alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
38458.

#### ROBERTS v. FORMISANO *et al.*

Jordan, Judge.

This was a suit on a promissory note, dated December 1, 1958, in the amount of $7,500 brought by Charles and Olive Formisano against Edyth P. Roberts as the maker of the note, it being alleged by amendment that the sum of $3,700, plus attorneys’ fees of $550, was due and collectible thereon. The defendant filed a plea of failure of consideration and an answer and cross-bill in which she admitted the execution of the note and the nonpayment of the amount sued on but denied liability thereunder on the ground that the note had been fraudulently procured by alleged misrepresentations by the plaintiffs as to the value of the business for the purchase of which the note had been executed. The trial court sustained the plaintiffs’ general demurrers to the plea of failure of consideration and to the answer and cross-bill with leave to the defendant to' amend within 30 days.

The defendant filed an amended answer and cross-bill within the time allowed in which she alleged that she had signed the note sued on in reliance on the fraudulent misrepresentations of the plaintiffs, with whom she occupied a confidential and *7fiduciary relationship, as to the previous earning capacity of the business and the number of salesmen employed therein. The trial court overruled the general demurrers to the answer and • cross-bill as amended. The case proceeded to trial before a jury and at the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount sued on. The defendant excepted to that judgment. *Held:*

Decided January 5, 1961.

*Ward, Brooks •& Williams, Osgood 0. Williams,*for plaintiff in error.

*Sam G. Dettelbach, Joel J. Fryer,*contra.

The defendant having admitted the execution of the promissory note and the nonpayment of the amount sued upon, and there being no evidence adduced to sustain the allegations of the defendant’s amended answer and cross-bill as to the fraudulent misrepresentations of the plaintiffs, or evidence of any matter which would constitute a defense to the note, the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount sued on.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P. J., Carlisle and Frankum, JJ., concur.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 Exhibit 10 (n)
                                                                 Page 1 of 1

                      AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AND DEFERRED

                             COMPENSATION AGREEMENT


         This is an Amendment to that certain Employment and Deferred
Compensation Agreement dated as of January 1, 1979, as amended on August 8,
1979, September 14, 1994, and September 26, 1995 (the "Agreement"), by and
between BELL INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation (the "Company"), and
THEODORE E. WILLIAMS ("Employee").

         WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend in certain respects
the Agreement which sets forth the terms and conditions of employment and
retirement benefits of Employee.

         IT IS THEREFORE AGREED:

         A.      AMENDMENTS

         There shall be added at the end of Section 3 of the Agreement the
following sentence:

         "At any time during the 1996 calendar year, Employee may request a
         partial payment of the above sum payable upon his retirement or death
         in an amount not to exceed nine hundred eighty eight thousand dollars
         ($988,000)."

         B.      OTHER PROVISIONS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT

         All other terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect and shall not be deemed amended or modified hereby except to
the extent such terms and provisions may be inconsistent with this Amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment as of
this 21st day of November, 1996.



                                       BELL INDUSTRIES, INC.


                                       By: /s/ TRACY A. EDWARDS
                                          -------------------------------

                                       EMPLOYEE

                                       /s/ THEODORE E. WILLIAMS
                                       ----------------------------------
                                       THEODORE E. WILLIAMS
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Johnson, Linden Printz" <lpjohnson@tva.gov>

Date: 7/20/2010 10:00 AM

Subject: Re: Request for partial extension of the ICR deadline

Attachments: pic06125.jpg

Greetings,

EPA has reviewed your extension request for the steam electric effluent

guidelines questionnaire for the following TVA facilities:

 Allen Fossil Plant

 Bull Run Fossil Plant

 Colbert Fossil Plant

 Cumberland Fossil Plant

 Gallatin Fossil Plant

 John Sevier Fossil Plant

 Johnsonville Fossil Plant

 Kingston Fossil Plant

 Paradise Fossil Plant

 Shawnee Fossil Plant

 Widows Fossil Plant

The deadline for your plant to submit Version 1 or Version 2 of the

completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010. Please note

that the deadline for Part G, if applicable, is unchanged and remains

120 days after receipt of the questionnaire. No extensions are granted

for Versions 3 or 4 of the questionnaire; the deadline for plants

receiving these questionnaires remains 90 days after receipt.

If you need assistance during the completion of the steam electric

questionnaire, please contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at

steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560.

