alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Home
- Cases Filed Against the United States of America
- Cases Filed Against the Government of Canada
- Cases Filed Against the United Mexican States

HomeNAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations...Cases Filed Against the Government of Canada

# 									Cases Filed Against the Government of Canada							

Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for International Claims and Investment Disputes

		Cases Filed Against the Government of Canada Archive		

        - Tennant Energy, LLC v. Government of Canada
        - Clayton/Bilcon v. Government of Canada
        - Lone Pine Resources Inc. v. Government of Canada
        - Mobil Investments Inc. v. Government of Canada
        - Resolute Forest Products Inc. v. Government of Canada

 

Tags

ArbitrationCanadaFree Trade AgreementsLegal AdviserNorth American Free Trade Agreement

Back to Top
#### Louis GASSEL, Appellant, v. Shirley GASSEL, Appellee.

No. 80-1319.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 5, 1981.

Sheldon R. Rosenthal, Miami, for appellant.

Christie, Gelber & Christie and Irwin G. Christie, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, NESBITT and BAS-KIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the Order and the Order on Attorney’s Fees.
#### Willie F. HOBGOOD et ux. v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 80-C-2591.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 5, 1980.

In re Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Company, et al., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Washington. 392 So.2d 116.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 1996 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                    NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                                                3,969
<SECURITIES>                                                         17,927
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        20,482
<ALLOWANCES>                                                            586
<INVENTORY>                                                          27,370
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     71,838
<PP&E>                                                               43,965
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       20,207
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      102,198
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                18,341
<BONDS>                                                               1,127
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<COMMON>                                                                931
<OTHER-SE>                                                           79,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                        102,198
<SALES>                                                              49,347
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     49,347
<CGS>                                                                29,231
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        29,231
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     19,482
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         60
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                      141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                       1,015
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            259
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                     756
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                            756
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                           .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           .07
        

</TABLE>
Georgia's Tax Rates 

----

Source: Georgian Customs Department and the Georgian Research Institute of Scientific andTechnical Information"TECHINFORMI."
NOTE: Specific questions pertaining to this report may be addressed to John Crosson at BISNIS,tel. 202-482-4655 ext. 24 or via email at [email protected]
**July 30, 1997**
    A foreign taxpayer (hereinafter referred to as "taxpayer") is registered at the district court. Afterregistration, a  taxpayer goes to the Regional Tax Inspectorate (R.T.I.) to receive the taxpayer's identificationnumber (TIN):
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 135732 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 135732 COA: 281830 Genesee CC: 07-020750-FH DENNIS DUANE OSTRANDER, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the January 7, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0421 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2008

Clerk
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                         TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                     STATEMENT SETTING FORTH COMPUTATION OF
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            1999       1998       1997       1996       1995
                                          --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
                                                             (In thousands)
<S>                                       <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Income before income taxes and
  distributions on preferred
  securities............................  $128,532   $112,626   $108,079   $ 95,724   $ 88,600
                                          --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
FIXED CHARGES:
Interest on debt........................   203,817    155,126    153,127    146,615    146,649
Estimated interest portion of rents.....     1,515      1,198        879        817        680
                                          --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
Total fixed charges.....................   205,332    156,324    154,006    147,432    147,329
                                          --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
Adjusted Income.........................   333,864    268,950    262,085    243,156    235,929
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges......     1.63x      1.72x      1.70x      1.65x      1.60x
                                          ========   ========   ========   ========   ========
</TABLE>

---------------
(1) The ratio of earnings to fixed charges has been computed by dividing income
    before income taxes and distributions on preferred securities and fixed
    charges by fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest on debt and
    one-third rental expense as representative of interest portion of rentals.
**Russian Cities and Towns with Direct-Dial AreaCodes**
#### Janie THOMPSON, Appellant, v. Clark THOMPSON, Appellee.

No. W-362.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 6, 1975.

PER CURTAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM,

FEBRUARY, 1899.

#### Reese B. Gwillim et al., Respondents, *v.*Anastacia Smith, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs in the Municipal Court, tenth district, borough of Manhattan, for the sum of $45.87.

The action was brought for work, labor and services done and performed and for money expended for and on behalf of the defendant in searching the title to certain real estate, under the terms of special contract, by the terms of which the defendant agreed to pay the sum of $25 and actual disbursements, *f*The material facts appear in the opinion.

George A. Baker, for appellant.

Harris *&*Corwin, for respondents.

