alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Slip Op. 99 -94 

## UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

: AMERICAN SILICON TECHNOLOGIES, : ELKEM METALS COMPANY, GLOBE : METALLURGICAL, INC., and : SKW METALS & ALLOYS, INC., : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : Before: MUSGRAVE, JUDGE : UNITED STATES, : Court No. 94-09-00555 : Defendant, : : and : : ELETROSILEX BELO HORIZONTE, : : Defendant-Intervenor. : :

ORDER
Upon review of the United States Department of Commerce’s Silicon Metal From Brazil, Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand Court No. 94-09-00555 , filed on November 14, 1997, and Silicon Metal From Brazil, Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, American Silicon Technologies v. United States, Court No. 94-09-00555, Slip Op. 98-22 (March 5, 1998) filed on January 29, 1999, (collectively “remand results”), and the submissions of the parties in proceedings to date, it is herebyCourt No. 94-09-00555 Page 2

ORDERED that both sets of the remand results are sustained as to the determination of the eight issues remanded to Commerce in American Silicon Technologies v. United States , ___ CIT ___, Slip Op. 97-58 (May 15, 1997); and it is further ORDERED that the stay of the three issues remaining in this action is lifted; and it is further ORDERED that, in view of the complexity of what has transpired in this case and other related cases before this Court, the parties shall, submit briefs addressing the three remaining issues, which are (1) calculation of dumping margins based upon sales during the review period in absence of shipment into the U.S., (2) treatment of ICMS and IPI taxes for Companhia Brasilaira Carbureto de Calcio (“CBCC”) and Minasligas, and (3) use of information from Solvay do Brasil’s consolidated financial statements in calculating CBCC’s monthly interest expenses. In particular, the parties’ briefs shall discuss this Court’s holdings in American Silicon Technologies , Court No. 97-02-00267, ___ CIT ___, Slip Op. 99-34 (April 9, 1999), as they relate to the final determination of the these three issues. Plaintiff’s brief shall be filed within 60 days of the date of this order. Defendant and defendant-intervenors shall have 60 days from the date of service of plaintiff’s brief to file response briefs, and plaintiff shall have 25 days from the date of service of the response briefs to file a reply brief.

____________________________________ R. KENTON MUSGRAVE, JUDGE Dated: September 9, 1999 New York, New York
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GRANITE
BROADCASTING CORPORATION 2ND QUARTER 1998 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         6705279
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 34423583
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              61859980
<PP&E>                                        36045578
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               631592060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         25501308
<BONDS>                                      401327362
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        212584440
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        102404
<OTHER-SE>                                  (45116944)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 631592060
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              80459141
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 59429359
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2045198
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            19149038
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (164454)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1696000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1860454)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (4214738)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (6075192)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.91)
        

</TABLE>
#### Nathan Blain *v.*T. D. Grundy.

Replevin — Failure to Execute Bond.

■Where no bond was executed in an action for recovery of specific personal property, as required by Civil Code, a judgment for plaintiff will be reversed.

APPPEAL FROM McCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

September 19, 1873.

*Josh. Harris, Jr., for appellant.*

*B. G. Bidwell, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

This judgment must be reversed. It seems that no bond was executed by the appellant upon the institution of this action in order to obtain possession of the property, nor is there any return .made by the sheriff showing that it was delivered to him. The code of practice provides the manner in which an action shall be brought for the recovery of specific personal property and also the mode of obtaining the possession before the trial.

The action in this case was nothing more than an action of de-tinue under the original form of pleading, and the verdict, if the plaintiff was not the owner of the property, should have been for the defendant. By this judgment the plaintiff is made liable for the debt and damages, whilst the sheriff or the plaintiffs in the execution have possession of the property.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and cause remanded with directions to award to the plaintiff a new trial and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
#### Stephen Treadway *v.*Jas. D. Gray.

Execution — Sheriff’s Return of Sale.

Where a sheriff’s return, which shows that the sale was duly advertised and made at the door of the court house- and states the date upon which the sale was made and notice given, and -shows that the purchaser was the highest and best bidder,, -such facts are all that is necessary for those claiming under his deed to establish by record evidence.

Execution — Selection of Part of Tract for Sale.

Where the execution defendant is not present at the- sale the sheriff has the right to designate out of which portion of the tract he will sell.

APPEAL PROM: MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT .COURT.

June 26, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The tract of fifty acres of land taken under the execution was described with sufficient minuteness to enable persons to- identify it. The return of the sheriff shows that the sale was duly advertised, that it was made at the court house door, and the day upon which it was made is given. It shows also that Gay was the highest and best bidder, and that for seven and one-half acres out of the southwest corner of the tract he agreed to pay the full amount of the execution. It also shows that the entire tract was appraised before, and that portion sold after the sale. Indulging the legal presumptions that the sheriff in all things material, confined himself to the law, the facts affirmatively set out in the sheriff’s return are all that it was necessary for those claiming under his deed to establish by record *38evidence. The oral statements of the sheriff and other persons as to the manner in which the sale was advertised and conducted, and the proof that it was made on the first day of a county court, etc., were valuable only in so far as they strengthened the presumption which without them would nevertheless have prevailed.