Sincerely,

(Embedded image moved to file: pic06125.jpg)

 

 From: "Johnson, Linden Printz" <lpjohnson@tva.gov> 

 To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Cc: "Johnson, Linden Printz" <lpjohnson@tva.gov> 

 Date: 06/23/2010 03:32 PM 

 Subject: Request for partial extension of the ICR deadline 
Dear Ms. Jezebele,

Please consider this request for an extension of the ICR deadline for

certain TVA facilities. I appreciate your assistance on this and look

forward to your response. If you have any questions about our request,

please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Lindy Johnson

Lindy Johnson, Manager

Water Permits and Compliance

1101 Market Street, LP 5D

Chattanooga, TN 37402

lpjohnson@tva.gov

(423) 751-3361 office

(423) 751-7011 fax

 [attachment "ICR extension request.pdf" deleted by Jezebele

Alicea/DC/USEPA/US]
§ 520.2100 Selenium and vitamin E. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each capsule contains: ( 1 ) 2.19 milligrams (mg) sodium selenite (equivalent to 1 mg selenium) and 56.2 mg (68 I.U.) vitamin E as d-alpha tocopheryl acid succinate; or
( 2 ) 0.548 mg sodium selenite (equivalent to 0.25 mg selenium) and 14 mg (17 I.U.) vitamin E as d-alpha tocopheryl acid succinate.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 000061 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* ( i ) Dogs over 20 pounds: Administer 1 capsule described in paragraph (a)(1) per 20 pounds of body weight to a maximum of 5 capsules. Repeat at 3 day intervals until a satisfactory therapeutic response is observed. Maintenance dosage is 1 capsule per 40 pounds of body weight every 3 to 7 days, or longer, as required.
( ii ) Dogs under 20 pounds: Administer 1 capsule described in paragraph (a)(2) per 5 pounds of body weight with a minimum of 1 capsule. Repeat at 3-day intervals until a satisfactory response is observed. Maintenance dosage is 1 capsule per 10 pounds of body weight every 3 to 7 days, or longer, as required.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* As an aid in alleviating and controlling inflammation, pain, and lameness associated with certain arthropathies.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[79 FR 28828, May 20, 2014]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIO CESAR VELASQUEZ HUANCA,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-71562

Agency No. A070-664-077

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 26, 2016**

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Julio Cesar Velasquez Huanca, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding 

of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 4 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-71562 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 

1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Cordoba 

v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and we deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Velasquez Huanca

failed to establish a nexus between the harm he experienced from members of the 

Shining Path and a protected ground. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1021 

(9th Cir. 2009) (Under pre-REAL ID Act standards, a petitioner must show that his 

persecutors “were motivated, at least in part, by a protected ground.”) (internal 

quotation marks and alterations omitted); Ochoa, 406 F.3d at 1171-72 (concluding 

that narco-traffickers targeted petitioner because he owed them money, not because 

of his imputed political opinion). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s 

determination that Velasquez Huanca failed to demonstrate an objectively wellfounded fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 

(9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, his 

asylum claim fails. 

Because Velasquez Huanca did not demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it 

follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of 
 3 14-71562 

removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[No. 15874-8-III.

Division Three.

November 18, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Janice Hergert, *Respondent,*and Gerald R. Hergert, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 93-3-00914-1, Michael E. Donohue, J., entered May 22, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Schultheis, A.C.J., and Kurtz, J.
# Table1

Table 1. Geochemical analyses of soil samples collected in 2003-2004, by element and method of analysis, lower Rio Grande valley, Texas - Continued.		

Table 1. Geochemical analyses of soil samples collected in 2003-2004, by element and method of analysis, lower Rio Grande valley, Texas.		

# Sheet2

# Sheet3
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7334 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7334

    To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the 
            detention of certain aliens who commit robbery.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2024

Mr. McClintock introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the 
            detention of certain aliens who commit robbery.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who 
Commit Robbery Act''.

SEC. 2. DETENTION OF CERTAIN ALIENS WHO COMMIT ROBBERY.

    Section 236(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1226(c)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by 
                striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting ``Secretary 
                of Homeland Security'';
                    (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``, or'' and 
                inserting a comma;
                    (C) in subparagraph (D), by adding ``or'' at the 
                end; and
                    (D) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the 
                following:
                    ``(E)(i) is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(A) 
                or (C) or under section 212(a)(7); and
                    ``(ii) is charged with, arrested for, convicted of, 
                admits having committed, or admits committing acts 
                which constitute the essential elements of any robbery 
                offense,'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
            ``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(E), the 
        term `robbery' has the meaning given that term in the 
        jurisdiction where the acts occurred.
            ``(3) Detainer.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
        issue a detainer for an alien described in paragraph (1)(E) 
        and, if the alien is not otherwise detained by Federal, State, 
        or local officials, shall effectively and expeditiously take 
        custody of the alien.''.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 314
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 314 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 81 FR 69639, Oct. 6, 2016.

