alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The State



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 12, 20 14

N o. 04

- 14

- 00285

- CR

Jason Clay DOTSON

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR10439

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

We grant appellant’s motion for extension of time to respond to this court’s order dated

August 21, 2014. We order appellant must file, by September 22, 2014, either proof that court

reporter Herminia Torres has been paid to prepare the record or that appellant is entitled to the

record without prepayment of the reporter’s fee. Appellant is advised that no further extensions

of time to respond will be granted.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of September, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted for the
Consolidated Financial Statements of AMC Entertainment Inc. as of and for the
fifty-two weeks ended April 2, 1998, submitted in response to the requirements
to Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-1998
<CASH>                                           9,881
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,028
<ALLOWANCES>                                       706
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,645
<PP&E>                                         895,749
<DEPRECIATION>                                 333,591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 795,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          173,836
<BONDS>                                        399,595
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,200
<COMMON>                                        13,595
<OTHER-SE>                                     124,660
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   795,780
<SALES>                                        256,017
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               846,795
<CGS>                                           42,062
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  685,540
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               117,115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,679
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (41,099)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (16,600)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,499)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,499)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.59)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ESTATE OF JOHN J. THOMAS,

DECEASED

PETITION OF: TIMOTHY J. UNGAREAN :

:

:

:

: No. 202 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of December, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
October 24, 2017

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DOMONIQUE GIBSON, Appellant

NO. 14-17-00797-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The 

record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
No. 96-5662.

#### Meadows *v.*Hayling et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Dean & Kite Co. *v.*United States and United States *v.*Dean & Kite Co.

No. 6916.

Entry No. 31, etc.

Invoices dated Stoke on Trent, England, June 1943, etc.

Certified June 1943, etc.

Entered at Cincinnati, Ohio, August 2, 1943, etc.

(Decided February 24, 1947)

*Tompkins & Tompkins {J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the importer.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the United States.

Olives, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            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 Electronic Clearing House, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joel M.
Barry, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (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.


/s/ Joel M. Barry



Joel M. Barry
Chief Executive Officer
December 26, 2003


<PAGE>
No. 46565.

#### Protests 14873-K, etc., of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise in question was held dutiable as follows: (1) whistling balloons, rubber or feather balloons, and noisemakers, at 45 percent under paragraph 409, as articles composed in part of bamboo, Abstract 40493 followed; (2) siren whistles and kazoos at 45 percent under paragraph 397, Abstracts 39948, 40480, 44122, and 32264 followed; and (3) fur dogs or fur animals at 50 percent-under paragraph 1519 (e) following Abstract 41823. Protests sustained in part.
Before the Third Division,

October 2, 1943

No. 48820.

#### Protests 813151-G, etc., of Central Vermont Railway, Inc., et al. (St. Albans and St. Louis).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in, Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Before the Second Division,

January 30, 1939

No. 40553.

#### Protest 970963-G of Karavan Trading Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the goods consist of pillow covers composed of pressed felt in chief value of wool similar to the merchandise involved in *United States*v. *Field*(18 C. C. P. A. 228, T. D. 44404). The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1120 was therefore sustained.
Federal Aviation Administration 

### ECi AD – Additional failures reported by RAM AircraftFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Aero CenterFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Bismark Air MedicalFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Ahler AviationFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Avolar CorpFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Business

AviationFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
SATsAIR LLCFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Van Air AviationFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Athens TurbopropFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
National AviationFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
El Paso JetFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Pickett IndustriesFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Star AviationFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Aviation PartsFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures McCreey AviationFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
El Paso JetFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures Rushing AviationFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Salem Air CenterFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Ahlers AviationFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
JS Aircraft LeasingFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Mather AviationFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures Henry AviationFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures Colgan Air ServiceFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Oneill AircraftFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Peter SerodinoFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
THIFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Broom Air MaintenanceFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures Tri City AviationFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures Best Storage IncFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
JS Aircraft LeasingFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Air PowerFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Air Tech IncFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures Jay Aircraft MaintenanceFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Bromma Air MaintenanceFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Executive Air TaxiFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Executive Air TaxiFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures Quality Aircraft ServicesFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Midlantic Jet AviatoinFederal Aviation Administration Additional Failures
Butler Aviation
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

G.W. Peoples Contracting Co., Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62063

- ADR

)

Under Contract No. FQ14103 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Andrew N. Cook, Esq.

