alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Winter Wolff & Co. *v.*United States

No. 5973.

Invoices dated Kreuzlingen, Switzerland, February 7, 1939, etc. .

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 27, 1939, etc.

Entry No. 805858, etc.

(Decided January 11, 1944)

*■Strauss & Hedges (Eugene F. Blauvelt*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, 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 by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto: i

> That the merchandise represented,by the items marked A and initialed *FCG*by Examiner *F. C. Guerriero,*covered by the appeals to reappraisement enumerated above, consists of aluminum foil exported from Switzerland, and that as to the items so marked the merchandise and the issues involved in the reappraise-ments listed above are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues involved in *United States*v. *New England Foil Corp.,*Reap. Dec. 5856; that such or similar merchandise was at or about the time of exportation of the merchandise covered by this stipulation sold and freely offered for sale in the principal markets of Switzerland to all purchasers in the ordinary course of trade, packed ready for shipment, in the usual wholesale quantities, for exportation to the United States at the values at which said merchandise was entered, less any additions made by the importer because of advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal to reappraisement.

> It is further stipulated that the record in *United States*v. *New England Foil Corp.,*Reap. Dec. 5856, be incorporated herein and that the appeals covered hereby are submitted on this stipulation.

> That the instant appeals to reappraisement are abandoned as to all other merchandise.

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 represented by the items marked A and initialed FCG by Examiner F. C. Guerriero, and that such values are the entered values, less any additions made by the importer because of advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement, there being no foreign value.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all ■other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.-

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# U.S. Army North helping coordinate Hurricane Florence relief efforts

By Joe LacdanArmy News Service

                FORT BRAGG, North Carolina  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Joint Base San Antonio website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Hurricane FlorenceU.S. Army North (Fifth Army)North Carolinanational guardNorth Carolina National GuardSouth Carolina National GuardTask Force 51
```

[Federal Register: April 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 82)]
[Notices]               
[Page 22577]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29ap10-50]                         

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

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

 
Proposed Notice and Comment Policy Version 2.0

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Notice and request for public comment on Proposed Notice and 
Comment Policy 2.0.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) seeks public 
comment on the Proposed Notice and Comment Policy 2.0. EAC's current 
Notice and Comment Policy is to provide effective notice for a period 
of public comment on all policies being considered for adoption by the 
EAC, that are not subject to notice and comment under any Federal 
statute. The policy requires action within specified time periods to 
permit as much public notice as possible. Because of the firm 
deadlines, the current policy limits EAC's ability to address the rare 
situations that require swift action. The proposed policy amends the 
Notice and Comment policy to provide for unforeseeable circumstances 
that may require deviation from the default timelines indicated.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before 4 p.m. EDT on 
June 1, 2010.
    Comments: Public comments are invited on the information contained 
in the policy. Comments on the proposed policy should be submitted 
electronically to HAVAcomments@eac.gov. Written comments on the 
proposed policy can also be sent to the U.S. Election Assistance 
Commission, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005, 
ATTN: Proposed Notice and Comment Policy.
    Obtaining a Copy of the Policy: To obtain a free copy of the 
policy: (1) Access the EAC Web site at http://www.eac.gov; (2) write to 
the EAC (including your address and phone number) at U.S. Election 
Assistance Commission, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 300, 
Washington, DC 20005, ATTN: Proposed Notice and Comment Policy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Guggenheim or Tamar Nedzar, 
Election Assistance Commission, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 300, 
Washington, DC 20005; Telephone: 202-566-3100.

Donetta L. Davidson,
Chair, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-9914 Filed 4-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
```
No. 39217.

#### Protest 941339-G of T. E. Woodhull (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the chicken rings in question are the same as those passed upon in *United States*v. *Perry*(25 C. C. P. A. 282, T. D. 49395). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1604 was therefore sustained.
No. 46540.

