alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-15-00562-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ABBASID, INC. D/B/A AZHAR’S ORIENTAL RUGS, 

PHOENICIAN IMPORTS, INC., AND AZHAR SAID, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A ABBASID, INC. 

AND PHOENICIAN IMPORTS, INC., Appellants,

v.

DALE & KLEIN, LLP, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 370th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides 

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

Defendants and counter-plaintiffs Abbasid, Inc. d/b/a Azhar’s Oriental Rugs, 

Phoenician Imports, Inc., and Azhar Said, individually and d/b/a Abbasid, Inc. and 

Phoenician Imports, Inc., and plaintiff and counter-defendant Dale & Klein LLP have each 
2

appealed a final judgment rendered on September 11, 2015. This Court previously 

abated the appeal to allow the parties to effectuate their settlement agreement. The 

parties have now filed an agreed, joint motion for disposition pursuant to settlement 

agreement. The parties assert that this case is now ripe for disposition pursuant to the 

agreement, and ask us to render judgment effectuating their settlement. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A). T

The Court, having considered the documents on file and the joint motion for 

disposition pursuant to settlement agreement, is of the opinion that the motion should be 

granted. See id. Accordingly, we REINSTATE this appeal. We GRANT the joint 

motion for disposition pursuant to settlement agreement. In accordance with the 

settlement agreement, we set aside and REVERSE the final judgment and RENDER

judgment dismissing the parties’ claims against each other with prejudice. In accordance 

with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring same. See

id. R. 42.1(d) (“Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the 

appellant.”). Having dismissed the appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing 

will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. We dismiss any other pending 

motions as moot. 

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed the

11th day of January, 2018.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D20-854

_____________________________

ISAAC BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel—

Original Jurisdiction.

September 22, 2020

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate 

counsel is denied on the merits.

LEWIS, NORDBY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Isaac Brown, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
No. 55090.

#### Brooks Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 79070-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,247
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,296
<INVENTORY>                                     27,193
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,563
<PP&E>                                          29,769
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 276,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,739
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        82,811
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   276,760
<SALES>                                        200,861
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               200,861
<CGS>                                          132,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  176,581
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,039
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   166
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,443
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,798
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,044
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,754
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,817)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,937
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        

</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

January 16, 1946

No. 50817.

#### Protests 13242-K, etc., of Foster Canning Co. (Charleston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of dog food similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 175, C. A. D. 304). In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as claimed.
H. J. Res. 80

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law

106–62 is further amended by striking ‘‘November 17, 1999’’ in

section 106(c) and inserting ‘‘November 18, 1999’’. Public Law 106–

46 is amended by striking ‘‘November 17, 1999’’ and inserting

‘‘November 18, 1999’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<PAGE>   1






                                  EXHIBIT 12(A)

                 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES
                                  SALTON, INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                6 MONTHS
                                                  ENDED                                 YEAR ENDED
                                                12/26/98
(THOUSANDS, EXCEPT RATIOS)                     (UNAUDITED)         1998          1997       1996       1995        1994
                                               -----------         ----          ----       ----       ----        ----
<S>                                               <C>            <C>          <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>   
Fixed Charges
     Interest and amortization
      of debt issuance costs on
      all indebtedness                            $4,927         $6,203       $4,967      $3,934       $3,057      $2,047


     Add interest element
      implicit in rentals                            612            521          394         222          211         248
                                               ---------       --------      -------      ------      -------     -------


     Total fixed charges                          $5,539         $6,724       $5,361      $4,156       $3,268      $2,295
                                               =========       ========      =======      ======       ======      ======

Income
     Income before income
      taxes                                      $34,606        $32,168       $6,400      $1,146       $  671     ($2,944)


     Add fixed charges                             5,539          6,724        5,361       4,156        3,268       2,295
                                               ---------       --------      -------     -------      -------     -------


     Income before fixed
      charges and income taxes                   $40,145        $38,892      $11,761      $5,302       $3,939      $ (649)
                                               =========        =======      =======      ======       ======      ======


Ratio of earnings to
 fixed charges                                      7.25           5.78          2.19        1.28         1.21          (A)