*785Freedman, P. J.

The claim of the plaintiffs in this action is, that they were employed by the attorney (Baker) for the defendant to search the title to a certain portion of real estate upon which the -defendant sought to obtain a loan, and that they were to receive for their services the sum of $25, and, in addition thereto, their actual disbursements.

The defendant admits the employment of the plaintiffs by Baker, her attorney, and admits that he (Baker) was authorized to so employ the plaintiffs, but contends that the terms of the agreement were that if the search showed a defective title or the loan was -obtained, then and only in that case were the plaintiffs to be paid.

There is a direct conflict of testimony on this question.

Meyers, one of the plaintiffs, and the only witness called by plaintiffs, testifies positively that he was employed to make the search and was to have $25 for his services, and in addition thereto, his disbursements, and that his compensation *“*was not dependent on a good title and that the loan passed.”

Baker, the defendant’s witness, is equally positive that such was the condition imposed by him, and that upon that condition, and that only, were plaintiffs entitled to recover anything.

The appellant in his brief uses this language: “ The only point on which the testimony of the plaintiffs and defendant disagree is as to the terms of the contract. Plaintiffs contending that there were no conditions, and the defendant contending that the contract was to pay plaintiffs $25 and disbursements, provided the loan went through or the title was found to be defective.”

This makes it a question of fact to be passed upon by the trial court, and the judgment of a District Court rendered upon conflicting evidence will not be reversed, unless it is clear that injustice has been done. Patterson Gas Co. v. Lichtenstein Bros. Co., 9 Misc. Rep. 126; Mitchell Vance Co. v. Darker, 46 N. Y. St. Repr. 189. There is no evidence of injustice having been done in this case.

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10218

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee 

v.

EYVONE MICHELLE GARRETT,

Defendant - Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:02-CR-94-16

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eyvone Michelle Garrett appeals the district court’s denial of her motion

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce her prison sentence. Because Garrett was

released from prison on July 9, 2010, her appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 5, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 08-10218 Document: 00511529514 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2011
No. 08-10218

I.

On June 26, 2003, Garrett pleaded guilty to various drug-related charges. 

In October, she was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment. In February

2007, on motion from the government, her sentence was reduced to 100 months. 

In February 2008, Garrett moved to have her sentence further reduced in the

light of relevant changes to the sentencing guidelines. Her motion was denied

in March, and she filed a timely notice of appeal. Garrett was released from

prison on July 9, 2010. 

II.

The threshold question is whether Garrett’s appeal is moot. A panel of

this court, in a recent unpublished decision, has spoken directly to this precise

issue. See United States v. Boston, 2011 WL 1057563 (5th Cir. Mar. 23, 2011). 

Boston specifically held that we cannot consider a motion to reduce a sentence

when the movant has been released from prison. Id. at *2. We agree, although

we further note that our decision does not strip Garrett of her right to file “a

motion . . . regarding supervised release.” See id.

III.

Garrett’s appeal is moot and is therefore 

DISMISSED.

2

Case: 08-10218 Document: 00511529514 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2011
- Office Home
- About
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Remarks and Releases

HomeOffice of Management Strategy and Solutions...Leadership – Office of Management Strategy and Solutions

# 						Leadership – Office of Management Strategy and Solutions					

5											Items									

          -  							Pomainville, Brett						Deputy DirectorOffice of Management Strategy and Solutions 
          -  							Huang, Yuen-Hao						Managing Director for Policy and Global Presence Office of Management Strategy and Solutions 
          -  							Graviss, Dr. Matthew						Chief Data and Artificial Intelligence OfficerOffice of Management Strategy and Solutions 
          -  							D'Angelo, Caroline						Acting Managing Director for Consulting and Advanced Projects; Acting Chief Sustainability OfficerOffice of Management Strategy and Solutions 
          -  							Stoian, Daniel						Director, Office of Management Strategy and Solution Office of Management Strategy and Solutions 

Back to Top
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 97-50459

_______________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHRISTOPHER WAYNE GOODALL, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(P-97-CR-10)

_________________________________________________________________ May 12, 1998
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, REAVLEY, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The court has carefully considered appellant’s contention that the marijuana obtained from appellant’s vehicle should be suppressed because the federal agents lacked reasonable suspicion
to stop appellant’s car on January 5, 1997. Having reviewed the district court’s comprehensive memorandum opinion in light of the briefs, pertinent portions of the record, and the informative arguments of counsel, we find no reversible error of fact or law.The judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED
.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1698

FRANCIS AKINRO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HECIDA HOTEL; INGLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT; UCLA-HARBOR 

MEDICAL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:10-cv-01452-RDB)

Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 27, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francis Akinro, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Francis Akinro appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Akinro v. Hecida Hotel, 

No. 1:10-cv-01452-RDB (D. Md. June 7, 2010). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Fredalice CARTER, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 80-444.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 24, 1981.

