alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Número Identificador

RES202 4

_

_____ _____________

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

PANEL V I I

SALVADOR L. ALEMAÑY CALDERÓN

Recurrida

v.

METRO GUAYNABO DE V , LLC

Peticionari a KL CE202 4 0 00 89 CERTIORARI Procedente de l Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de Bayamón

C aso N úm. : BY202 3 CV0 6955 ( 401 )

Sobre: DAÑOS Y OTROS Panel integrado por su president a , l a J uez a Domínguez Irizarry, l a J uez a Grana Martínez y e l J uez Pérez Ocasio

. Grana Martínez, Jueza Ponente
RESOLUCIÓN

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 26 febr ero de 2024

. El 23 de enero de 2024, Metro Guaynabo Dev, LLC instó el

presente recurso de certiorari y Urgente moción en auxilio de

jurisdicción. En el recurso n os solicitó que revisáramos la Orden

emitida por el Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de

Bayamón, del 18 de enero de 2024, y notificada el día 19 del mismo

mes y año, así como el Mandamiento emitido y notificado el 22 de

enero de 2024. Mediante el referido dictamen, el foro primario

orden ó la anotación preventiva de prohibición de enajenar en el

Registro de la Propiedad sobre cierto inmueble perteneciente a la

apelante. E se mismo día , emitimos Resolución en la que declaramos

ha lugar la moción en auxilio, paralizamos los procedimientos ante

el Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala de Bayamón, y concedimos

un término de diez (10) días a la parte recurrida para expresarse

sobre el recurso.

El 22 de febr ero del presente año, Metro Guaynabo Dev. LLC

pre sentó Solicitud de Desistimiento con Perjuicio en el que informa

que el 21 de febrero de 2024 se presentó un aviso de desistimientoKL CE2024000 89 2

con perjuicio en el referido caso, en virtud de la Regla 39.1(a)(1) de

Procedimiento Civil, 32 LPRA Ap. V . De conformidad, solicita el

desistimiento del caso con perjuicio.

Habi e ndo la parte promovente del recurso presentado aviso de

desistimiento, la controversia presentada ante nuestra

consideración se ha torna do académica, por lo que ordenamos su

desestimación de conformidad con la Regla 83( B ) (5) de l R eglamento

del Tribunal de Apelaciones, 4 LPRA Ap. XXII

- B, R. 83

. Lo acordó el Tribunal y lo certifica la Secretaria del Tribunal

de Apelaciones.

Lcda. Lilia M. Oquendo Solís

Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR NOONEY  REAL  PROPERTY  INVESTORS-FOUR,  L.P.  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>    0000700720
<NAME>   NOONEY REAL PROPERTY INVESTORS-FOUR, L.P.

<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                  MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                                            160,065
<SECURITIES>                                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     140,149
<ALLOWANCES>                                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  348,269
<PP&E>                                                         21,853,130
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 10,776,748
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 11,605,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             241,818
<BONDS>                                                        13,747,369
<COMMON>                                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     (2,457,988)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   11,605,266
<SALES>                                                         1,659,699
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                1,659,755
<CGS>                                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  452,815
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                536,395
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   670,545
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                         0
<CHANGES>                                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      670,545
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       48.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           0


</TABLE>
Letter Agreement amending Development Agreement



 Exhibit 10.18 
  
 Yasuhiro Hashimoto, M.D. 
 President and CEO

 MediBIC Co., Ltd. 
 Daido Seimei Kasumigaseki Building 8F

 1-4-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku 
 Tokyo 100-0013 Japan

  

	Re:	Development Agreement between Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and MediBIC Co., Ltd. 

  
 Dear Yas, 
  
 I am writing you in regard to the Development Agreement between our companies having an Effective Date of 30 November 2004 and its accompanying side letter, both signed 2
December 2004. This letter confirms our understanding that, pursuant to the Development Agreement and side letter, Threshold has granted and hereby confirms its grant to MediBic of a non-exclusive license to use Threshold confidential information
relating to glufosfamide for the limited purpose of preparing the Development Plan and any associated marketing plans as authorized under the Development Agreement, and if such Development Plan is agreed upon by the parties, this non-exclusive
license to use Threshold confidential information shall continue for the time necessary for MediBIC to perform its obligations under the Development Plan. 
  