§ 314.98 Postmarketing reports. ( a ) Each applicant having an approved abbreviated new drug application under § 314.94 that is effective must comply with the requirements of § 314.80 regarding the reporting and recordkeeping of adverse drug experiences.
( b ) Each applicant must make the reports required under § 314.81 and section 505(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for each of its approved abbreviated applications.
[79 FR 33089, June 10, 2014]
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-20-00340-CR 

 

DUSTIN KENDRICK, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 364th District Court 

 Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2010-427,528, Honorable William R. Eichman II, Presiding 

January 6, 2021 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, Dustin Kendrick, appearing pro se, seeks to appeal the trial court’s 

Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Jurisdiction Inquiry with Incorporated 

Memorandum. We dismiss the purported appeal for want of jurisdiction.

In 2012, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant was convicted of capital 

murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In July 2020, 

appellant filed “Defendant’s Motion for Jurisdiction Inquiry with Incorporated 
2

Memorandum” in the trial court, challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction to convict him. 

The trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

Generally, an appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal 

defendant only from a judgment of conviction or where appellate jurisdiction has been 

expressly granted by law. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008). We have found no authority to consider an appeal from an order denying a

defendant’s post-conviction challenge to the trial court’s original jurisdiction. See 

Bowman v. State, No. 02-20-00146-CR, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 10017, at *5-6 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth Dec. 17, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) 

(finding no authority to review the denial of a post-conviction “Motion to Call into Question 

Trial Court’s Jurisdiction with Incorporated Memorandum”). Rather, only the Court of 

Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters seeking post-conviction relief from a final 

felony conviction. See TEX. CODE. CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015) (outlining the 

procedures for an application for writ of habeas corpus); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 

802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

By letter of December 3, 2020, we directed appellant to show how we have 

jurisdiction over the appeal. Although appellant filed a response, he did not demonstrate 

grounds for continuing the appeal.

Because the trial court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Jurisdiction Inquiry 

with Incorporated Memorandum is not a judgment of conviction or an appealable order, 

we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
§ 516.34 FDA recognition of exclusive marketing rights. ( a ) FDA will send the sponsor (or the permanent-resident U.S. agent, if applicable) timely written notice recognizing exclusive marketing rights when an application for a MUMS-designated drug has been conditionally approved or approved. The written notice will inform the sponsor of the requirements for maintaining MUMS-designated drug exclusive marketing rights for the full 7-year term. This notice will generally be contained in the letter conditionally approving or approving the application.
( b ) When an application is conditionally approved or approved for a MUMS-designated drug that qualifies for exclusive marketing rights, FDA will publish this information in the Federal Register at the time of the conditional approval or approval. This notice will generally be contained in the notice of conditional approval or approval of the application.
#### § 1305.23 Endorsing electronic orders.

A supplier may not endorse an electronic order to another supplier to fill.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             121
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                       733
<INVENTORY>                                     11,065
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,729
<PP&E>                                           7,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,960)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  60,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,961
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        500
<COMMON>                                        42,097
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,575)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    60,079
<SALES>                                         25,774
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,774
<CGS>                                           17,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,733
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   244
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (231)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,238)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,463)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,775)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,775)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         320,511
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  631,304
<ALLOWANCES>                                    32,548
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               963,026
<PP&E>                                       1,968,690
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,528,567
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,992,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          931,562
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,184
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,019,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,992,736
<SALES>                                      1,246,854
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,001,764
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  460,622
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,427,717
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,641
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 81,121
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             81,121
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    81,121
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
§ 520.2086 Sarolaner. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each chewable tablet contains 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, or 120 milligrams (mg) sarolaner.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer orally once a month at the recommended minimum dosage of 0.9 mg/lb (2 mg/kg).
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* Kills adult fleas, and for the treatment and prevention of flea infestations (*Ctenocephalides felis*), and the treatment and control of tick infestations [*Amblyomma americanum* (lone star tick), *Amblyomma maculatum* (Gulf Coast tick), *Dermacentor variabilis* (American dog tick), *Ixodes scapularis* (black-legged tick), and *Rhipicephalus sanguineus* (brown dog tick)] for 1 month in dogs 6 months of age or older and weighing 2.8 pounds or greater. For the prevention of *Borrelia burgdorferi* infections as a direct result of killing *Ixodes scapularis* vector ticks.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[81 FR 22523, Apr. 18, 2016, as amended at 82 FR 12169, Mar. 1, 2017; 86 FR 61685, Nov. 8, 2021]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

737 

CA 11-01970 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

STEPHEN NICHOLS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

MARIE HACK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

NIRA T. KERMISCH, SUDBURY, MASSACHUSETTS, FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., ROCHESTER (PAMELA S.C. REYNOLDS OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe

County (David Michael Barry, J.), entered May 12, 2011. The amended

judgment dismissed the complaint upon a jury verdict. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Matter of Eric D. [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051).

Entered: June 15, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court