alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Submitted on briefs May 12;

affirmed June 2, 1931

#### LIQUIDATORS *v.*BOWLES et al.

(299 P. 703)

*Frank Hall Beeves,*of Portland, for appellant.

*Henry Bauer,*of Portland, for respondents.

KELLY, J.

No novel question of law is involved in this case. Plaintiff is a corporation and its president testified that defendant, Gibson Bowles, made the representations as alleged in the complaint. The president of the corporate plaintiff also testified that in *453said defendant’s presence he repeated the snhstance of the alleged representations to Mr. Slipp, plaintiff’s manager and secretary. This was corroborated on the witness stand by Mr. Slipp. In every material respect, defendant, Gibson Bowles, contradicted plaintiff’s witnesses.

Two considerations influence the writer in his conclusions herein. One is that the learned judge of the circuit court, who saw all of the witnesses, observed their manner and heard their testimony, immediately thereafter disposed of the case by dismissing it.

The other is that, if plaintiff believed the representations alleged to have been made by Mr. Bowles, its exaction of a discount of more than 22 per centum of the par value of the note is of such a nature as to justify a court of equity in requiring strict proof before granting plaintiff the relief sought.

Our conclusion is that plaintiff has not sustained its allegations with respect to the making of the alleged misrepresentations and its reliance thereon by the degree of proof which would justify a decreee in its favor.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.
#### BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the PORT OF NEW ORLEANS, Appellant, v. PACIFIC WESTBOUND CONFERENCE et al., Appellees.

No. 23342.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 8, 1967.

*57Sumter D. Marks, Jr., Phelps, Dunbar, Marks, Claverie & Sims, New Orleans, La., Edward E. Wright, Mark P. Schlefer, Washington, D. C., Charles M. Lanier, Louis B. Claverie, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Donald A. Lindquist, New Orleans, La., Edward D. Ransom, Lillick, Geary, Wheat, Adams & Charles, San Francisco, Cal., and Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Burke, Toler & Hopkins, New Orleans, La., for appellees.

Before JONES, GEWIN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant brought an action in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana asserting a violation of an order of the Federal Martime Commission and seeking a judgment requiring obedience to the Commission’s order. The action was against Pacific Westbound Conference and its member lines. Service on the defendants was attempted in California and New York. The United States was not a party.

By 46 U.S.C.A. § 830, the venue and procedure in suits brought to enforce, suspend, or set aside any order of the Federal Maritime Commission shall, except as otherwise provided, be the same as in similar suits in regard to orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is provided by 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2321-2322 that writs and process of the district courts may in actions to enforce, suspend, enjoin, annul or set aside an order of the Interstate Commission run, be served and be returnable anywhere in the United States and that all such actions may be brought by or against the United States.

Because the United States had not been made a party, the court granted a motion to quash service of summons and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. A motion to permit an amendment to join the United States was also overruled on the ground that there was no action pending and hence no basis for permitting an amendment. We conclude that the decision of the district court was correct and it is

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company et al., as Executors of John E. Johnson, Deceased, Respondents; William R. Emblidge, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of John Johnson Construction Company, Appellant.

Argued September 28, 1937;

decided October 12, 1937.

*557
      *Howard T. Saperston*and *Daniel N. McNaughton*for appellant.

*James C. Sweeney*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Loitghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Lehman and Htjbbs, JJ., dissent on the ground that there is no evidence the withdrawals were intended as dividends.
Exhibit 10.8

 

First Amendment LSU—Anterios Agreement

 

First Amendment

 

This amendment is entered into between the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, a public constitutional corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana (“LSU”) and Anterios, Inc. a Delaware corporation, with offices located at 142 West 57th Street, Suite 4A, New York, New York 10019 (“LICENSEE”), and is made as of February 15, 2011.

 

Background

 

Anterios, Inc. (“Company”), and LSU (“University”) are parties to an exclusive license agreement designated LSU FILE 4-01-09 that was effective June 12, 2008 (“License Agreement”).

