alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

R.Q. WARD, D.C. KING, K.J. BRUBAKER

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JARREL R. CUFF

PRIVATE (E-1), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201400252

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 27 March 2014.

Military Judge: LtCol E.A. Harvey, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, 1st Supply 

Battalion, Combat Logistics Regiment 15, 1st Marine 

Logistics Group, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LtCol E.J. Peterson, 

USMC.

For Appellant: CDR Boyce Crocker, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

11 September 2014

---------------------------------------------------

OPINION OF THE COURT 

---------------------------------------------------

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 9, 2016.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-16-00089-CV

DELINDA BREWSTER, Appellant

V.

AMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT PROPERTIES TWO, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-00021-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans

Opinion by Justice Myers

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. After appellant failed to respond to our letter regarding 

the reporter’s record, we ordered this appeal submitted without a reporter’s record and appellant’s brief to 

be filed by August 28, 2016. By postcard dated August 30, 2016, we notified appellant the time for filing 

her brief had expired. We directed appellant to file both her brief and an extension motion within ten 

days. We cautioned appellant that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this appeal without 

further notice. To date, appellant has not filed her brief, requested an extension of time to file her brief, or 

otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

160089F.P05 /Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DELINDA BREWSTER, Appellant

No. 05-16-00089-CV V.

AMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT 

PROPERTIES TWO, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 4, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-00021-D.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices 

Lang and Evans participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 9th day of November, 2016.
Case No. 13,096.

#### SMITH v. QUEEN.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 483.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columhia.

June, 1808.

Courts —Jurisdictionad Amount —Judgment— Payments.

In an action of debt on a sealed note, if the verdict be reduced below twenty dollars by payments proved at the trial, judgment of non pros, must be entered.

[Cited in Hellrigle v. Dulany, Case No. 6,-343.]

Debt [by Smitn, for the use of Higden, against Nicholas L. Queen], on a note under seal. There were payments proved which reduced the amount due to seventeen dollars and thirty cents.

The verdict is, “We find .for the plaintiff and find the sum due on the note to be seventeen dollars and thirty cents.”

Mr. Van Horne, for defendant,

moved for judgment of non pros., under Act Md. 1796, c. 68, § 9.

Mr. Caldwell.

The courts in Maryland are expressly limited. The jurisdiction of this court is general. See Act Cong. Feb. 27, 1801, § 5 (2 Stat. 106), and May 3, 1802, § 4 (2 Stat. 194). If the defendant can defeat the plaintiff before a justice of the peace, by not pleading discount, &c.. and can defeat the plaintiff in this court by pleading discount, the plaintiff would be totally defeated. The plaintiff cannot always ascertain what sum he ought to credit. The defendant may refuse to settle accounts, &c.

*633Curia advisari vult.. December term, ISOS, judgment of non pros, was entered. See Woolley v. Cloutman, 1 Doug. 244; Wase v. Wyburd, Id. 246; Ailway v. Burrows, Id. 263; Wiltshire v. Lloyd, Id. 381, 382; Pitts v. Carpenter, 2 Strange, 1191.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-26-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-27-1999
<CASH>                                                 573
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       89,845
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (1,537)
<INVENTORY>                                         60,595
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   153,532
<PP&E>                                              44,878
<DEPRECIATION>                                      29,943
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     286,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              114,285
<BONDS>                                            285,766
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               18,591
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               156
<OTHER-SE>                                        (147,020)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       286,658
<SALES>                                            317,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   317,480
<CGS>                                              210,783
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      210,783
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    70,534
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21,551
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     14,612
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6,788
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  7,824
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         7,824
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 10662)

Entry No. 99811/6.

#### Isaac B. Cohen *& Sons*Corp. D. Hauser Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided January 16, 1964)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliveh, Chief Judge:

This case is before me on a written stipulation of submission, limiting the present'appeal for reappraisement to certain oblong mirrors, represented by the invoice item marked “A” and initialed “ECA,” identified as item 32/8534, and showing that the proper basis for appraisement for the present merchandise is export value, as defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165), and that such statutory value therefor is $3.33 per gross, net, packed, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 59466.

protests 170249-K, etc. (Duluth).