Christopher C. Vandervoort, Esq.

Amy Conant Hoang

, Esq.

K & L Gates LLP

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE AUTHORITY : Jon B. Crocker, Esq.

Chief Counsel, Contracts

Washington Metropolitan Area

Transit Authority

Washington, DC

Attison L. Barnes, III, Esq.

Christopher M. Mills, Esq.

Wiley Rein LLP

Washington, DC

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Each

party shall bear its own fees and costs.

Dated: May 11, 2021

CHRISTOPHER M. MCNULTY

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals2 I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62063

- ADR

, Appeal of G.W.

Peoples Contracting Co., Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: May 12, 2021

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Brian J. Hayden, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of thefinancial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.      March 16, 2007
Case No. 10,095.

#### The NELLIE.

[Blatckf. Pr. Cas. *553]*
      *1*

District Court. S. D. New York.

Oct. 14, 1863.

Prize —Violation op Blockade —Additional Proof.

In this case, no witnesses having been sent in with the vessel, and no reason being furnished for not producing them, and the commander of the capturing vessel being examined by order of the court, but not furnishing any proof of any violation of the blockade, or that the captured property was enemy property, the court ordered the case to stand over for further nroof as to the criminality of the vessel, and in order that the nbs»nce of all evidence from on board of her might be accounted for, aiid allowed six months time for that purpose.

In admiralty.

[Reported by Samuel Blatchford. Esq.]

BETTS, District Judge.

This vessel and cargo were captured at sea, about 25 miles northeast from Port Royal, South Carolina, March 29, 1863, by a United States ship-of-war. The vessel was, by due valuation and course of procedure, taken for the use of the United States at the time, and the cargo was *1309sent to this port for adjudication. Due service and return of the warrant of attachment and of the monition were made; and, no one intervening in defence of the action, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was regularly entered, by default, against the vessel and cargo.

In the absence of other witnesses in the case, John J. Almy was, by order of the court, examined in preparatorio in the cause. He testifies that he was present at the capture of the Nellie at sea; that she had no papers on board; that she was captured because she was found at sea without papers; that her master acknowledged that he had run the blockade out of Charleston with her, and was bound to Nassau; that the capture was made by the United States ship-of-war under command of the witness; that the vessel carried about 75 bales of cotton; and that. her master' said he came out of Charleston and was going to Nassau, and knew all about the war. No witnesses were sent in with the captured vessel, nor is any reason furnished for not producing them. No doubt the officer making seizure of a vessel at sea is a competent witness to prove the act of capture, and also circumstances, accompanying the capture, which afford reasonable cause for believing the culpability of the property arrested. No proof is furnished by Captain Almy that the vessel in fact evaded the blockade of Charleston, or that the person who made the declarations testified to has been really master of the Nellie, or that the Nellie or her lading were enemy property. The unseaworthiness of the prize vessel and her appropriation to the use of the United States are, prima facie, adequately authenticated if the prize is shown to have been enemy property at the time or to have violated the blockade.

The case must stand over for further proof as to the criminality of the vessel seized, and in order that the absence of all evidence from on board of her may be accounted for; and it is ordered by the court that the United States be allowed the period of six months from the entry of this decree to produce proof to that end.
1220 L Street, Northwest Thomas M. Gray 

Washington, DC 20005-4070 Regulatory & Scientific Affairs 

Tel 202-682-8479 

Fax 202-682-8031 

E-mail grayt@api.org

May 4, 2010 

Karl Simon 

Division Director, CISD 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 6406J 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

RE: 

• Range Finding Tolerance Study for the Developmental Toxicity Evaluation of Inhaled 

Gasoline Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Vapor Condensate in CD-1 Mice 

• Endpoint Specific Developmental Toxicity Evaluation of Inhaled Gasoline Methyl Tertiary 

Butyl Ether (MTBE) Vapor Condensate in CD-1 Mice 

Dear Mr. Simon: 