 

Company and University desire to amend the License Agreement for the purpose of extending certain terms of the diligence period of the license granted by the University to Company.

 

The Company and University agree as follows:

 

1.              Section 5.3.2 of Article 5 “Diligence” is replaced in its entirety with the following:

 

The first dosing of a patient with a LICENSED PRODUCT or LICENSED PROCESS in an FDA-approved Phase III clinical trial for the treatment of acne with botulinum toxin, by the [*] anniversary of the Effective Date;

 

2.              Section 5.3.3 of Article 5 “Diligence” is replaced in its entirety with the following:

 

The FIRST COMMERCIAL SALE of a LICENSED PRODUCT or LICENSED PROCESS, by the [*] anniversary of the Effective Date.

 

3.              The parties each agree that the other is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the License Agreement as of the date of their respective execution of this Amendment.

 

[The remainder of the page is left intentionally blank.]

 

1











 

Other than the changes above, the terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

 

 

	
 
    	
Accepted   and Agreed:
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
ANTERIOS, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Jon Edelson
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:   Jon Edelson, MD
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:   CEO
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Date:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
BOARD   OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL   COLLEGE
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   John Lombardi
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:   Jon Lombardi, PhD
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:   President
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Date:
    


 

2
#### § 4233.1 Purpose and scope.

The purpose of this part is to prescribe rules governing applications for partition under section 4233 of ERISA, and related notice requirements.
§ 4901.14 Action on request. ( a ) *Time for action.* Promptly and in any event within 20 working days after receipt of a disclosure request (subject to extension under § 4901.16), the Disclosure Officer will take action with respect to each requested item (or portion of an item) under either paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section. Following receipt, PBGC may ask the requester for information once and toll the 20-day period until PBGC receives such information.
( b ) *Request granted.* If the Disclosure Officer determines that the disclosure request will be granted, PBGC will so advise the requester and will promptly make the records available to the requester. PBGC will accommodate any specification of the preferred form or format for the sought record as stated in the request, if the record is readily reproducible in the preferred form or format.
( c ) *Request denied.* If the Disclosure Officer determines that the disclosure request will be denied, PBGC will so advise the requester in writing with a brief statement of the reasons for the denial, including, if applicable, a reference to the specific exemption(s) authorizing the denial and an explanation of how each such exemption applies to the matter withheld.
( d ) *Records not located.* If the Disclosure Officer determines that, despite a reasonably calculated search to uncover all relevant documents, the requested records could not be located, PBGC will issue a “no-records” response, and so advise the requester in writing.
( e ) *Information for requester.* Written responses issued under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section will include the name and title of the person(s) responsible for the denial, outline the appeal procedure available, and notify the requester of the right to seek dispute resolution services from a PBGC FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services.
[87 FR 43995, July 25, 2022]
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40907 Conference Calendar

__________________ DERRYL LEE BUCKINGHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, versus GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:95-CV-560 - - - - - - - - - - April 17, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Derryl Lee Buckingham appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Because Buckingham failed to exhaust his state court remedies, the district court did not err in dismissing Buckingham’s federal habeas petition. See Rose v. Lundy , 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). AFFIRMED.
§ 4903.6 How will PBGC add interest, penalty charges, and administrative costs to a debt owed to PBGC? ( a ) *Assessment and notice.* PBGC will assess interest, penalties and administrative costs on PBGC debts in accordance with the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3717, 31 CFR 901.9 and other applicable requirements. Administrative costs, including the costs of processing and handling a delinquent debt, will be determined by PBGC. PBGC will explain in the notice to the debtor how interest, penalties, costs, and other charges are assessed, unless the requirements are included in a contract or other legally binding agreement.
( b ) *Waiver of interest, penalties, and administrative costs.* Unless otherwise required by law, regulation, or contract, PBGC will not charge interest if the amount due on the debt is paid within 30 days of the date from which the interest accrues. *See* 31 U.S.C. 3717(d). To the extent permitted by law, PBGC may waive interest, penalties, and administrative costs, or any portion thereof, in appropriate circumstances consistent with the FCCS.
( c ) *Accrual during suspension of debt collection.* In most cases, interest, penalties and administrative costs will continue to accrue during any period when collection has been suspended for any reason (for example, when the debtor has requested a hearing). PBGC may suspend accrual of any or all of these charges in appropriate circumstances consistent with the FCCS.
§ 37.29 What are a recipient's obligations to disseminate its equal opportunity policy? ( a ) A recipient must provide initial and continuing notice that it does not discriminate on any prohibited ground. This notice must be provided to: ( 1 ) Registrants, applicants, and eligible applicants/registrants;
( 2 ) Participants;
( 3 ) Applicants for employment and employees;
( 4 ) Unions or professional organizations that hold collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient;
( 5 ) Subrecipients that receive WIA Title I funds from the recipient; and
( 6 ) Members of the public, including those with impaired vision or hearing.
( b ) As provided in § 37.9, the recipient must take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with individuals with disabilities are as effective as communications with others.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-84,097-01