#### F. E. Macartney *v.*United States,

Opinion 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 *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Duke Capital LLC (Duke Capital) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David L. Hauser, President of Duke Capital, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duke Capital.



|                      |  |  |  |                       
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 13, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    DAVID L. HAUSER
|                      |  |  |  | David L. Hauser       
|                      |  |  |  | President
Kim Schweisberg

USEPA Region 1 – New England

Presented April 13, 2012 at the Maine DEP 

and BUSTI Spring 2012 Training Workshop 

for Certified Tank Installers & Inspectors
Milestones in the Federal UST Program

As the 1993 and 1998 deadlines came and 

went, inspections increasingly revealed that 

equipped to comply often ≠ compliance
EPA and States Began Increasing Focus on the Proper 

Operation & Maintenance of UST Systems

EPA issued practical help and checklists in the 9/05 document 

“Operating and Maintaining Underground Storage Tank Systems”

EPA is proposing to revise the 1988 UST regulations 

to: 

o Establish federal requirements that are similar to 

certain key provisions of the Energy Policy Act; 

o Ensure owners and operators properly operate and 

maintain their UST systems; 

o Include updates to current technology and codes 

of practices; 

o Make technical and editorial corrections; and 

o Update SPA [State Program Approval] regulation 

to address the proposed changes listed above. 

Key Energy Policy Act provisions (such as 

secondary containment and operator 

training) apply to all states receiving 

federal Subtitle I money under SWDA, 

regardless of their state program approval 

status, but do not apply in Indian country 

(or in states and U.S. territories that do not 

meet EPA's operator training or secondary 

containment grant guidelines).
Lack of proper operation and maintenance of UST 

systems is a main cause of new releases. 

Information on sources and causes of releases 

shows that releases from tanks are less common 

than they once were. However, releases from 

piping and spills and overfills associated with 

deliveries have emerged as more common 

problems. In addition, releases at the dispenser 

are one of the leading sources of releases. Finally, 

data show that release detection equipment is 

only detecting approximately 50 percent of 

releases it is designed to detect. [2009 data]















FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth McDermott, USEPA 

OSWER/OUST in Washington, DC, telephone number: (703) 603-7175

email address: mcdermott.elizabeth@epa.gov

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2012

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQUST-2011-0301, by one of the following methods: 

o http://www.regulations.gov; Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. (a direct link is also provided on the EPA OUST webpage)

o Email: mcdermott.elizabeth@epa.gov

o Mail: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- UST-2011-

0301, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460
---

EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Xiana Mining Inc. (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended January 31, 2017, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anton
J. Drescher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

|Dated: May 31, 2017
|-------------------
|                   
|                   
|                   
|                   

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CARL TIANI and MARIA BELEM

, Appellant s

,

v.

FRONTLINE INSURANCE UNLIMITED COMPANY

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 0639

[ April 25, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County; Keathan B. Frink, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE21

-

013085.

Robin F. Hazel of Hazel Law

, P.A., Hollywood, for appellants.

Elizabeth K. Russo of Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, D AMOORGIAN and G ERBER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
##### 



Exhibit 10.10




---



##### 



Schedule A




---



##### 








---



##### 



LEGALLY BINDING KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO RELEASE
  Sincerely,/s/ Richard I. SteinhartRichard I. Steinhart
Vice President & Chief Financial Officer  /s/ William BronnerWilliam BronnerDate: 11/09/06




---



##### 



Schedule
    A
 William Bronner list of options
   Schedule of Options



Grant

Expiration

Exercise

10/31/06

10/31/06Name

Plan or Source

Date

Date

Price

Outstanding

VestedWilliam Bronner


1996 Stock Option Plan



02/19/02



02/19/12


$
1.00



1,875



1,500William Bronner


1996 Stock Option Plan



02/02/04



02/02/09


$
0.46



17,000



17,000William Bronner


2003 Stock Incentive Plan



12/17/04



12/17/09


$
0.46



20,000



20,000William Bronner


1996 Stock Option Plan



01/15/03



01/15/13


$
1.00



32,160



32,160William Bronner


2005 Stock Option Plan



05/22/06



05/22/11


$
7.08



7,500



Totals


















78,535



70,660




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 Employee Invention, Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement dated July 1, 2000
 Confidentiality Agreement dated October 6, 1999
No. 60376.

protest 247103-K (A) (New York).

#### J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Donlon, Judge:

Plaintiff protested liquidation of merchandise as chocolate, sweetened, in blocks of less than 10 pounds each, charged with duty at 40 percent *426ad valorem under paragraph 777 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930. The protest claim was that the merchandise should have been classified and liquidated, as entered, that is, as confectionery, not specially provided for, subject to duty under paragraph 506, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, at 14 percent ad valorem, plus tax.

