alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 6518.

#### HENRY S. RIECKS, PROPRIETOR, ETC., vs. J. H. MEDNIKOW, DOING BUSINESS, ETC.

Syllabus.

Questions of fact only are involved.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “C,” No. 109,409. Honorable E. K. Skinner, Judge.

Prowell *&*Prowell, for plaintiff and appellee!

Sol. Weiss, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

*200Defendant refused to accept delivery of four showcases which plaintiff had, by written contract, agreed to make and to sell and deliver to him. The main ground for rejecting the cases was that the depth of the latter failed to conform with that prescribed in a separate oral agreement alleged by defendant to exist between the parties. Another ground is that the workmanship is defective.

As to the first ground, the alleged separate oral agreement has not been proved; while as to the workmanship, the defects alleged are trivial,' a small hole or bubble in the plate glass top of one of the cases, or the beading not being securely nailed, and such like' — all of which could and would have been easily remedied had plaintiff been afforded the opportunity. With reference thereto defendant’s main witness testified: “There- are certain defects in the workmanship that, according to my opinion, could be corrected.” And again: “The workmanship seemed to be, with minor exceptions, all right. ’ ’

In finding for plaintiff, the trial Court stated:

> ‘‘ The parties entered into a contract for the making of certain showcases. The contract was made by the writing of a letter and its acceptance, the defendant claiming, however, that the contract was subsequently modified to the extent that the floor of the cases should hold two 11- 3/4 inch jewelry trays. This amendment, which is the substantial portion of the defense, was not proved, being affirmed by one and denied by the other.

> “On the original contract, I believe from the evidence-, that.the obligation was complied with, the real ground of defendant’s complaint being that the cases were not deep enough.

> “If defendant considered this element so essential, •he should have amended the contract to meet his *201views; but that is no reason for rejecting work substantially made in compliance witli the contract.”

Opinion and decree, February 14th, 1916.

The judgment is in accord with these views and our own, .and it is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.
No. 49113.

#### Protest 550396-G/80161 of S. Hubbard (Canada) Ltd. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that the harvest hats in question are similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), the record in which case was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the claim at only 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained.
# C_2006040EN.01000101.xml

| 17.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 40/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 40/1

---

Declaration by the Netherlands in accordance with Article 5 and Article 97 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community

(2006/C 40/01)

The Netherlands Government wishes to inform you of the following:

In accordance with Article 5 and Article 97 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, Member States are required to specify the social security legislation to which this Regulation applies and to notify it to you.

The Netherlands Government wishes to amend one point of the declaration. This amendment relates to the entry into force of a new law.

On 1 January 2006 the Law on Invalidity Insurance for Employees was replaced by the Law on Work and Income in Accordance with Capacity for Work. The Law on Invalidity Insurance for Employees continues to apply only to persons who already receive benefits.

The above gives rise to the following amendment:

Legislation and schemes referred to in Article 4(1) and (2) of the Regulation

Invalidity benefits, including those for maintaining or improving earning capacity:

| — | ‘The Law of 18 February 1966 on Invalidity Insurance for Employees (Netherlands Official Gazette 1966, 84)’ to be replaced by ‘the Law of 10 November 2005 (Netherlands Official Gazette 2005, 572) on the promotion of the work or return to work of partially disabled insured persons in accordance with their capacity for work and the adoption of rules governing income for these persons as well as for insured persons who are totally and permanently disabled (Law on Work and Income in Accordance with Capacity for Work)’. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘The Law of 18 February 1966 on Invalidity Insurance for Employees (Netherlands Official Gazette 1966, 84)’ to be replaced by ‘the Law of 10 November 2005 (Netherlands Official Gazette 2005, 572) on the promotion of the work or return to work of partially disabled insured persons in accordance with their capacity for work and the adoption of rules governing income for these persons as well as for insured persons who are totally and permanently disabled (Law on Work and Income in Accordance with Capacity for Work)’.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ANCHOR GLASS CONTAINER CORPORATION INCLUDED IN FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,492
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   79,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,108
<INVENTORY>                                    105,851
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               214,601
<PP&E>                                         390,795
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,250
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 627,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          156,640
<BONDS>                                        202,930
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           55,983
<PREFERRED>                                         34
<COMMON>                                           139
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   627,572
<SALES>                                        493,613
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               493,613
<CGS>                                          456,270
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  456,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   250
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,947
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,646)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,646)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,646)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (4.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (4.38)
        

</TABLE>
1 ... SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 35 2- CV STE VE PAULSE N D / B/A APPE L L AN TS S T E V E P A U L S E N P R O P E R T IE S ; S T E V E P A U L S E N P R O P E R T IE S , L T D .; AND ST E VE P AUL SE N P ROP E RT Y M A N A G EM EN T, L. L. C . A N D N A TI O N A L CI T Y M OR T GAG E CO M P ANY V . C A RO LYN A . A D A M S A PPELL EE