 In addition, this letter amends the Development Agreement to remove North Korea from the list of countries in the “Asian Territory” as defined in Section 1.3.

  
 Please acknowledge your receipt of this letter and agreement by signing and
returning one of the two duplicate originals provided to you. 
  

	
	 Best regards,

	
	/s/    HAROLD E. SELICK        
	 Harold E. Selick

	 Chief Executive Officer

	 Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


  

	
	 ACCEPTED AND AGREED

	
	/s/    YASUHIRO HASHIMOTO        
	 Yasuhiro Hashimoto, M.D.

	 President and CEO

	 MediBIC Co., Ltd
#### FRANCES MUSZYNSKI ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, v. SAMUEL K. SEIDENBERG, DEFENDANT.

Decided November 8, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Kalisch and Campbell.

For the rule, *George B. Bailey.*

Contra, *John*W. *McGeehan, Jr.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff Frances Muszynski was injured, while riding in an automobile along Clinton Place in the city of Newark, in a collision which occurred between that car and an auto truck belonging to the defendant. She brought suit to recover compensation for the injuries thus received, claiming that the collision was the result of the carelessness of the de-' fendant. Her husband joined her, seeking to recover compensation' for medical expenses incurred by reason of his wife’s injuries, and for compensation for the loss of her services. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the jury awarding Mrs. Muszynski'$600 and her husband $250.

The contention of the plaintiffs before us is that these awards are grossly inadequate. Our examination of the testimony leads us to the conclusion that this contention is well founded, and that because of the inadequacy of the verdicts a new trial should be directed.

The rule to show cause will be made absolute.
# C_2015190EN.01000901.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Schenker Customs Agency v Commission

(Case T-576/11) (1)

((Customs Union - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Importation of glyphosate originating from Taiwan - Application for remission of import duties submitted by a customs agent - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Fairness clause - Special situation - Declarations for release for free circulation - Certificates of incorrect origin - Concept of obvious negligence - Commission decision declaring remission of duties not justified))

(2015/C 190/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Schenker Customs Agency BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Biermasz and A. Jansen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Keppenne and F. Wilman and subsequently by A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, Agents, and by Y. Van Gerven, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2011) 5208 final of 27 July 2011, finding that the remission of import duties is not justified in a particular case (Case REM 01/2010).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Schenker Customs Agency BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Schenker Customs Agency BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---
§ 390.10 Nonqualified withdrawals. ( a ) *In general* — ( 1 ) *Defined.* Any withdrawal from a fund which is not a qualified withdrawal is a nonqualified withdrawal.
( 2 ) *Tax aspects of a nonqualified withdrawal.* For the tax aspects of a nonqualified withdrawal, see 46 U.S.C. 53511 and § 3.7 of the joint regulations (§ 391.7 of this chapter).
( b ) *Permission required* — ( 1 ) *In general.* The prior written permission of the Maritime Administrator is required before a nonqualified withdrawal may be made.
( 2 ) *Failure to secure permission.* A nonqualified withdrawal made without the prior written permission of the Maritime Administrator shall constitute a material breach of the agreement unless the Maritime Administrator shall determine that failure to obtain prior written consent was excusable. See § 390.13 (relating to failure to fulfill a substantial obligation under the agreement).
( 3 ) *Types of nonqualified withdrawals which will be permitted.* Generally, the Maritime Administrator will give permission to make nonqualified withdrawals when: ( i ) The party has incurred operating losses from the operations of agreement vessels which have impaired his working capital and it becomes necessary to reimburse its general funds to the extent of such losses;
( ii ) The party desires to make an expenditure for research, development or design and such an expenditure is incident to new and advanced ship design, machinery and equipment;
( iii ) The withdrawal would be a qualified withdrawal except for the fact that there is no tax basis left that can be reduced; or
( iv ) The party demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Maritime Administrator, that it cannot fulfill its program due to circumstances beyond its control or due to a change in circumstances which makes the completion of its program economically unfeasible.
[41 FR 4265, Jan. 29, 1976, as amended at 73 FR 56740, Sept. 30, 2008]
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2470 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 133
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2470

