alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 6568.

#### MRS. THOS. STONE vs. GERMAN PROTESTANT HOME FOR THE AGED AND INFIRM.

Syllabus.

The maxim that “No one is presumed to give” has no application to a donation made in consideration of services to be rendered the donor.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “B,” No. 103,915. Honorable F. D. King, Judge.

Gross & DePoorter, for plaintiff and appellee.

0. Schrieber, for defendant and appellant.

*238Opinion and decree, April 10th, 1916.

Rehearing refused, May 8th, 1916.

Writ denied, July 3rd, 1916.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

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

Reuben Goss entered the asylum of the defendant and at the time he did so turned over to the defendant the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00). He remained in the asylum until his death, .after which his universal legatee claimed the return of the amount as having been merely a deposit.

The defendant claims that the sum was an outright “donation” in consideration of an agreement on its part to care for Goss until he died. This is the positive and uncontradicted testimony of defendant’s president, a gentleman of repute and standing, fully corroborated by a receipt given to Goss at the time and preserved by him until his death, reading as follows:

> “N. 0., Sept. 20/11. Received from Reuben Goss the sum of $500.00 as an entrance donation to the German Protestant Home for Aged and Infirm.— ¥m. Frantz, Prest.”

We think the foregoing evidences something more than a donation, it evidences a contract, of which the defendant has carried out the burden and is entitled to the benefit. Hence the maxim that “no one is presumed to give” has no application.

The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed, ano: it is now ordered that plaintiff’s demand be rejected at her cost in both Courts.

Reversed.
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 9, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60942

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DANIEL EASLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

No. 2:03-CR-4-ALL-P

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Easley appeals his sentence following his guilty plea

conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more

than 100 kilograms of marihuana. He argues that the district court

erred in finding that he possessed a firearm during the offense for

purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) and erred in concluding that he
No. 03-60942

-2-

was ineligible for the “safety valve” reduction of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.

As part of his written plea agreement, Easley agreed to waive

the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. The district

court personally addressed Easley and admonished him regarding his

waiver; Easley stated that he understood the waiver. Thus, he

knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence.

See United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 517-18 (5th Cir.

1999). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED as waived.
(Reap. Dec. 8508)

#### H. Z. Bernstein Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 15289; 20271; 25464/1.

*496(Decided January 6, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement hare been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement enumerated in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of chinaware imported from Germany.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement enumerated herein, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# EUR-Lex - 52007DP0090 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007DP0090

**European Parliament decision of 29 March 2007 on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Giuseppe Gargani (2006/2300(IMM)) **

*
Official Journal 027 E , 31/01/2008 P. 0137 - 0137 *

P6_TA(2007)0090

Request for defence of the immunity of Giuseppe Gargani

European Parliament decision of 29 March 2007 on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Giuseppe Gargani (2006/2300(IMM))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the request by Giuseppe Gargani for defence of his immunity in connection with civil proceedings pending before an Italian court, of 30 November 2006, announced in plenary sitting on 11 December 2006,

- having heard Giuseppe Gargani in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,

- having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986 [1] of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,

- having regard to Rules 6(3) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0071/2007),

1. Decides to defend the immunity and privileges of Giuseppe Gargani;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the report of the committee responsible, immediately to the appropriate authorities of the Italian Republic.

[1] Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195 and Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure and others [1986] ECR 2391.

--------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Jon Garfield, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Clearant, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant is made known to me by others within the entity, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures asof the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: June 20, 2007 By:  /s/ Jon Garfield    JON GARFIELD    *Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer***
No. 54069.

#### Block International Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 141044-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                 Pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350


     The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2004 of Jafra Worldwide Holdings (Lux) S.ar.l.
(the "Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



                           /s/ RONALD B. CLARK
                           ------------------------------------

                           Ronald B. Clark
                           Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

November 15, 2004


                                       66
No. 53007.

#### H. J. Heinz Company *v.*United States,

petition 6537-R (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From the testimony it appeared that the person who made the entry did so upon the basis of cost of production which he believed to be proper and which was supplied to him by the accounting department of the petitioner, and that he had no reason to believe that there was another or different eost-of-produetion formula for the imported commodity. Upon reviewing the entire record the court was satisfied that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
Exhibit 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
Kaneb Services, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in registration  statements numbers
333-60195,  333-22109,  333-14071,  333-14069,  333-14067, 333-08727, 333-08725,
333-08723,  33-58981,  33-54027 and 33-41295 on Form S-8 of Kaneb Services, Inc.
of our  report  dated  February  25,  2000,  except as to Note 1, which is as of
February 7, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Kaneb Services,
Inc.  and  subsidiaries  as of  December  31,  1999 and  1998,  and the  related
consolidated  statements  of income,  changes in  stockholders'  equity and cash
flows for the years then ended, and related schedules,  which report is included
on page F-1 of this Form 10-K/A.  Our report  contains an explanatory  paragraph
referring  to the  Company's  restatement  of its  1999  consolidated  financial
statements and financial statement Schedule I.




