alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Daniel Cleaves *versus*Daniel W. Lord.

A judgment rendered in the Supreme Court of Massachusetts upon a writ served on the defendant personally in that jurisdiction, and in which he appeared and pleaded to the merits, is entitled to the same faith and credit as judgments rendered within our own jurisdiction, although at the time of the service of the writ, on which there was no attachment, both the parties were and still are citizens of this state.

Reported by Goodenow, J., sitting at *Nisi Prius.*

*Eastman & Leland,*counsel for the plaintiff,

in support of the action, cited Con. TT. S., art. 4, sec. 1; 17 Mass. R., Com. v. Greene, 521; 13 Pick., 53 ; McRea v. Mattoon, 1 Pick., 435; 12 Mass., 269 ; Story’s Con. of Laws, 453, 457; Lovejoy v. Albee, 33 Maine R., 449; 31 Maine R., 314; 21 Pick., 535 ; 5 Pick., 360, 366; 9 Mass., 462 ; 29 Maine R., 19; 10 Maine R., 291.

*E. Bourne,*counsel for defendant.

*291Davis, J.

The case at bar is debt on a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Both of the parties, at the time when the original suit was commenced, were, and still are, citizens of this state. And the defendant now contends that the Supreme Court of that state had no jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties; and that the judgment is therefore invalid.

Whether the judgment would have been valid if the defendant had not appeared and recognized the jurisdiction of that court, is not a question submitted to us. But though no property of the defendant was attached, it appears from the record that he was personally served with process when within that jurisdiction, that he appeared in defence, that he pleaded to the merits, and that the judgment was rendered upon the verdict of a jury, on the issue tendered by him and joined by the plaintiff. Upon these facts we are of opinion that the courts of this state are bound to give the same faith and credit to that judgment as to judgments rendered within our own jurisdiction. Hall v. Williams, 10 Maine R., 278; Middlesex Bank v. Butman, 29 Maine R., 19.

*Judgment for Plaintiff.*
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50789 c/w No. 13

- 50798 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. MARIO GRANJENO

- ESPANOL , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:13

- CR

- 406

- 1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mario Granjeno

- Espanol appeals the 46

- month within

- guidelines sentence imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation. He argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable and greater than necessary to m eet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) . He asserts that the Guidelines failed to account for his personal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 3, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50789 Document: 00512584658 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2014No. 13

- 50789 c/w No. 13

- 50798 history and circumstances, including that he supports his five children and his two elderly parents, that he has mainly lived a law abiding life, and t hat he has only one prior conviction for which he has served his sentence. He contends that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 double counted his prior conviction and overstated the seriousness of his criminal history

. He maintains that the presumption of reasonableness s hould not apply to his sentence because § 2L1.2 is not supported by empirical data , but acknowledges that the argument is foreclosed by United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529

- 31 (5th Cir. 2009)

. Although Granjeno

- Espanol acknowledges that this court a pplies plain error review when a defendant fails to object to the reasonableness of the sentence , he contends that the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion

. Because he did not object to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence in the dis trict court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Peltier , 505 F.3d 389, 391

- 92 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court considered Granjeno

- Espanol’s request for a downward variance and ultimately determined that a sentence at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range was appropriate under the circumstances and the § 3553(a) factors. Granjeno

- Espanol’s arguments that that § 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis, double counts his criminal history, and overstates the seriousness of his criminal h istory, and that the Guidelines did not take into account his personal history and characteristics, are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez

- Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 565

- 66 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Rodriguez , 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir. 2008). Therefore, Granjeno

- Espanol has failed to show that his 46

- month within

- guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable, and there is no reversible plain error. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-50789 Document: 00512584658 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2014
No. 46560.

#### Protests 60534-K, etc., of Geo. Borgfeldt Corp. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the manger sets in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *315Abstract 45502 they were found to be entireties and held dutiable as in chief value of papier-máché at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1403, Tariff Act of 1930, as claimed.
# C_2013189EN.01000301.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia (Italy) lodged on 29 March 2013 — Idrodinamica Spurgo Velox and Others v Acquedotto Pugliese SpA

(Case C-161/13)

2013/C 189/04

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Idrodinamica Spurgo Velox and Others

Applicants:

Defendants: Acquedotto Pugliese SpA

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 1, 2a, 2c and 2f of Directive 1992/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that time for the purposes of bringing proceedings for a declaration that there has been an infringement of the rules governing the award of public procurements contracts runs from the date on which the applicant became aware — or, through the exercise of ordinary diligence, ought to have become aware — of the existence of that infringement? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 1, 2a, 2c and 2f of Directive 1992/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that time for the purposes of bringing proceedings for a declaration that there has been an infringement of the rules governing the award of public procurements contracts runs from the date on which the applicant became aware — or, through the exercise of ordinary diligence, ought to have become aware — of the existence of that infringement?