</TABLE>


(A) As a result of the loss for the fiscal year ended July 2, 1994, earnings did
not cover fixed charges by $5.2 million.
# L_2022218EN.01000101.xml

| 23.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 218/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 218/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/1416

of 16 August 2022

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Finocchio di Isola Capo Rizzuto’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Finocchio di Isola Capo Rizzuto’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Finocchio di Isola Capo Rizzuto’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Finocchio di Isola Capo Rizzuto’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Finocchio di Isola Capo Rizzuto’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Finocchio di Isola Capo Rizzuto’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 August 2022.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 179, 2.5.2022, p. 19.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
Page 1 of 1

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/data-graphic.GIF 7/19/2010
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4658

_____________________________
T ONY M OBLEY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. James Daniel , Judge

. August 2, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , L EWIS , and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Tony Mobley, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Case No. 14,340.

#### UNDERWOOD v HUDDLESTONE.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 93.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1813.

Notes — Action against Indorser — Notice *or*Non-Payment — Misnomer.

Notice of the non-payment of a note signed by John, is not notice of the non-payment of a note signed by James, unless the party had good reason to believe that the .note of James was intended.

[See Case No. 14.339.]

Assumpsit, against the indorser of James B. Roddy’s note. The notice given to the defendant was of the non-payment of a note signed John B. Roddy, &c., describing the note correctly as to every circumstance, except the signature John, instead of James.

THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, doubting,) said that if the jury should be of opinion, from the evidence, that the defendant had good reason to believe it to be the note in the declaration mentioned, the jury ought to presume that the defendant had reasonable notice, &c.

Mr. Jones, for plaintiff.

Mr. Law, for defendant.

THE COURT

had before instructed the

jury, that notice of the non-payment óf a note signed by John B. Roddy, was not notiee of the non-payment of a note signed by James B. Roddy; but that opinion was founded upon the naked statement of the fact that the notice was of a note signed John B. Roddy. ■ -
No. 55093.

#### Chung Sang Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 599976-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this registration statement of our report dated August 21, 1997
included in Rural/Metro Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 1997
and to all references to our firm included in this registration statement.
 
                                          ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 
Phoenix, Arizona
August 19, 1998
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0405

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

NATHAN BRYCE HARDIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 28, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 23 2022

08/23/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0405
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4459



# 

L ARRY T HOMAS R EMINGTON ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.

(CR-00-25-BR)
Submitted: January 16, 2001
Decided: February 5, 2001

Before: WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM: Larry Thomas Remington appeals his sentence of fifty-seven months’ imprisonment pursuant to his guilty plea to four counts of sexual abuse of a minor. Because he did not object to the challenged upward departure at sentencing, we review the sentence for plain

error. See United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993); United States v. Rolle , 204 F.3d 133, 138 (4th Cir. 2000). Finding no such error, we affirm. Remington admitted having repeated sexual contact with the same victim approximately once per week for four years. The district court found that "[t]he guidelines used in this case neither consider the number of occasions in which the defendant had sexual conduct witha minor, nor do they take into account the duration of these encounters." (J.A. 44). The court, therefore, applied a five-level upward departure for engaging in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse of a minor pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 5K2.0 and 2G2.2(b)(4) (1998). On appeal, Remington argues that because he received a four-level multi-count adjustment, that the court’s upward departure results in unreasonable double-counting. We conclude that the district court imposed the upward departure based upon sexual conduct with a minor that was not accounted for by the four charges to which Remington pled guilty. See United States v. Amirault , 224 F.3d 9, 11 (9th Cir. 2000) (affirming application of five-level upward departure under USSG §§ 5K2.0 and 2G2.2(b)(4)).Therefore, we conclude the sentence did not amount to "doublecounting" of the same conduct. We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and find no reversible error. We dispensewith 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 2 U NITED S TATES v. R EMINGTON
No. 62930.

#### V. T. Mancusi *v.*United States,

protest 324003-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are similar to those involved in Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
CLERK OF THE SUPREME C URT 

ELIZABETH A. BRO‘N 

BY: 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

ROGER PAMPERIN, AN INDIVIDUAL; 

KRISTINA PAMPERIN, AN 

INDIVIDUAL; AND JACE MUN, 

Res ondents. 

No. 82013 

FM. 