On trial, plaintiff ignored the issue pleaded in its protest, accepted the collector’s classification on liquidation, and raised (without amending or even attempting to amend its protest) the new claim not pleaded in its protest, “that the merchandise should have been returned under the Czechoslovakian treaty at 20 %” (p. 2).

Although time was requested and granted for filing briefs, subsequently, counsel gave notice they intended not to file briefs, and they have not done so.

There are no proofs that conform to plaintiff’s pleading in its protest. There is, therefore, no Judgment which this court can render for plaintiff in support of the protest. *United States*v. *Jacobson & Sons Co.,*10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 191, T. D. 38551; *United States*v. *Globe Shipping Co., Inc.,*19 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 148, T. D. 45262.

We do not pass on the issue as to any treaty. It would be futile and, indeed, improper for us to attempt to decide an issue which the pleadings do not present for our decision. Our appeals court has so held in the cited cases.

The protest is overruled. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of RTG Ventures Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ending August 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barrington Fludgate,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/
      Barrington FludgateBarrington
      Fludgate
                    Chief
      Financial Officer
                    December
      3, 2009
Exhibit 32.1
 WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.
FORM 10-Q
Quarter ended June 30, 2009
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESULTS
  
    
    This Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 
    
    The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial position and results of operations of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. as of
and for the periods presented.
 /s/
Edward J. McKeonEdward J. McKeonPresident and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 14, 2009
# C_2015328EN.01003301.xml

| 5.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/33

---

Action brought on 14 August 2015 — Capella v OHIM — Abus (APUS)

(Case T-473/15)

(2015/C 328/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Capella EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Abus August Bremicker Söhne KG (Wetter/Volmarstein, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Capella EOOD

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘APUS’ — Application for registration No 10 415 511

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2015 in Case R 117/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
14

Figure 10. Distribution of Site-level Ratio of Annual 98th Percentile Concentration/Annual Mean, 

2006-2008 

Overall

U.S.

Industrial Southeast Northeast

Midwest

Upper 

Midwest

So. CA Southwest Northwest Outlying 

Sites

1

2

3

4

5

6
#### TYE v. HERTZ DRIVURSELF STATIONS, Inc.

Civ. A. No. 5692.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 1, 1946.

See, also, 8 F.2d 429.

Meyer E. Maurer, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

George E. Beechwood, and Bernard J. Smolens, of Conlen,- LaBrum & Beechwood, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant. '

MIZE, District Judge.

I have considered the motion for summary judgment, the pleadings, the admissions, affidavits and briefs in the above styled matter and have reached the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment to the extent that from the above documents it is clear the plaintiff and defendant were engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., and that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment in some amount.

 The payment of $639.67 on December 11, 1945 does not constitute a bar to liquidated damages, but the defendant is entitled to have this credited against any amount of judgment that might be collected. Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neal, 324 U.S. 697, 65 S.Ct. 895, 89 L.Ed. 1296. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for all overtime that accrued subsequent to March 6, 1940. All amounts that accrued prior to that time are barred by the statute of limitations, which the defendant has pled, and in this case the six year statute of limitations of Pennsylvania, 12 P.S. § 31, is applicable. Smith v. Continental Oil Company, D.C., 59 F.Supp. 91.

The affidavits and the admissions show conclusively that the plaintiff entered the defendant’s employ on April 4, 1939 and worked from that time, until October 30, 1944 as a desk man. His duties were so closely connected with Interstate Commerce that under the act as construed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638, and many other cases of the Supreme, Court of the United States, it is clear that he was covered by the act. The defendant company was engaged in serving and hiring, trucks engaged in commerce within the Act. It is therefore clear that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment. The amount, however, cannot be determined from the present record.

The defendant denied many of the assertions requested to be admitted and it, therefore, will be necesary that the amount be determined either by further affidavits or by a hearing upon the merits as to the amount.

An- order may be drawn -in accordance with this opinion holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment and that he shall be charged in that judgment with the sum of '$639.67, but that this amount, or a part *537thereof, will first be applied to the amounts that were barred by the statute of limitations, as the law applies a payment to- the oldest indebtedness. Plaintiff is not entitled at this time to the payment as liquidated damages of $639.67 for the reason that it was paid as a compromise. The order will retain jurisdiction of the case for the purpose of ascertaining the amount to which the plaintiff is entitled. This order may be presented in chambers on Thursday, October 3, at 2 o’clock.