*Turner, for appellant.*

*Apperson & Reid, for appellee.*

The defendant not being present at the sale, the sheriff had the right to designate out of which portion of the tract he would sell, and seven and one-half acres “to be cut off the southwest corner” is a sufficient description of the portion sold.

The deed covers seven and one-half acres so cut off, and the evidence shows that in the entire transaction the best interests of the defendant were consulted.

The fact that one of the first appraisers bid as agent for the purchaser Gay cannot avail, as the portion sold was afterwards appraised by disinterested persons. The instructions given for appel-lees were less favorable to them than they had the right under the law to -expect. Those asked by the appellant are in conflict with the views herein expressed and were properly refused.

Judgment *affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4751 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4751

To redesignate the Rio Grande American Canal in El Paso, Texas, as the 
                      ``Travis C. Johnson Canal''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2004

Mr. Reyes (for himself, Mr. Bell, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Doggett, Mr. 
  Edwards, Mr. Frost, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Hall, Mr. 
Hinojosa, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, 
 Mr. Lampson, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
Stenholm, and Mr. Turner of Texas) introduced the following bill; which 
               was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To redesignate the Rio Grande American Canal in El Paso, Texas, as the 
                      ``Travis C. Johnson Canal''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The canal located in El Paso, Texas, constructed as part of the Rio 
Grande canalization project under the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing 
construction, operation, and maintenance of Rio Grande canalization 
project and authorizing appropriation for that purpose'', approved June 
4, 1936 (49 Stat. 1463), and known as the ``Rio Grande American Canal'' 
shall be redesignated and known as the ``Travis C. Johnson Canal''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the canal referred to in section 1 shall 
be deemed to be a reference to the ``Travis C. Johnson Canal''.
                                 <all>
```
NIST PSCR RESEARCH INVESTMENTS BOLSTER 

WISCONSIN’S ECONOMY 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Public Safety 

Communications Research (PSCR) Division is the primary federal laboratory 

focused on conducting research, development, testing, and evaluation for 

public safety communications technologies. Their mission is to accelerate 

communications innovation in support of public safety communities and the 

citizens they serve. 

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 allocated $300 Million 

from the Public Safety Trust fund to NIST PSCR to perform critical public safety 

communications R&D during a 10-year period. PSCR implemented numerous 

research mechanisms to support the development and deployment of the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network: grants, Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) contracts, prize challenge competitions, and internal research. 

These research mechanisms were housed within six research portfolios and crosscutting initiatives to maximize their impact: 

•	 User Interface/User Experience •	 Public Safety Analytics 

•	 Location-Based Services •	 Security 

•	 Mission Critical Voice •	 Resilient Systems 

While the ultimate impact of these research mechanisms is the increased safety 

of first responders and their communities through improved communications

technologies, PSCR was interested in better understanding how their R&D 

investments to date result in economic impacts that ripple outward to state 

economies. An independent analysis was conducted to demonstrate how PSCR’s 

deployment of the $300 Million from the Public Safety Trust Fund translated into 

broader impacts to the United States, including jobs, earnings, value added, and 

total economic output. PSCR’s R&D investments resulted in economic output 

in 33 of the 50 states. Results of the analysis are presented here. 

For more information, see NIST PSCR’s Economic Impact Study. 

For additional information of PSCR’s research programs, visit https://www.nist.gov/ctl/pscr. 

1 Grant Award 

Totaling $2.2 Million 

Board of Regents of the 

University of Wisconsin 

System 

WISCONSIN BY THE NUMBERS 

NIST INVESTMENT 

$2.2 Million 

OUTPUT 

$4.1 Million 

VALUE-ADDED 

$9.2 Million 

EARNINGS 

$5.7 Million 

JOBS 

85 

Output: the total value of economic 

activity circulating through the U.S. 

economy generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Value-Added: how much the 

combined U.S. state economies 

grew over a period of time due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

Earnings: the change in household 

earnings in the U.S. economy 

generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Jobs: the change in the number of 

full- and part-time jobs generated 

by each one million dollar change 

in U.S. economic activity due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

*All dollar amounts presented 

in 2022 and reflect data as of 

October 2022.

**All values are rounded; thus, the 

sum of the components may not 

sum exactly to the NIST Investment 

amount.
What aspects of NIST’s federal coordination role best l

the t hi l ec nical capability of the NIST lb? a s

• What is the federal coordination role?

– Promoting use of consensus‐based standards;

a. Eliminate the cost to the Government of developing its ownstandards and decrease the cost of goods procured and the burden ofcomplying with agency regulation.b. Provide incentives and opportunities to establish standards thatserve national needs.c. Encourage long‐term growth for U.S. enterprises and promote

efficiency and economic competition through harmonization of standards.

d. Further Further the policy of reliance reliance upon the private private sector to supply

Government needs for goods and services.

– Coordinate conformity assessment activities
What aspects of NIST’s federal coordination role best l

the t hi l ec nical capability of the NIST lb? a s