----- ----- FR O M THE 1 41ST DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- 

### M E M ORANDUM OP I NI ON 1 

### AND J UDGME NT

----- ----- W e have consi der ed “A ppel l ant s St eve Paul sen d/ b/ a Steve Paul sen P rop e rt i e s; S tev eP a u l se n P rop e rt i e s, Ltd .; an d S t e v e P a u l se n P rop e rty M ana g e m ent , L. L. C . ’ s M ot i on To Di sm i ss . ” I ti s t he cou rt ’ s opi ni on t hatt he m ot i on s houl d begr ant ed; t her ef or e, w e di sm i ss t he app ea l ofap pel l ant s St eve2

Paul se n d/ b/a St evePau l se n Pr ope rt i es , St evePau l se n P r ope rt i es , Lt d. , an d S te v eP a u l s e n P ro p e rtyM a n a g e m e n t, L .L .C . SeeT e x . R . A p p . P . 4 2 .1 (a )(1 ), 43. 2( f ) . Thi s ca se sh al l her ea ft er be styl ed “Nat i ona l C i t y M ort gag e Com pan y v . C a ro l y n A d a m s .” C os t s oft h i s app ea l i ncu r r ed by a ppe l l ant s St evePau l se n d/ b/a St eve P a u l se n P rop e rt i e s, S tev eP a u l se n P rop e rt i e s, Ltd ., an d S tev eP a u l se n P rop e rty M anagem ent , L. L. C . shal l be t axed agai nst S t eve Paul sen d/ b/ a Steve Paul sen P rop e rt i e s, S tev eP a u l se n P rop e rt i e s, Ltd . , a n d S tev eP a u l se n P rop e rty M anagem ent , L. L. C . , f orw hi ch l etexecut i on i ssue. P E RCU R I AM PA N EL: M C C O Y, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d L I V I N G STO N , J. DEL I VERE D: F e br ua ry 5, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 453 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 453

   To prohibit the implementation of new requirements to report bank 
                   account deposits and withdrawals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 15, 2023

Mr. Scott of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. 
 Braun, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Marshall, 
 Mr. Rounds, Mr. Wicker, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cotton, Mr. 
Daines, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Paul, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. 
 Vance, Mr. Boozman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hoeven, Ms. Lummis, 
Mr. Risch, Mr. Young, Mr. Thune, Mr. Moran, Ms. Ernst, and Mr. Johnson) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
            Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the implementation of new requirements to report bank 
                   account deposits and withdrawals.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prohibiting IRS Financial 
Surveillance Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON NEW REQUIREMENTS TO REPORT BANK ACCOUNT DEPOSITS 
              AND WITHDRAWALS.

    The Secretary of the Treasury (including any delegate of the 
Secretary) may not require any financial institution to report--
            (1) the inflows or outflows of any account maintained by 
        such institution, or
            (2) any balances, transactions, transfers, or similar 
        information with respect to any such account,
except to the extent that such reporting is required under any program, 
or other provision of law, as in effect on the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ALEJANDRA OCHOA-NAVARRETE,

a.k.a. Monica Gonzales, a.k.a. Anna

Gonzalez, a.k.a. Monica Gonzalez, a.k.a.

Alejandra Ochoa Navarette, a.k.a.

Alejandra Ochoa, a.k.a. Anna Ochoa, a.k.a.

Maria DeJesus Ochoa,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50401

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01068-SVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 9, 2014** 

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Alejandra Ochoa-Navarrete appeals from the district court’s judgment and

FILED

DEC 16 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for

illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm, but remand to correct the

judgment.

Ochoa-Navarrete contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 32 by failing to rule on her objection to the presentence report

(“PSR”). The district court did not violate Rule 32 because Ochoa-Navarrete’s

objection to the PSR concerned a legal issue, not a factual dispute. See United

States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1188-89 (9th Cir. 2009).

Ochoa-Navarrete also contends that the district court procedurally erred by

failing to respond to her request for a cultural assimilation departure, and by failing

to understand and address her mitigating argument regarding the reduced need for

deterrence in view of her eligibility for a U-visa. We review for plain error, see

United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find

no error. The record reflects that the district court considered Ochoa-Navarrete’s

cultural assimilation departure request, properly understood and considered her 

U-visa argument, and sufficiently explained the below-Guidelines sentence. See

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062

2 13-50401
(9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it

delete from the judgment the reference to section 1326(b)(2). See United States v.

Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to

delete the reference to section 1326(b)(2)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

3 13-50401
Abatement Order filed May 24, 2022 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00679-CV

____________

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant

V.

RATAN ZAKIR, Appellee

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-90845

ABATEMENT ORDER

On April 29, 2022, we directed the clerk of the 295th District Court to deliver 

to the Clerk of this court the original of Exhibit 5 (a video recording) to the Please 

to the Jurisdiction filed August 20, 2020. On May 10, 2022, we sent notice the 

exhibit had not been filed. No response has been received.