1

| 2. | Do Articles 1, 2a, 2c and 2f of Directive 1992/13/EEC preclude provisions of national procedural law, or interpretative practices, [...] which allow the court to declare inadmissible an action for a declaration that there has been an infringement of the rules governing the award of public contracts, where, as a result of the conduct of the contracting authority, the applicant became aware of the infringement after the formal communication of the essential elements of the decision definitively awarding the contract? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Articles 1, 2a, 2c and 2f of Directive 1992/13/EEC preclude provisions of national procedural law, or interpretative practices, [...] which allow the court to declare inadmissible an action for a declaration that there has been an infringement of the rules governing the award of public contracts, where, as a result of the conduct of the contracting authority, the applicant became aware of the infringement after the formal communication of the essential elements of the decision definitively awarding the contract?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ1992 L 76, p. 14).

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20348]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,256]

Diversey Corporation, Industry, California; Notice of Termination 
of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on March 3, 1997, in response to a worker petition which 
was signed February 9, 1997, on behalf of workers at Diversey 
Corporation located in City of Industry, California (TA-W-33,256).
    The Department has been unable to locate the company official in 
order to obtain the data necessary to issue a worker group 
determination. Consequently, further investigation in this case is not 
possible, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 15th day of July 1997.
Curtis K. Kooser,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-20348 Filed 7-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of
Planar Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 25, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott Hildebrandt, Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|    |  |                                                             
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /S/    SCOTT
HILDEBRANDT                                    
|    |  | Scott Hildebrandt Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: December 1, 2009
#### Nicholas Gal et al. *v.*United States

No. 6005.

Invoices dated Teningen, Germany, July 25, 1936, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 13, 1936, etc.

Entry Nos. 719250/2, etc.

(Decided on rehearing (Reap. Dec. 5995) May 12, 1944)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and. made a part hereof, were previously the subject of decision in the case of *Nicholas Gal et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 5995, wherein it was held:

> 

> (5) That the proper basis for appraisement for said merchandise is export value, as such value is defined in section 402 (d) of the said act.

> (6) That such dutiable export values of the varieties of aluminum metal covered paper in question are the entered values, plus selling commission as invoiced.

Counsel for the plaintiffs herein filed a timely motion for a rehearing which was granted on May 11, 1944.

In plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of the motion for rehearing it is noted that the motion was directed solely to finding of fact (6) of my original decision, previously quoted, contending that inasmuch as the invoiced and entered unit prices were all f. o. b. duty-paid prices, and the court having found that export values for the involved merchandise had been established, and further found the item of selling commission to be part of such export values, that the item of selling commission should not have been added to the entered values in determining the export values, but that the finding should have been stated as follows:

> That such dutiable export values of the varieties of aluminum metal covered paper in question are the invoice values, less transportation charges, insurance, and consular fees, as invoiced, and less duties.

Upon reconsideration, I am now of the opinion, and so hold, that finding of fact (6) of my previous decision, *supra,*should be amended so as to read:

> (6) That such dutiable export values of the varieties of aluminum metal covered paper in question are the invoice values, less insurance, freight to German ship-ing port, consular charges, and sea freight, as invoiced, and less duties.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case No. 9,362.

#### MAZE v. MILLER.

[1 Wash. C. C. 328.]1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. Term, 1806.

Payment — Receipt—Effect of — Notes—Received in Satisfaction — Notice.

1. A receipt for so much money, is only evidence of a payment which may be explained by parol, or other proof.

[Cited in Frick v. Algeier. 87 Ind. 256. Approved in Ryan v. Rand. 26 N. H. 15. Cited in Kelly v. Perseverance Bld’g Ass’n, 39 Pa. St. 151.]

2. If the payment acknowledged in the receipt. turn out to be a note. bill, or the like: and. if the same were not paid or received in satisfaction. and turn out unproductive, it is no payment.

[Cited in Re Hurst, Case No. 6.925.]

[Cited in First Nat. Bank of Pueblo v. Newton. 10 Colo. 161. 14 Pac. 433; Frick v. Algeier, 87 Ind. 256.]

3. In order to make such bill or note a payment. it- is necessary that it be received in satisfaction, and the receiver to run all risks; or, where the receiver has made it his own, by neglecting to give notice.