KPMG LLP
Dallas, Texas
February 8, 2001
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Jon Garfield, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Clearant, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant is made known to us by others within the entity, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information;andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 9, 2006 /s/ JON GARFIELD   Jon Garfield   *Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)*  
29
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector TONCHE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-3146.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 3, 2001.

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and *675MURPHY, Circuit Judges.*

*

 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Hector Touche pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine hydrochloride, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846; 18 U.S.C. § 2. He was sentenced to a term of 70 months and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, he contends that the district court erred in not finding him a minimal or minor participant in the criminal activity, thereby entitling him to a four- or two-level downward adjustment. USSG § 3B1.2. Mr. Tonche contends that he was merely a drug courier and less culpable than his co-defendant. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied a downward adjustment based upon a § 3B1.2 finding that Defendant was not a “one-time” courier, he was entrusted with a large amount of drugs of which he was aware, and he was driving the vehicle in which the drugs were hidden. Aplt.App.A. at 33. The district court further found “that defendant was a courier who knowingly played a significant and recurring role in the transportation of large quantities of drugs.” *Id.*at 34. We have reviewed the materials submitted on appeal. Although the scope of Defendant’s involvement was controverted, the district court’s view of the evidence is plausible and not clearly erroneous; accordingly, the district court’s decision is a permissible outcome. *United States v. Heckard,*238 F.3d 1222, 1233-34 (10th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.
No. 54666.

#### Max Stern & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 141206-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

May 20, 1959

No. 63088.

#### Citrus & Allied Essential Oils Co. *v.*United States,

protest 198553-K (Baltimore).

*387Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance witb stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lime juice the same in all material respects as that involved in *Dalton Cooper, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 271, C.D. 2051), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

Donlon, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in her dissenting opinion in C.D. 2051, *supra.*
No. 41781.

#### Protest 602823-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that certain items consist of Normandy laces similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained as to these items. Articles in chief value of compounds of cellulose were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31 as claimed. Abstract 37230 followed.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.3



CA, Inc. Change in Control Severance Policy 
(Amended and Restated as of August 5, 2015)


(Schedule as of July 26, 2016)


Schedule A
(2.99 Multiple)


Chief Executive Officer (Michael P. Gregoire)
Executive Vice President and Group Executive, Worldwide Sales and Services (Adam Elster)
Executive Vice President and Chief Products Officer (Ayman Sayed)


[Employees may be added or eliminated from time to time]


Schedule B
(2.00 Multiple)


Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer (Lauren P. Flaherty)
Executive Vice President and General Counsel (Michael C. Bisignano)


[Employees may be added or eliminated from time to time]


Schedule C
(1.00 Multiple)


Executive Vice President, Strategy and Corporate Development (Jacob Lamm)  
Executive Vice President, Global Operations and Information Systems (Paul L. Pronsati)


[Employees may be added or eliminated from time to time]
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4546 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to expand the prohibition on destruction of veterans’ memorials to include other memorials and to establish 

mandatory minimum sentences for violations of that prohibition. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2024 

Mr. COTTON (for himself and Mrs. BLACKBURN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to expand the prohibition on destruction of veterans’ memorials to include 

other memorials and to establish mandatory minimum 

sentences for violations of that prohibition. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Saving Treasured Arti5 facts Through Uniformed Enforcement Act’’ or ‘‘STAT6 UE Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4546 IS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1369 of title 18, United 

3 States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

4 ‘‘§ 1369. Destruction of memorials 

5 ‘‘(a) PROHIBITION.—It shall be unlawful for any per6 son, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), to will7 fully injure or destroy, or attempt to injure or destroy, 

8 a structure, plaque, statue, or other monument on public 

9 property. 

10 ‘‘(b) CIRCUMSTANCES.—A circumstance described in 

11 this subsection is that— 

12 ‘‘(1) in committing the offense described in sub13 section (a), the defendant travels or causes another 

14 to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses 

15 the mail or an instrumentality of interstate or for16 eign commerce; or 

17 ‘‘(2) the structure, plaque, statue, or other 

18 monument described in subsection (a) is located on 

19 property owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the 

20 Federal Government. 

21 ‘‘(c) PENALTIES.—Any person who violates sub22 section (a) shall be— 

23 ‘‘(1) fined— 

24 ‘‘(A) not less than the greater of— 

25 ‘‘(i) $1,000; or 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4546 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) the amount of damage to the 

2 structure, plaque, statue, or other monu3 ment described in subsection (a); and 

4 ‘‘(B) not more than the applicable max5 imum amount under this title; and 

6 ‘‘(2) imprisoned— 

7 ‘‘(A) not less than 5 years; and 

8 ‘‘(B) not more than 10 years.’’. 

9 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

10 The table of sections for chapter 65 of title 18, United 

11 States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to 

12 section 1369 and inserting the following: 

‘‘1369. Destruction of memorials.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB