alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20748

Summary Calendar

TIM DAWSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

VERSUS

CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, HOUSTON FIRE DEPARTMENT; SAMUEL RUFFINO,

Individually, and In His Official Capacity as Captain of the

Houston Fire Department; A B WHITEHORN, Individually, and In His

Official Capacity as Deputy Chief of the Houston Fire Department;

DANIEL D SHARP, Individually, and In His Official Capacity as Fire

Fighter of the Houston Fire Department; STAN P NADOLSKI,

Individually, and In His Official Capacity as Investigator of the

Internal Affairs Division of the Houston Fire Department; CITY OF

HOUSTON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-99-589)

DECEMBER 22, 1999

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Timothy Dawson filed suit in the Southern District

of Texas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged procedural and

substantive due process violations and for state tort law claims of

intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy.
2

Dawson’s injuries allegedly arose out of a four day suspension

without pay from the Houston Fire Department due to

insubordination. Dawson received notice of the suspension on June

22, 1996, and on July 8, 1996, he requested review by an

independent hearing examiner. On June 27, 1997, the independent

hearing examiner reduced the suspension to three days. Dawson

filed suit on February 25, 1999. The district court granted

summary judgment for the Appellees finding 1) the claims barred by

the applicable two-year statute of limitations; 2) a lack of

subject matter jurisdiction by operation of the Texas Local

Government Code; and 3) that the Appellees are but one entity and

are thus incapable of conspiring against Dawson. The district

court also denied Dawson’s motion for a new trial. Dawson

appealed.

Having carefully reviewed the record and fully considered the

arguments of the parties, we conclude that the district court

correctly determined that the suit was barred by the statute of

limitations both because the period commenced upon Dawson’s

notification of the suspension on June 22, 1996, See Freeze v.

Griffith, 849 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1988), and because the

limitations period was not tolled during the pendency of the review

by the independent hearing examiner. See Holmes v. Texas A & M

University, 145 F.3d 681, 684-85 (5th Cir. 1998). We also

conclude, therefore, that the district court properly denied

Dawson’s motion for a new trial. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM without reaching the district court’s
3

alternative bases for the summary judgment.
Before the Third Division,

November 1, 1961

No. 66185.

#### United China & Glass Company *v.*United States,

protests 58/10515, etc. (Galveston).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorative after-dinner cups and saucers the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 719), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (a) The items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to September 10,1955, at 50 cents per dozen, but not less than 45 percent nor more than 70 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 212, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 51909), and (b) all items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on and after September 10, 1955, at 45 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Japanese Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 53865), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 53877).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          17,579
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,258
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,568
<INVENTORY>                                     12,637
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               116,500
<PP&E>                                       1,474,483
<DEPRECIATION>                               (592,077)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,535,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          232,451
<BONDS>                                      1,867,202
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,040
<OTHER-SE>                                   (580,294)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,535,387
<SALES>                                         21,692
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               263,560
<CGS>                                           16,177
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  263,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,253
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,006
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (51,758)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (51,758)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                     (37,446)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (89,204)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.86)
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Special Topics in Biomaterials, Instrumentation, Gene and Drug Delivery.                    

*Date:*                         December 8, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Joseph D. Mosca, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5158, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 408-9465,                         *moscajos@csr.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 19, 2023.

Victoria E. Townsend,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-23422 Filed 10-23-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
No. 62939.

#### Empacadora Trevino, S.A. *v.*United States,

protests 241420-K, etc. (Laredo).

*341Opinion by

Donlon,

J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *J. H. Brown et al.*(46 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 686), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>   1

                      SHOPKO STORES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                EXHIBIT 12 - STATEMENTS RE COMPUTATION OF RATIOS
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



                                                         First Half as of                     Fiscal Years Ended
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     July 31,        August 1,     January 30,     January 31,     February 1,
                                                      1999             1998           1999            1998            1997
                                                   (26 Weeks)       (26 Weeks)     (52 Weeks)      (52 Weeks)      (52 Weeks)
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                 <C>             <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
          Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
          -----------------------------------
          COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS

     1    Pre-tax income before extraordinary item   $   77,697     $   13,259     $    91,627    $    80,443    $      74,022
     2    Add previously capitalized
            interest amortized during the period            281            278             555            550              548
     3    Less interest capitalized
            during the period                               157             17             171              0              128
                                                    -----------     ----------     -----------    -----------    -------------
     4    Total earnings (sum of lines 1 to 3)           77,821         13,520          92,011         80,993           74,442