See Carth. 238, note. A receipt in full, with full notice, is a discharge. Esp. 174, cited by the counsel, in favour of this motion.

A rule was obtained to set aside an execution issued against the defendant, upon the ground, that the judgment was satisfied by a note of hand, given by the defendant, with an endorser, and a receipt by the plaintiff’s attorney in fact, endorsed on the power of attorney, and given up to defendant, as follows: “Received from J. Miller, the sum of 1177 dollars, being in full, including costs and expenses of property he sold in Alexandria, belonging to J. Maze.”

The note when it became due, having been protested, and the defendant having become insolvent, the plaintiff sued out execution of the judgment, to set aside which this motion was made. The affidavit of the plaintiff’s attorney, proves that he did not receive the note as a satisfaction of the debt or judgment, and that it was not paid as such, or so intended by defendant, as he believes;' and that no agreement was made, tending to show such an intention. The defendant’s attorney stated, that when the, negotiation was made, respecting the note, he never thought upon the subject, whether the payment was to operate as a satisfaction, or merely as a collateral security.

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

After stating the above facts, the rules of law applicable to this case are, that the receipt of so much is only evidence of a payment and satisfaction, and may be explained by parol, or other evidence. This was gone into, and we find that the note was neither paid nor received as satisfaction; but, to constitute a good plea of accord and satisfaction, both should be averred. The plaintiff, then, received a note, which proved unproductive; and it is clear, that it was no satisfaction of this debt, or a discharge of the judgment, unless it were received as such, and the party agreed to run all risks; or, by his after conduct, made it his own. Rule discharged.
EXHIBIT 32.1

NOBEL LEARNING COMMUNITIES, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

In connection with the Annual Report of Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George Bernstein, as Chief
Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the dates and periods
covered by the Report.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |     |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: September 10, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/    George Bernstein
|                         |  |     |  | George Bernstein       
|                         |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit
      32.2**





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350)





I,
      Michael A. Reisner, Director, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
      Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of ICON Capital Corp.,
      the General Partner of the Registrant in connection with the Quarterly Report
      of
      ICON Income Fund Eight B L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q/A for the period
      ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report") certify, pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





1.
            The
                Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                13(a) or
                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m);
                and





2.
            The
                information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
                all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                of
                the Partnership.








*Dated:
      December 11, 2007*





*/s/Michael A. Reisner*


Michael
      A. Reisner


Director,
      Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the General
      Partner


(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)


ICON
      Capital Corp.


General
      Partner of ICON Income Fund Eight B L.P.
No. 44389.

#### Protest 12534-K of Orient (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The evidence established that the pajamas in question are in part of braid. The claim at 90 percent under paragraph 1529 (a) was therefore sustained.
#### PIERCE, WULBERN, MURPHEY, INC., a Florida Corporation, and Edward S. Redington, Trustee in Liquidation for Weis Securities, Inc., Appellants, v. CONSURGICO CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. DD-44.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 1, 1977.

Edna Wilson, Dixon, Shear, Brown & Stephenson, Tampa, for appellants.

William P. Thorpe, McClintock, Donovan, Carson & Roach, Detroit, Mich., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, plaintiffs in the trial court, appeal from a summary final judgment in favor of the defendant there. The learned trial judge wrote an extensive explanatory summary final judgment which recites the uncontroverted facts and reasons for his conclusion that a summary judgment was required. Nothing will be added to the jurisprudence of Florida by repetition here.

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-11-00440- CV Irving Q. Hu rdle, Jr., Appellant

v. F reder ich J. Bin gham , Appellee F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 2 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CV- 11- 0006 78, H ONO RAB LE ERIC SH EP P ERD, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Irving Q. Hurdle, J r. no longe r wishes to pursue this appea l and has filed a m o t i o n t o dismiss . Hurdle’ s counsel states that he has confe rre d with counsel for Fr ederich J . Bingham, who does not oppose this moti on. We gr ant Hurdle ’s motion and dismiss the appe al. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

____________________________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: De cembe r 16, 2011
# C_2015213EN.01002001.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, intervention: Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-320/13) (1)

1

(2015/C 213/30)

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.

1

---
Before the Second Division,

February 27, 1940

No. 43275.

#### Protests 921440-G, etc., of New World Sun Daily (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

The exhibits are directories in the Japanese and English languages. It was found that they are printed chiefly in the English language. The claim for free entry under paragraph 1630 was therefore overruled. On the authority of *United States*v. *American Railway Express Co.*(17 C. C. P. A. 10, T. D. 43317) the claim as books of foreign authorship at 15 percent under paragraph 1410 was sustained.