#### Protests 11678-K, etc., of E. de Grandmont, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2013164EN.01001203.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/12

---

Action brought on 17 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

(Case C-203/13)

2013/C 164/23

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, M. Heller and P. Mihaylova, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Article 3(7) of, and the second subparagraph of point 1(a), and points 1(b), (c), (d), (f), (h) and (i) of Annex I to, Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of such provisions, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Article 3(7) of, and the second subparagraph of point 1(a), and points 1(b), (c), (d), (f), (h) and (i) of Annex I to, Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of such provisions, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that directive;

1

| — | impose on the Republic of Bulgaria, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify the Commission of the measures transposing Directive 2009/72/EC at the daily rate of EUR 8 448 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose on the Republic of Bulgaria, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify the Commission of the measures transposing Directive 2009/72/EC at the daily rate of EUR 8 448 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

| — | order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the adoption of measures to transpose the directive expired on 3 March 2011.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.

1

---
#### United States *v.*Frank P. Dow Co., Inc.

No. 5969.

Invoice dated Yokohama, Japan, September 21, 1939.

Entered at Seattle, Wash., October 10, 1939.

Entry No. 1580.

(Decided December 23, 1943)

*Paul P, Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I.' Auster,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Sharretts & Hillis (Edward P. Sharretts*of counsel) for the defendant.

*345Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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 at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar articles were 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, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of 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, as follows:

> Item No. 203/71432 at yen 13 per gross, packed, less inland freight.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value of the merchandise herein at the time of exportation, and that this case may be submitted on the foregoing 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 merchandise here involved, and that such value is as follows:

Item No. 203/71432 Yen 13 per gross, packed, less inland freight.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2013156EN.01002401.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 29 March 2013 — Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav d. d.

(Case C-162/13)

2013/C 156/37

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Damijan Vnuk

Applicant:

Defendant: Zavarovalnica Triglav d. d.

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the concept of ‘the use of vehicles’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC (1) of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, be interpreted as not extending to the circumstances of the present case, in which the person insured by the defendant struck the applicant’s ladder with a tractor towing a trailer while hay was being stored in a hayloft, on the basis that the incident did not occur in the context of a road traffic accident?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1.

1

---
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-1014 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-058-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 19 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an undetected flight display error of a 

slow drift in the roll axis, disorientation of the pilot, and subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $2,560

Labor per Helicopter

(16 x $85/work-hour for 

the installation)

$1,360

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $3,920

Total US Fleet Cost $74,480

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Mark F. Wiley
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Capabilities on Display | 3rd Medical Battalion Establishes Role II Facilities

By Lance Cpl. Mark Fike3rd Marine Logistics Group

                CAMP FOSTER, Okinawa, Japan  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

MedicalcamouflagetextilestentsCamp Foster3rd Marine Logistics Group Marines3rd Medical Battalion
(Reap. Dec. 9146)

#### Jacob Sohnen & Sons Feather Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 886222.

(Decided on rehearing [Reap. Dec. 8592] May 6, 1958)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter (Joseph F. Donohue*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This case was originally decided June 15, 1956, in 36 Oust. Ct. 604, Reap. Dec. 8592, and thereafter a petition for rehearing was filed and granted. The case was thereupon placed upon the trial calendar and regularly called for trial after having been set for hearing in open court when counsel for both parties were present. When the case was called for trial there was no appearance by the plaintiff or its counsel. The court thereupon ordered the case resubmitted upon the record previously made, no additional evidence having been introduced.

Inasmuch as the record now before the court is in all respects the same as the record upon which the decision and judgment hereinbefore referred to were based, there appears no reason why the said decision and judgment should be in any way changed.

I, therefore, find and hold that the proper value of the involved merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser for the reasons set forth in the original decision herein.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Inter-Maritime Fwdg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6213.

Invoices dated Hawick, Scotland, February 1942, etc.

Certified February 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 20, 1942, etc.

Entry No. 743211, etc.

(Decided August 29, 1945).