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), is 

submitting the following final reports: 

• Range Finding Tolerance Study for the Developmental Toxicity Evaluation of Inhaled 

Gasoline Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Vapor Condensate in CD-1 Mice (RTI 

0209189.000) 

• Endpoint Specific Developmental Toxicity Evaluation of Inhaled Gasoline Methyl Tertiary 

Butyl Ether (MTBE) Vapor Condensate in CD-1 Mice (RTI 09189.000) 

The RG sponsored these studies as a follow-up to the developmental toxicity study conducted with the 

same test material within the CAA 211(b) testing program. These studies, though outside of the scope of 

the CAA 211(b) testing requirements, have undergone independent peer and EPA review. The RG found 

EPA’s comments, dated 30 June 2006, helpful and thanks the agency for reviewing reports outside of the 

required mandate. 

If you require further information, please contact me. 

Regards, 

Thomas M. Gray, M.S., DABT 

Regulatory and Scientific Affairs 

Encl (2): 

• Final Report: Range Finding Tolerance Study for the Developmental Toxicity Evaluation of 

Inhaled Gasoline Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Vapor Condensate in CD-1 Mice (RTI 

0209189.000) 

• Final Report: Endpoint Specific Developmental Toxicity Evaluation of Inhaled Gasoline 

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Vapor Condensate in CD-1 Mice (RTI 09189.000) 

cc: Joe Sopata, EPA
No. 44413.

#### Protests 33714-K, etc., of J. S. Hoffman Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that 10 percent allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatinous material in question.
**-  Southern Plains  
-  Woodward, Oklahoma 
Printable VersionE-mail this pageThis site onlyAll ARS Advanced Search  UBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">		You are here: 						Research / 																				**Research Project:**Monitoring Climatic Changes in Central Oklahoma
**Location: Woodward, Oklahoma**
**2008 Annual Report**
**1a.Objectives (from AD-416)**													Monitor weather and climatic conditions across a network of locations in Oklahoma.						
**1b.Approach  (from AD-416)**													The Oklahoma Mesonet will be given space for a research quality meteorological station and access to site.  The Station is already in place.						
**3.Progress Report**													Under this cooperative agreement, the SPRRS provided land space for an environmental monitoring station (Mesonet) operated by the OCS.  The OCS receives observations from the Mesonet, verifies the quality of the data and provides the data to customers. It only takes 5 to 10 minutes from the time the measurements are acquired until they become available to the public.  The SPRRS uses the local Mesonet data to help interpret biological and agricultural data collected near the Mesonet site and in journal publications. Monthly summaries of local Mesonet data are down loaded to verify cooperation.  Mesonet data is accessible on the World Wide Web at http://www.mesonet.org.						
    Project TeamGunter, Stacey  
Project Annual Reports FY 2009 FY 2008 Publications  Publications 
Related National Programs Rangeland, Pasture, and Forages(215) Plant Genetic Resources, Genomics and Genetic Improvement(301)  							Last Modified: 05/10/2010 		ARS Home |USDA.gov |Site Map |Policies and Links FOIA |Accessibility Statement |Privacy Policy |Nondiscrimination Statement |Information Quality |USA.gov |White House

**
(Reap. Dec. 9148)

#### J. & L. Brenes Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 909931.

(Decided May 14, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

*821Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain toys and so-called gift articles exported from Germany and entered at the port of New York. The item in dispute is identified on the invoice as “Land Freight.” It was deducted by plaintiff on entry and added back by the appraiser and included in the appraised value of the merchandise.

When the case was called for trial, it was submitted by the sole owner of the plaintiff company on his following statement:

> I deducted the inland freight from the dutiable amount because since the station, Salzburg, where I bought the merchandise, lies on the Austrian-German border and the inland freight was paid to the German territory until the port of Hamburg. So I thought I have the right to deduct the land freight because it is not in Austria through the territory of Germany.

The foregoing statement is wholly insufficient, and there is nothing in the official papers to overcome the statutory presumption of correctness that is attached to the value found by the appraiser (28 U. S. C. § 2633). Accordingly, I hold the appraised value to be the proper value of this merchandise. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.