EX PARTE ROSS RICHARDSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 11-CR-040-1 IN THE 349 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HOUSTON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault against a public servant and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The Twelfth Court of

Appeals affirmed his conviction. Richardson v. State, No. 12-13-00131-CR (Tex. App.—Tyler,July

31, 2014)(not designated for publication).

On December 9, 2015, this Court remanded this application to the trial court for findings of

fact and conclusions of law. On January 8, 2016, the trial court signed findings of fact and

conclusions of law that were based on the affidavit from trial counsel and the transcript from a pre-
2

trial hearing. The trial court recommended that relief be denied.

Based on the trial court’s findings of fact as well as this Court’s independent review of the

entire record, we deny relief.

Filed: February 10, 2016

Do not publish
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 91 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 20, 2008 

Referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Honoring Army Specialist Monica L. Brown, of Lake Jackson, Texas, extending gratitude to her and her family, 

and pledging continuing support for the men and women 

of the United States Armed Forces. 

Whereas Monica Brown, a medic serving in the 782nd Brigade Support Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, was 

deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom; 

Whereas members of the United States Armed Forces were 

attacked by a roadside bomb in the eastern Paktia province in Afghanistan on April 25, 2007; 

Whereas Specialist Monica L. Brown, at age 19, ran through 

insurgent gunfire to save the lives of fellow wounded soldiers injured after the roadside bomb tore through their 

convoy of humvees; 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

SCON 91 RFH 

Whereas Monica Brown is 1 of 25,109 women currently serving in the Armed Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and 

1 of 350,000 women serving in the United States Army; 

Whereas Monica Brown is the first woman in Afghanistan 

and only the second female member of the Armed Forces 

since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the Nation’s third-highest medal for valor; and 

Whereas the thoughts and prayers of Congress and the people of the United States remain with the families of all 

the members of the Armed Forces who are fighting to ensure the Nation’s freedom and safety: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) honors Monica L. Brown, a Specialist in the 

4 United States Army, who risked her life to save the 

5 lives of her fellow wounded soldiers while serving in 

6 the Global War on Terror in Afghanistan, and rec7 ognizes her for her bravery and heroism; 

8 (2) extends its deepest gratitude to Monica L. 

9 Brown and her family in Lake Jackson, Texas; and 

10 (3) pledges its continued support for the men 

11 and women of the United States Armed Forces. 