JAN 1 9 2022 

ELIZABEIll A. BROWN 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

BY 6.•/ 

DEPUT(ZigitR143 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

Cause appearing, appellant's motion for a voluntary dismissal 

of this appeal is granted. This appeal is dismissed. NRAP 42(b). 

It is so ORDERED. 

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge 

Salvatore C. Gugino, Settlement Judge 

Tyson & Mendes LLP 

Needharn Law Firm 

Black & Wadhams 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

ot11 (0) 1947
**OFFlCE** OF **THE ATTORNEY**  GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

HonorableDar&d Cole CountyAuditor Stephens County **Breokenridge, Texas**  Dear **Sir:**



### utaa, reads am

reties, in the sum payable to the oounty 4 

### rafthrul perronneno4
on4 in writtng, stating that y cualiriedunder the proriremente or this title, end g.i*lq ions or private or publia trust ro held, end the length Of 8~~104 e shall rurther inolude in hfe oath that & ~111 not perrbnallybe Interested in any dontreotwith the countysw,

-. ~h15 articlewe hotion 4 0r Senate Bill 258 of the 29th Legislatureor Tsxee, Regular Seselon 1905, aad was olearlywithin the caption of the aot. Beeider the same wea oodlriad as Article 1049, Rsrfaed Civil Statutse, in thr revision or the statutesin 1925. It her not been emended SlILO4. 2

-_.-- ._ _..~ .-.._.. -.. --....-.. . . . . ..__ .___-.,--- _-y. .---“.“^*Y--.. ---.--- .__._..“...

HonorableDaTld Cole, Page 8 ,- --.. 

### 124

.

The Ease or Amerloan IndamnitpCompanyvb Red River HatIonal'%nk, 133 S. W. (Zd) 4773, holds that ArtIole 1649, Revised Civil Statutes,riqulres the oountp audItor to take the'reguleroath end a spsoial oath. ThIe ease also holds that the pux!poee of Article 1648, Revised civil Stetutea (whlohpresorlbesthe qualIriaatIon8 of the county auditor),was to proteot the Intsrentror the county. Yie

do not find that any oiths provIsIonsor our State Constitutionhare been violated by this artiole.

.

It Is our opinion that the artfole Is oonstltutlonal and mandatory. Vsrp truly. yours ATTORNXY @ENFiX.% CG’ TlXAS
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 10.6
------------



                                                       September 26, 2001


Fredric P. Sapirstein
Hoenig Group Inc.
Reckson Executive Park
4 International Drive
Rye Brook, NY 10573


Dear Fred:

         Hoenig Group Inc. ("Hoenig") and you are parties to an employment
agreement, dated January 2, 2000 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used
herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. The Agreement
provides that the Initial Period of employment ends on December 31, 2001 and
that the Agreement will automatically be renewed for a one year period, unless
either party notifies the other in writing of its intention not to renew the
Agreement not less than three months prior to the end of the Initial Period.


         By your acceptance of this letter, Hoenig and you agree to amend the
renewal provision for this year only so that the Agreement will automatically be
renewed for an additional one year from December 31, 2001 unless either party
notifies the other in writing of its intention not to renew the Agreement no
later than November 16, 2001. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.



                                      Very truly yours,
                                      Hoenig Group Inc.


                                      By: /s/Alan B. Herzog
                                          -----------------
                                          Alan B. Herzog
                                          Chief Operating Officer





Agreed and Accepted


/s/Fredric P. Sapirstein
------------------------
Fredric P. Sapirstein
No. 57105.

protest 171446-K (Los Angeles).

#### Duffield Distributing Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It appeared from the record that the discharging inspector reported 11 cases of cognac short-landed; that the affidavit of short shipment filed by the importer covered only 6 of the cases; and that the collector granted an allowance in duties and internal revenue taxes as to said 6 cases but refused to make an allowance upon the remainder of the eases reported. The testimony fully established that the 5 cases not covered by the importer’s affidavit were not received as a part of the shipment in question which was entered under entry 2155 but were imported at a later date under entry 5248, upon which duty and internal revenue taxes again were paid. In view of the evidence presented, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon said 5 cases of cognac, not landed. The protest was sustained to this extent.