          COMPUTATION OF FIXED CHARGES

     5    Interest (1)                                   20,990         18,312          38,482         30,582           31,905
     6    Interest factor in rental
            expense                                       3,397          2,175           4,087          2,691            2,657
                                                    -----------     ----------     -----------    -----------    -------------
     7    Total fixed charges (sum of
          lines 5 and 6)                                 24,387         20,487          42,569         33,273           34,562

     8    TOTAL EARNINGS AND
            FIXED CHARGES (LINE 4
            PLUS LINE 7)                            $   102,208     $   34,007     $   134,580    $   114,266    $     109,004
                                                    ===========     ==========     ===========    ===========    =============
     9    Ratio (line 8 divided by line 7)                  4.2            1.7             3.2            3.4              3.2

          (1) Includes capitalized interest
</TABLE>




                                       30
No. 61635.

#### Balfour Guthrie & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 306228-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of goatskins and sheepskins the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Nawi Noonoo & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 57, C. D. 1904), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 40 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 40

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 relating to the budgetary treatment of the Federal programs currently 
 known as the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program and 
                    the hospital insurance program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 1999

  Mr. Traficant introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 relating to the budgetary treatment of the Federal programs currently 
 known as the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program and 
                    the hospital insurance program.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``The moneys of the United States held for purposes of the old-age, 
survivors, and disability insurance program and the hospital insurance 
program maintained under the Social Security Act and related laws of 
the United States as in effect on or after the date of the ratification 
of this article, or any other similar programs subsequently maintained 
under the laws of the United States, shall be held in separate and 
independent trust funds and shall be segregated from all other moneys 
of the United States. The receipts and disbursements of such programs 
(including revenues dedicated to such programs) shall not be included 
in any budget totals set forth in the budget of the United States 
Government as prepared by the President or any budget prepared by the 
Congress. The Congress may make no law authorizing the use of such 
trust funds for any purpose other than for providing for the prompt and 
effective payment of benefits, payment of administrative expenses, and 
payment of such amounts as may be necessary and appropriate to correct 
prior incorrect payments. No agency or instrumentality of the United 
States, or any officer or employee thereof, may use or authorize the 
use of such trust funds for any purpose other than as authorized by the 
Congress in accordance with this 
article.''.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas February 15, 2023 No. 04-23-00062-CV Enrique ORTA , III, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Enrique Orta, II, Ramona E. Moreno and Sabrina Orta, Appellants
v. SN OPERATING, LLC and Patco Wireline Services, LLC, Appellees From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CVF001213D2 Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant’s brief was due on February 23, 2023. Before the due date, Appellant filed a motion for a sixty-day extension of time to file the brief. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.6(d). Appellant’s motion is granted in part . The brief is due on March 27, 2023. See id
. It is so ORDERED on February 15, 2023. PER CURIAM ATTESTED TO:__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT
Swanson , Bria n (OST ) Xxn'-QSV
- ZOOO-(^•^f- 3 From : rafae l torre s [messicanoyque@msn.com ] Sent : Friday , Januar y20 , 201 2 3:0 6 A M To : Devany , Denni s (OST ) 

### 'ii^i'MEMTO F 'ORWiO H cc : EA S (OST ) '-i-E i OPERA!iCN ; Subject : Answe rt o Pacifi c Wings ' Petitio n fo rReconsideratio n JA N ? 5 [- ' h 2 8 T o who m thi s ma

yconcern I m writin g t o yo u regardin g th e petitio n fo rreconsideratio n requeste d b yPacifi c Wings

. Th e enormou s price increas e fro m Pacifi c wing s ha s mad e i t ver

ydifficul t fo rman ypeopl e her e i n Kalaupapa t o ge t basi c necessities

. Wit h Makan i Ka i onl yservin g Kalaupapa fo rthi s shor t perio d of tim e yo u ca n see a differenc e i n ou rcommunity

. A sig h o f relie f ha s com e ove rth e communit yknowin g tha t basi c medical , foo d an d famil yneed s ca n be accommodate d withou t a 500 dolla rprice tag

. Rafae l Torre s
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.60    
    


[AspenTechnology Letterhead/Logo]  


August 18,
2003 


Wayne
Sim

Senior Vice President, Worldwide Sales 


Dear
Wayne: 


This
letter amendment references the letter agreement between you and AspenTech dated June 24, 2003 (the "Agreement") regarding your FY04 Executive Compensation Plan. Under the terms of the
Agreement, AspenTech agreed that it would grant you an option to purchase the number of shares of AspenTech common stock specified in the Agreement, contingent upon stockholder approval of the Advent
transaction (the "Option"). As you know, the Advent transaction was approved by AspenTech stockholders and closed on August 14, 2003. 