Passed the Senate June 18, 2008. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
§ 500.132 Applicable Federal standards: ETA and OSHA housing standards. ( a ) The Secretary has determined that the applicable Federal housing standards are the standards promulgated by the Employment and Training Administration, at 20 CFR 654.404 *et seq.* and the standards promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, at 29 CFR 1910.142. Except as provided in § 500.131, all migrant housing is subject to either the ETA standards or the OSHA standards, as follows: ( 1 ) A person who owns or controls a facility or real property to be used for housing any migrant agricultural worker, the construction of which was begun on or after April 3, 1980, and which was not under a contract for construction as of March 4, 1980, shall comply with the substantive Federal safety and health standards promulgated by OSHA at 29 CFR 1910.142. These OSHA standards are enforceable under MSPA, irrespective of whether housing is, at any particular point in time, subject to inspection under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
( 2 ) A person who owns or controls a facility or real property to be used for housing any migrant agricultural worker which was completed or under construction prior to April 3, 1980, or which was under a contract for construction prior to March 4, 1980, may elect to comply with either the substantive Federal safety and health standards promulgated by OSHA at 29 CFR 1910.142 or the standards promulgated by ETA at 20 CFR 654.404 *et seq.* The ETA standards were established to provide housing requirements for migrant housing used by an employer obtaining migrant workers through the U.S. Employment Service. The owner or operator of such housing may continue to rely on those standards, rather than OSHA standards, even if the housing is not currently being provided pursuant to a USES job placement program.
§ 4044.75 Other lump sum benefits. The value of a lump sum benefit which is not covered under § 4044.73 or § 4044.74 is equal to— ( a ) The value under the irrevocable commitment, if an insurer provides the benefit; or
( b ) The present value of the benefit as of the date of distribution, determined using reasonable actuarial assumptions, if the benefit is to be distributed other than by the purchase of the benefit from an insurer. The PBGC reserves the right to review the actuarial assumptions as to reasonableness and re-value the benefit if the actuarial assumptions are unreasonable.
[61 FR 34059, July 1, 1996, as amended at 76 FR 34606, June 14, 2011]
§ 38.100 Notification of an enforcement action based on breach of conciliation agreement. In such circumstances, the Director must notify: ( a ) The grantmaking agency; and
( b ) The Governor, recipient or grant applicant, as applicable.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.180 Overtime pay—in general.

The Act does not provide for compensation of covered employees at premium rates for overtime hours of work. Section 6 recognizes, however, that other Federal laws may require such compensation to be paid to employees working on or in connection with contracts subject to the Act (see § 4.181) and prescribes, for purposes of such laws, the manner in which fringe benefits furnished pursuant to the Act shall be treated in computing such overtime compensation as follows: “In determining any overtime pay to which such service employees are entitled under any Federal law, the regular or basic hourly rate of such an employee shall not include any fringe benefit payments computed hereunder which are excluded from the regular rate under the Fair Labor Standards Act by provisions of section 7(d) [now section 7(e)] thereof.” Fringe benefit payments which qualify for such exclusion are described in part 778, subpart C of this title. The interpretations there set forth will be applied in determining the overtime pay to which covered service employees are entitled under other Federal statutes. The effect of section 6 of the Act in situations where equivalent fringe benefits or cash payments are provided in lieu of the specified fringe benefits is stated in § 4.177(e) of this part, and illustrated in § 4.182.
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



The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Serena Software, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2004 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



I, Mark E. Woodward, Chief Executive Officer of Serena Software, Inc. certify that:



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



|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Serena Software, Inc.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    MARK E. WOODWARDMark E. Woodward President and Chief Executive Officer And Director




Date: December 10, 2004
§ 1912.44 Definitions. As used in this part 1912, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: ( a ) *Act* means the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1590; 29 U.S.C. 650).
( b ) ( 1 ) For purposes of implementing the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the term *Advisory Committee* has the same meaning as set forth in section 3 (2) thereof. Hence, the term includes subcommittees to the extent that the conduct of their meetings relates to matters regulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Consistent with that definition as interpreted in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-63, the term does not include informal subgroups having few characteristics of formal advisory committees.
( 2 ) ( i ) For purposes of the Act, the term means any committee appointed under section 7(b) thereof to provide advice to the Assistant Secretary in the development of occupational safety and health standards under the Act.
( ii ) The term also includes the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health established under the Construction Safety Act.
( c ) *Assistant Secretary* means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
( d ) *Committee charter* means an order, statement or proclamation of the Assistant Secretary establishing, continuing, or using an advisory committee, as the case may be.
( e ) *Construction Safety Act* means section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (83 Stat. 96; 40 U.S.C. 333).