Dominic L. Brandy of Chidnese & Brandy, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

George E. Bunnell of Bunnell, Graham & Denman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

The Summary Final Judgment entered in this cause is reversed on the authority of *South Carolina Insurance Co. v. Kokay,*398 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 1981).

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

DOWNEY, BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Home2021 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Moore, Aubin Elizabeth  – People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria – May 2021

# 									Moore, Aubin Elizabeth  – People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria – May 2021							

Certificate of Competency

May 3, 2021

REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT: 		Ambassadorial Nomination:  Certificate of			Demonstrated Competence — Foreign Service			Act, Section 304(a)(4)

POST:		People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria

CANDIDATE:	Elizabeth Moore Aubin 

Elizabeth Moore Aubin, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Minister-Counselor, currently serves as the Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.  Among other senior leadership roles held by Ms. Aubin during her three decades of service are Executive Director of the Joint Executive Office of the Bureaus of Near Eastern Affairs and South and Central Asian Affairs; Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. Embassy, Ottawa Canada; Executive Director of the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs; and Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. Embassy in Algiers, Algeria.  Her demonstrated leadership skills coupled with her extensive knowledge of and experience in addressing the State Department’s operational and management challenges will be critical to success in Algiers. Those attributes, when combined with her previous service in Algeria and the policy expertise gained from working across four different geographic regions during her career, make her an excellent candidate to be U.S. Ambassador to Algeria.  

Ms. Aubin’s other positions include Director of Human Resources of the Joint Executive Office of the Bureaus of Near Eastern Affairs and South and Central Asian Affairs; Management Counselor of the U.S. Embassy, Tel Aviv, Israel; and as the Management Officer for the U.S. Mission to NATO.  In addition, she was a Special Assistant in the Executive Secretariat, Office of the Secretary of State; a Watch Officer in the State Department Operations Center; a General Services Officer at U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong; an Economic Officer at U.S. Embassy Rome; and a Consular officer at U.S. Consulate General Curacao.

Ms. Aubin earned her B.A. degree from Barnard College of Columbia University, New York, New York in 1987 and did graduate work at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School, Syracuse, New York.  She is the recipient of numerous State Department awards including multiple performance awards for her work in the Senior Foreign Service.  Her foreign languages are French and Italian.  

Back to Top
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Antibribery Provisions

----

**Introduction**
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. JOSEPH LINARDUCCI, Jr., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Argued May 17, 1939

Decided September 22, 1939.

For the plaintiff in error, *J. Henry Harrison*and *Samuel I. Kessler.*

For the state, *William A. Wachenfeld*and *Anthony M. Hauck, Jr.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered *per curiam*in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Parker, Case, Donges, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— Hone.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50181 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. TAMARIS LEE WEAVER, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:18

- CR

- 131

- 1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tamaris Lee Weaver, Jr., appeals his guilty plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Relying on United States v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549 (1995) , and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ( NFIB ) , 567 U.S. 519 (2012), he argues that § 922(g)(1) unconstitutionally extends federal control over the non

commercial possession of a firearm. Weaver concedes that his argument is

* 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 f orth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED October 9, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50181 Document: 00515151801 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2019No. 19

- 50181

2 foreclosed by circuit precedent, and he raises the issue to preserve it for Supreme Court review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and an alternative request for an extension of time to file its brief. The Government asserts that the parties agree that, under circuit precedent, Weaver’s challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g) is foreclosed. Summary affirmance is proper where, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to t he outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). “This court has repeatedly emphasized that the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is not open to question.” United States v. De Leon , 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th C ir. 1999)

. In United States v. Rawls , 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996), we rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), finding that neither the holding nor the reasoning in Lopez constitutionally invalidates § 922(g)(1). S ee also United States v. Alcantar , 733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013) (concluding that NFIB did not overrule this court’s precedent as to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1)). In view of the foregoing, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The G overnment’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. The judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-50181 Document: 00515151801 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2019