Rule 34.6(f) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that an 

appellant is entitled to a new trial when the reporter’s record or exhibits are lost, 

under the following circumstances:

(1) if the appellant timely requested a reporter’s record;

(2) if, without the appellant’s fault, a significant exhibit has been lost 

or destroyed;
2

(3) if the lost or destroyed exhibit is necessary to the appeal’s 

resolution; and

(4) if the lost or destroyed exhibit cannot be replaced either by 

agreement of the parties or with a copy determined by the trial court 

to accurately duplicate with reasonable certainty the original exhibit.

Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(f).

Accordingly, the trial court is directed to conduct a hearing to determine the 

following: (1) whether appellant timely requested a reporter’s record; (2) whether 

without the appellant’s fault, a significant exhibit has been lost or destroyed; (3) 

whether the lost exhibit is necessary to appellant’s appeal; and (4) whether the 

parties can agree on replacement of the missing exhibit with a copy, or (5) if the 

trial court can determine that a copy accurately duplicates the missing exhibit with 

reasonable certainty. The court is directed to reduce its findings to writing and to 

have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the clerk of 

this court, together with a reporter’s record from the hearing, within 30 days of the 

date of this order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or 

the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any 

party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to 

schedule a hearing in compliance with this court’s order. If the parties do not 

request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date 

and notify the parties of such date.
3

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot and Poissant.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 21, 2020

t1014 

# Order

Clerk October 21, 2020

160614 & (70)(75)(76)(77)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 160614

COA: 322891

Oakland CC: 2013

- 244355

- FC

JONATHAN DEWIG HICKERSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions to a dd additional grounds for appeal are

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the October 8, 2019 judgment of the

Court of Appeals and the motion to remand are considered and, it appearing to this Court

that the case of Jones v Mississippi , cert gtd _ __ US ___; 140 S Ct 1293; 206 L Ed 2d

374 (March 9, 2020) (Docket No

. 18

- 1259)

, is pending on appeal before the United

States Supreme Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the

present application for leave to appeal, we OR DER that the application and motion to

remand be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case. The motion to hold

consideration of the application in abeyance for People v Masalmani (Docket No.

154773) is DENIED as moot.
----

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on given at its 406th meeting on 27 March 2006 concerning a draft decision relating to case COMP/B1-38.348 — Repsol CPP

(2006/C 152/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 16, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14776 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 79- 425- 420 K U J T I M K O L A M I , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( M ay 16, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: K uj t i m K ol a m i , a c i t i z e n a nd na t i ve of A l ba ni a , pe t i t i ons thi s C our tf orKo lami alsoc laime d Co nv e nti on Ag ains t T or

ture(“ CA T” ) re lie f b e fo retheIJ, but di d 1 not appeal the denial of CAT relief to the B IA and, accordingly, does not raisethe issue now. 2 r e vi e w of

a f i na l or de rof

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) a dopt i ng a nd a f f i r m i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng o f r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I m m ig r a tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “I N A ” ) , I N A § 2 0 8 , 8 U . S . C . § 1231. 1 T he I J f ound tha tK ol a m i l e f

tA l ba ni a f

ore c onom i c r e a s ons , notbe c a us e of pe r s e c ut i on. T he B I A f ur the rc onc l ude d tha tK ol a m i w a s unabl e t o s how a ne xus betw ee n the col l ec t i ve negat i ve cond ucthe al l eged and any prote ct ed grou nd . In hi s appe l l a t e br i e f

, K ol a m i a r gue s onl y tha tthe I J a nd B I A e rr e d i n f i ndi ng tha tthe cond uctw as no tsuf

fi ci ent l y s ever e a s t o con st i tut e per se cut i on . T hu s, K ol am i has aba ndone d the i s s ue of

w he the rhe l e f

tA l ba ni a due t o pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof hi s pol i t i ca l op i ni on , as op po se d t o h avi ng l ef tfor e cono m i c r ea sons. S ee S ep u l v ed a v . U . S . A tt ’ y G en . , 4 0 1 F . 3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 2 8 n . 2 (1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ). B ecau se K o la m i h a s ab a n d o n e d th is is s u e o n ap p e a l, w e d o n o t r e v ie w it, a n d a c c o r d in g ly m us tde ny hi s pe t i t i on.

P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

DAVID EARL WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONAL SERGEANT K.

CLEMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. 2:04-CV-1671 GEB KJM P

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ FIRST REQUEST

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL

Defendants’ first request for an extension of time to file an opposition to Plaintiff’s

motion to compel was considered by the Court, and good cause appearing, Defendants’ request is

granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to

compel shall be filed by January 20, 2006.

DATED: January 13, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01671-GEB -KJM Document 24 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 1