• Those that require expertise in measurement or advances in

measurement science;

• Those that leverage our experience in participating in standard

development;

• Those that leverage our ‘neutrality’ (federal neutrality: non‐re

not the procuring agency);
How could NIST enhance its support of other federal age

meeting meeting US government government needs for voluntary voluntary consensus consensus st

st

• Must be a defined process to ‘coordinate’ federal use of standa• Need an objective‐based strategy to promote standards develo

harmonization that is responsive to agency needs:

– Timeliness– Attributes of standards

– Area of standards development
What are the potential impacts on the NIST laboratory 

of NIST el ti eva ng the pri it or y of the st dd an ar s dl 

eve opm

• (poorly worded question)• Impacts are very large – this is a unique role for NIST

• Pro:

– Visibility– Relevance & engagement

– Potential for impact

• Con:

– Indirect role (e.g. what are drivers for research programs?)

– Large efforts (e.g. forced into service role)
J

- A29035

- 21

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: TRUST UNDER WILL F/B/O CHARLES T. CAMPBELL, II

APPEAL OF: CHARLENE M. CAMPBELL AND THOMAS D. CAMPBELL : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 33 WDA 2021 Appeal from the Order Entered January 6, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): No. 02

- 19

- 02074

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. *

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY BOWES, J.: FILED: MARCH 3, 2022
I join my esteemed colleagues fully in the disposition of this matter. I
write separately solely to note my disquietude regarding the procedure
emplo yed by the orphans’ court in initially appointing the GAL for Father

. That
is, it appears from the certified record and briefs that the orphans’ court judge
did not participate in the off

- the

- record hearing that preceded the
appointment of the GAL. Inste ad, he delegated that task to his law clerk, who
purportedly heard argument from counsel regarding the appointment of a GAL

for Father and subsequently advised the judge that the parties had reached
an agreement . In reliance on that communication, the orphans’ court issued
the GAL appointment order. This was in clear derogation of the judge’s judicial
duty to hear and decide cases. See Pa. Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2,

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- A29035

- 21

- 2

-

Rule 2.7 ( “ A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except
where the judge has recused himself or herself or when disqualification is
required by Rule 2.11 or other law. ”). Moreover, it erodes the public’s
confidence in the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the judiciary.

See Pa. Code of Judicial Con duct, Canon 1, Rule 1.2 (“ A judge shall act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,
integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety. ”). Children have consist ently and vehemently
challenged the propriety of th e procedur e underlying the appointment of the

GAL. 1 While I join my colleagues ’ resolution of this issue, I believe that given

the circumstances it is nonetheless imperative upon t his Court to reiterate

t hat which is axiomatic , i.e. , that such delegation of judicial duties constitutes
neglect of those duties and undermines the public’s confidence in the judiciary.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 In fact, in Children’s preliminary objection to the GAL’s petition for compensation, Children sought th e recusal of the orphans’ court judge from this matter precisely because of the procedure utilized in appointing the GAL. Despite initially denying this request, that judge has since recused himself.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000070412
<NAME> NATIONAL MEDIA
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          17,915
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,725
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,440)
<INVENTORY>                                     21,228
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,926
<PP&E>                                          12,338
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,484
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           263
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,091
<SALES>                                        278,474
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               278,474
<CGS>                                          259,442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  331,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,457
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (56,069)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (56,769)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (56,769)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.31)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32****CERTIFICATIONS of CEO and CFO PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the Annual Report onForm 10-K of MylanLaboratories Inc. (the “Company”) for the year endedMarch 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each ofthe undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicatedbelow, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.Date: May 16, 2006     /s/ Robert J. Coury       Robert J. Coury     Chief Executive Officer      /s/ Edward J. Borkowski       Edward J. Borkowski     Chief Financial OfficerA signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.The foregoing certification is being furnished in accordancewith Securities and Exchange Commission ReleaseNo. 34-47551 and shall not be considered filed as part ofthe Form 10-K.
78
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4847 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4847

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 7, 2004

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 560 Bay Isles Road in Longboat Key, Florida, as the ``Lieutenant 
           General James V. Edmundson Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 560 Bay 
Isles Road in Longboat Key, Florida, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Lieutenant General James V. Edmundson Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lieutenant General James V. 
Edmundson Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```