others v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-245/13)

2013/C 215/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Holger Priestoph, Matteo Antonio Priestoph, Pia Antonia Priestoph

Applicants:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 [of the European Parliament and] of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service [in the Member States] of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [(service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action — in which a purchaser of bonds issued by the defendant that were in the safe-keeping of S-Broker AG, in the securities account of the applicants, and in respect of which the applicants had not accepted the defendant’s exchange offer made at the end of February 2012, demands compensation for damages in the amount of the difference in value relative to an exchange of the bonds that was nonetheless effected in March 2012 and which was economically disadvantageous for the applicants — is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’ within the meaning of the Regulation?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.

1

---
No. 39175.

#### Protests 837812-G, etc., of Ignaz Strauss & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Kwong*v. *United States*(T. D. 49409) the -wooden stands in question were held dutiable at 33)4 percent ad valorem under paragraph 412 as claimed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,962,426
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,207,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                   360,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,852,120
<PP&E>                                       9,647,327
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,479,891
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,604,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,107,293
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,811,327
<COMMON>                                       182,713
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,631,727
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,604,280
<SALES>                                      2,637,601
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,829,299
<CGS>                                        3,242,556
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,882,703
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               139,063
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               168,336
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              94,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,012,690)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,012,690)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,012,690)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.50)
        

</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

November 5, 1941

No. 46549.

#### Protests 61461-K, etc., of Q. W. Lung Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the crude drugs in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
National Weekly Ag Energy Round-Up USDA Livestock & Grain Market News This Week Last Week Year Ago Internet Report Link Ethanol ($/gal) Iowa 2.53-2.65 2.40-2.50 1.85-2.05 Iowa Ethanol Minnesota 2.65-2.69 2.40-2.55 1.83-1.93 Minnesota Ethanol Nebraska 2.60-2.68 2.40-2.46 1.85-2.00 Nebraska Ethanol South Dakota 2.59-2.63 2.55-2.59 1.80-1.88 South Dakota Ethanol Illinois 2.60-2.68 2.51-2.52 1.92-2.10 Eastern Cornbelt Ethanol Wisconsin

--- --- 1.85-1.95 Wisconsin Ethanol Biodiesel B100 (SME) ($/gal) Iowa 5.52-5.79 5.20-5.69 3.40-3.60 IL/IN/OH 5.73-5.81 5.54-5.69 3.36-3.53 Crude Soybean Oil (cents/lb) Central Illinois 52.69-53.4449.14-50.1440.62-41.72 Central Illinois Soybean Processor Indiana/Ohio 52.69-53.4449.39-50.1440.07-41.82 Iowa 49.87-53.87 48.22-50.22 39.87-41.72 Iowa Soybean Processor Minnesota 53.44-53.94 50.14-50.6440.87-41.12 Minneapolis Soybean Processor Crude Corn Oil (cents/lb) Midwest 54.00-55.00 54.00-55.0045.00-46.00 Central Illinois Corn Processor Inedible Packer Bleachable Tallow ($/cwt) Chicago 47.50 47.50 33.00 Tallows, Proteins and Hides Edible Tallow ($/cwt) Chicago 53.00 53.00

--- Tallows, Proteins and Hides Choice White Grease ($/cwt) Central U.S. 44.00-45.50 44.00 30.00-32.00 Tallows, Proteins and Hides Minneapolis 46.50-46.75 46.50-46.75 31.50-33.50 Minneapolis Weekly Feedstuffs Yellow Grease ($/cwt) Central U.S. 43.25 43.25 28.00 Tallows, Proteins and Hides Minneapolis 44.25-45.5044.25-45.50 28.00-30.00 Minneapolis Weekly Feedstuffs San Joaquin Valley 43.00-44.25 43.00-44.00 23.00-24.50 California Weekly Feedstuffs San Francisco 42.50-45.0042.50-44.25 22.00 California Weekly Feedstuffs Los Angeles 44.25-45.0044.25-44.50 21.50-25.50 California Weekly Feedstuffs Nearby Futures CME Group Ethanol ($/gal) 2.6400 2.4920 1.9880 CME Group CME Group Soybean Oil (cents/lb) 52.20 48.92 43.79 CME Group NYMEX Crude Oil ($/barrel) 84.23 82.57 81.67 CME Group NYMEX RBOB ($/gal) 2.7575 2.6860 2.1180 CME Group NYMEX Natural Gas (mmBtu) 3.5310 3.5980 3.6170 CME Group NYMEX Heating Oil ($/gal) 2.9714 2.8611 2.2518 CME Group USDA Livestock & Grain Market News 210 Walnut Street, Room 767 Email: desm.lgmn@usda.gov Des Moines, Iowa 50309 www.ams.usda.gov/LSMarketNews Fri, Oct 14, 2011