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

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

Cole, Judge:

The issues involved in these appeals for reappraisement of wool wearing apparel are concededly the same as those decided in *United States*v. *Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc.,*32 C. C. P. A. 187, C. A. D. 305, the record in which case has been incorporated herein by consent of the parties.

*422The incorporated case found cost of production, section 402 (f).of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (f)), to be the proper basis for appraisement, and held that 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,” was not an item to be included in the “usual general expenses” contemplated within subdivision (2) of section 402 (f), *supra,*and therefore not to be calculated in determining such statutory value.

On the agreement of counsel — set forth in the stipulation of submission filed August 20, 1945 — that the several elements entering into the statutory cost of production of the items in question is equal to the appraised values thereof, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, I hold such values to be the cost of production, section 402 (f), *supra,*which I find to be the. proper basis for appraisement, of the instant merchandise.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 01

– 14

– 00703

– CV

_______________________________________________________________

IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

______________________________________________________________

CHRISTOPH HENKEL,

Appellant,

v.

EMJO INVESTMENTS, LTD. and H.J. VON DER GOLTZ,

Appellees.

_______________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 215th District Court of Harris County, Texas,

Hon. Elaine H. Palmer, presiding

Trial Court Cause No. 2011

– 44058

__________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

Charles Eskridge

Texas Bar No. 06666350

charleseskridge@quinnemanuel.com

Emily Smith

Texas Bar No. 24083876

emilysmith@quinnemanuel.com

711 Louisiana Street, Suite 500

Houston, TX 77002

Telephone: 713.221.7000

Facsimile: 713.221.7100 ACCEPTED

01-14-00703

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

10/2/2015 12:39:00 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK2

Appellant Christoph Henkel files this Notice of Appearance in accordance

with T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.1 and hereby notifies the Court and all parties of record that

the follo wing attorneys are appearing for Appellant in the above

- referenced matter

and should be added to any electronic notices :

Charles Eskridge

Texas Bar No. 06666350

charleseskridge@quinnemanuel.com

Emily Smith

Texas Bar No. 20483876

emilysmith@quinnemanuel.co m

Charles Eskridge shall be designated as lead counsel for Appellant.

Respectfully submitted,

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHA RT &

SULLIVAN, LLP

By: /s/ Charles Eskridge

Charles Eskridge

Texas Bar No. 06666350

Emily Smith

Texas Bar No. 204838 76

711 Louisiana Street, Suite 500

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 221

– 7000

(713) 221

– 7200 Fax3 AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS,

ALAVI & MENSING, P.C.

By: /s/ Jane Langdell Robinson

Jane Langdell Robinson

Texas Bar No. 24062970

Jamie Aycock

Texas Bar N o. 24050241

1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460

Houston, Texas 77010

(713) 655

– 1101

(713) 655

– 0062 Fax

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

CHRISTOPH HENKEL4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

As required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.3 and 9.5(b), (d), (e), I

certify t hat I have served this document on all other parties which are listed below

on October 2, 2015, by the electronic filing manager and/or by facsimile:

F. Eric Fryar

, Texas Bar No. 07495770

eric@fryarlawfirm.com

Matthew Buschi

, Texas Bar No. 24064982

mbusch i@fryarlawfirm.com

Christina Richardson

, Texas Bar No. 24070495

crichardson@fryarlawfirm.com

FRYAR LAW FIRM, P.C.

1001 Texas Avenue , 14th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

Telephone: 281.715.6396

Facsimile: 281.715.6397

ATTORNEYS FOR ALL

INTERVENORS/PLAINTIFFS

Kelley M. Keller

, Texas Bar No. 11198240

kkeller@ellison

- keller.com

Tracey N. Ellison

, Texas Bar No. 15054720

tellison@ellison

- keller.com

ELLISON KELLER

5120 Woodway Drive

, Suite 6019

Houston, Texas 77056

Telephone: 713.266.820

Facsimile: 713.266.8201

ATT ORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

EMJO INVESTMENTS, LTD. AND

H.J. VON DER GOLTZ

/s/ Charles Eskridge

Charles Eskridge