AspenTech
acknowledges that you have voluntarily agreed to reduce the number of shares subject to the Option to which you were entitled in order to make more options available for the general employee
option pool. You hereby confirm, by execution of this letter amendment, that the option granted to you on August 18, 2003 for 421,000 shares of AspenTech common stock constitutes full
satisfaction of AspenTech's obligations under the Agreement to grant the Option and that the terms of the Agreement do not entitle you to any additional stock option grants. All other terms of the
Agreement, including those contingent upon the closing of the Advent transaction, remain in full force and effect. 



	Best regards,	 	 	 	 
	

/s/  HELEN MOYE      	
 	

/s/  WAYNE D. SIM      	
 	

Sept. 26, 2003
	
	 	
	 	

	Helen Moye	 	Wayne D. Sim	 	Date
	Sr. VP Human Resources

Aspen Technology, Inc.	 	Senior Vice President, Worldwide Sales	 	 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.60
No. 52097.

protest 110822-K (Cleveland).

#### Hallett & Carey Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
A89A1773.

#### BIGHAM v. WRIGHT.

(390 SE2d 109)

Birdsong, Judge.

This discretionary appeal was granted to review the trial court’s judgment in this child visitation rights case. Bigham and Wright were divorced in 1987 with custody of their daughter given to the mother, Bigham, and visitation rights granted to Wright. Alleging that Wright had sexually abused his daughter, Bigham sought the termination of his visitation rights. After evidentiary hearings, the trial court refused to terminate Wright’s visitation rights, but required that future visits with his daughter be supervised by Wright’s parents.

Although dissatisfied with this decision, Bigham did not seek permission to appeal, but moved for a new trial contending that “the judgment” was contrary to the law and the evidence, and was strongly against the weight of the evidence. At the hearing on the motion, Big-ham’s counsel agreed the motion contended that the trial court *195abused its discretion by not terminating the father’s visitation rights. The motion was denied, and Bigham was granted permission for a discretionary appeal. *Held:*

Decided January 9, 1990.

*Eugene S. Taylor,*for appellant.

*Minor, Bell & Neal, Steven B. Farrow, Sara-Ellen Midkiff,*for appellee.

When the application for this appeal was granted, it appeared the motion for new trial attacked errors contributing to the verdict. The record on appeal, however, shows the motion only attacked the judgment, not the verdict. That is not a proper basis for a motion for new trial. *State Farm &c. Ins. Co. v. Yancey,*188 Ga. App. 8, 9 (371 SE2d 883). Therefore, the motion did not extend the time in which an application for discretionary appeal could be filed. *Sands v. Lamar Properties,*159 Ga. App. 718, 719 (285 SE2d 24). Since the application for discretionary appeal was not filed within 30 days after the judgment below, the application was untimely and we have no jurisdiction.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*Deen, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.*
No. 57871.

protest 212099-K (New York).

#### Stephen Hurlbut *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the record showing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, the protest was dismissed as untimely under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
EXHIBIT 5




<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 5
                                                                      ---------

                            [DM&H letterhead omitted]




                                November 15, 2001





Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp.
P.O. Box 1000
Danboro, PA 18916

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     We have acted as counsel to Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. (the
"Company") in connection with the preparation and filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of a
registration statement on Form S-3 (the "Registration Statement") relating to
the offer and sale by the Company of up to 1,000,000 shares (the "Shares") of
Common Stock, $0.01 par value, of the Company, pursuant to the Company's
Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan").

     As counsel to the Company, we have supervised all corporate proceedings in
connection with the preparation and filing of the Registration Statement. We
have also examined the Company's Restated Certificate of Incorporation and
By-laws, as amended to date, the corporate minutes and other proceedings and the
records relating to the authorization, sale and issuance of the Shares as made
available to us by an officer of the Company, and such other documents and
matters of law as we have deemed necessary or appropriate in order to render
this opinion.

     Based upon the foregoing, it is our opinion that each of the Shares, when
issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Plan, will be legally
issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

     We hereby consent to the use of this opinion in the Registration Statement,
and we further consent to the reference to our name in the Prospectus under the
caption "Legal Opinion."

                                       Sincerely,



                                       /s/ Duane, Morris & Heckscher LLP


<PAGE>