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 17, 2009

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                             July 30, 2009

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 19190 Cochran Boulevard FRNT in Port Charlotte, Florida, as the 
      ``Lieutenant Commander Roy H. Boehm Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT COMMANDER ROY H. BOEHM POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 19190 Cochran Boulevard FRNT in Port Charlotte, Florida, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Lieutenant Commander Roy H. 
Boehm Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lieutenant 
Commander Roy H. Boehm Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 133

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2470

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 19190 Cochran Boulevard FRNT in Port Charlotte, Florida, as the 
      ``Lieutenant Commander Roy H. Boehm Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 30, 2009

                       Reported without amendment
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA L. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-11884

v. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on December 8, 2016 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

United States District Judge

On November 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge David R. Grand issued a Report

and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that the Court grant in part

Plaintiff Cynthia L. Williams’ motion for summary judgment, deny the Defendant

Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for summary judgment, and remand this

case to the Defendant Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §

405(g) for further administrative proceedings. No objections have been filed to

the R & R. The Court having reviewed the R & R, the parties’ underlying motions

2:15-cv-11884-GER-DRG Doc # 19 Filed 12/12/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 412
for summary judgment, and the remainder of the record,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate

Judge’s November 8, 2016 Report and Recommendation (docket #18) is

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, for the

reasons stated in the R & R, that Plaintiff’s May 6, 2016 motion for summary

judgment (docket #14) is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent that it seeks a

remand for further administrative proceedings, and that Defendant’s August 5,

2016 motion for summary judgment (docket #17) is DENIED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

United States District Judge

Dated: December 12, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties

and/or counsel of record on December 12, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary

mail.

s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5135

2

2:15-cv-11884-GER-DRG Doc # 19 Filed 12/12/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 413
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             350,425
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,936,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (10,000)
<INVENTORY>                                        637,319
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,983,796
<PP&E>                                          19,201,079
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,219,076)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,530,715
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,892,122
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            143
<COMMON>                                             5,415
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,403,094
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,530,715
<SALES>                                          7,895,603
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,895,603
<CGS>                                            1,895,281
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,754,453
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   103,125
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 275,889
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,133,145)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,133,145)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,133,145)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.95)



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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
PCD INC.'S FORM 10-K FOR PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          20,529
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                       232
<INVENTORY>                                      2,608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,804
<PP&E>                                           9,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,456
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,750
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,456
<SALES>                                         26,857
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,857
<CGS>                                           14,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,445
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    40
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,680
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,895
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,785
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,785
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.76


</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-72,111-02

EX PARTE DONALD RAY RECTOR, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. WRIT12207 IN THE 196TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HUNT COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant pleaded guilty to manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance and was

sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Applicant did not appeal his conviction. Applicant filed this

application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded

it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends, among other things, that his plea was involuntary because trial counsel

threatened him with the possibility of life imprisonment. Applicant has alleged facts that, if true,

might entitle him to relief. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Ex parte Argent, 393 S.W.3d 781

(Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Accordingly, the record should be developed. The trial court is the

appropriate forum for findings of fact. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court
2

shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. In this response, trial counsel shall state

whether he told Applicant he could be sentenced to life imprisonment, and if so, what this was based

on. In developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). If

the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant

is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent

him at the hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. If counsel is appointed or retained, the

trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name.

The trial court shall ensure the habeas record is supplemented with copies of the plea

paperwork, admonishments, and a transcript of the plea proceedings. The trial court shall make

findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether trial counsel’s performance was deficient and

Applicant would have insisted on a trial but for counsel’s alleged deficient performance. The trial

court shall also make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant had prior

convictions that could have been used to enhance his punishment. The trial court may make any

other findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to Applicant’s claim.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: January 11, 2023

Do not publish