1.35 1.55 1.75 1.95 2.15 2.35 2.55 2.75 2.95 3.15

J F M A M J J A S O N D $/gal Iowa Ethanol

2011 2010 2009

25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00

J F M A M J J A S O N D cents/lb Central Illinois Crude Soybean Oil

2011 2010 2009

10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00

J F M A M J J A S O N D $/cwt Central U.S. Choice White Grease

2011 2010 2009
#### Waterville Iron Manufacturing Company *versus*Daniel Goodwin.

No action will lie on a judgment of a justice of the peace, the record of' which does not show that the defendant was served with process, without proof of such service.

This action, which is debt on a judgment of a justice of the peace, comes before the full court on Eeport by the Chief Justice, and all the facts fully appeal’ in the opinion of the court.

*Wm. Folsome,*counsel for the plaintiffs.

*D. D. Stewart,*counsel for the defendant.

Appleton, J.

This is an action of debt upon a judgment of a justice of the peace. In the record of that judgment-*432there is no reference to the writ in the action, nor does it appear therein that there was any service on or appearance by the defendant. The plaintiff has not produced a copy of the original writ, nor shown service upon the defendant, nor has he moved for leave for the magistrate before whom the default was entered, to amend his record, so that the fact of service; if it" existed, might appear of record. Now no principle of law is better settled than that no presumptions are to be made in favor of courts of limited jurisdiction. In Rosseler v. Peck, 3 Gray, 538, it was held that *“*no action will lie on- a judgment of a justice of the peace, the record of which does not show that the defendant was served with process, without proof of such process.”

It in no way appearing that there was ever any service made upon the defendant in the action, the judgment in which is now sought to-be enforced, the plaintiff fails to make out his case.

By the agreement of parties, a nonsuit must be entered.

*Plaintiff Nonsuit.*
Before the Third Division,

February 28, 1940

No. 43292.

#### Protest 946882-G of Daniel F. Young, Inc. (New York).

*406Opinion by

Cline, J.

The shipment consisted of four bales of rugs and one case of silverware. No competent testimony was introduced in support of the claims made and the customs regulations were not complied with. *Brummer Gallery*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 95) and *Laughlin*v. *United States*(T. D. 47509) cited. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
No. 48915.

#### Protest 69001-K of New York Mdse. Co., Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Plaintiff’s sole witness, manager of. the plaintiff corporation, testified that he and his friends had used these balls to play “catch” at several beaches in California and that the balls, being gas filled, were especially adapted for beach use because they would float in water. He stated he had seen the balls used by both adults and children and he thought they were mainly used by adults, i. e., roughly about 60 percent by adults and 40 percent by children, and added that that was a guess. On cross-examination he testified that he would give this ball to children for amusement, and, further, in answer to the question, “So you could call it a toy?” he answered “One interpretation, yes, s.'r.” *297The court stated the fact that these balls were used for physical exercise would not necessarily deprive them of the designation as toys, as paragraph 1513 specifically provides “whether or not also suitable for physical exercise.” It was found the plaintiff had failed to give any substantial evidence tending to establish that in a large area of the United States these balls were *chiefly*used by adults, and the court did not feel justified in assuming that conditions generally would be the same. The court was further of opinion that there was no testimony before it as to the purpose of the design of these balls, and that the mere use by children would not of itself make an article a toy. Its chief use by children for their amusement must control *(United States*v. *Woolworth,*24 C. C. P. A. 338, T. D. 48770). It was held the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification had not been overcome by the vague and inconclusive testimony of the plaintiff. The protest was therefore overruled. *Morse*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 553, T. D. 41432), *United States*v. *Woolworth*(23 C. C. P. A. 98, T. D. 47765), and *Hawley*v. *United States*(19 id. 47, T. D. 44893) cited.