alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 50554.

#### Protests 987698-G, etc., of Tsudama Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A. D. 303), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith certain items of the merchandise were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1705 as kelp and other items were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1540 as seaweeds, manufactured.
#### Edward La Placa, Respondent, v William Bernardo, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 420]

—Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment *759of the Supreme Court (Dwyer, J.H.O.), entered September 19, 1994 in Rensselaer County, upon a decision of the court in favor of plaintiff.

Plaintiff, an excavation and landscaping contractor, agreed to construct a retaining wall at defendant’s lakeside property. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a written contract providing that plaintiff would construct a retaining wall, dig trenches, remove debris, mow the lawn, spread stone over a driveway and parking area and provide all of the necessary materials for the sum of $6,000. Defendant paid this amount after plaintiff had performed this work. According to defendant, however, the wall was some 70 square feet smaller than called for by the contract.

Plaintiff also suggested additional improvements which could be made to defendant’s property including construction of a second retaining wall. Defendant orally agreed that plaintiff should undertake these improvements but the cost was never mentioned. Having completed the second wall and the related additional work, plaintiff submitted a bill to defendant for $8,588. Defendant gave plaintiff $2,500 in full payment thereon, contending that such amount reflected its worth. Plaintiff then brought this action for breach of contract. At trial, defendant offered the expert testimony of a landscape architect who opined that the value of plaintiff’s work on the oral contract was $6,417.60, $2,170.40 less than the amount charged.

Supreme Court concluded that the parties had a valid oral contract and that plaintiff should be paid on a quantum meruit basis. Using the figures submitted by defendant’s expert, a judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $5,152.80.

On this appeal, defendant contends for the first time that the amount owed plaintiff in quantum meruit should be offset by the amount that he allegedly overpaid plaintiff on the first contract for his failure to construct the first wall in accordance with the terms of the contract. Since defendant never pleaded this counterclaim before Supreme Court, we decline to disturb its determination.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
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 Annual Report of SUJA Minerals, Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Matt Reams, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.






/s/ Matt Reams


Matt Reams


Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and





Principal Accounting Officer


Date: February 13, 2012
(Reap. Dec. 10520)

#### J. C. Penney Purchasing Corporation *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 711; 1369; 1733.

(Decided May 16, 1963)

*Sharretts, Paley & Garter*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the above named appeals for reappraisement consists of wool wearing apparel exported from Italy during 1961.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing appraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, 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 expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the appraised unit invoice value less the addition for packing which was already included in said invoice unit values; that these articles are not on the final list of merchandise (T.D. 54521) from which the operation of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 was withheld.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals to reap-praisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value in each case was the appraised unit invoice value, less the addition for packing, which was already included in said invoice unit value.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 28, 2018.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-1775

Lower Tribunal No. 11-31114

________________



### Florida Capital Group, Inc.

,

Appellant,

vs.



### Bart S. Bishop

, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, John

Schlesinger

, Judge.

Akerman LLP, Kristen M. Fiore (Tallahassee) and Christopher S. Duke

(West Palm Beach)

, for appellant.

Damian & Valori, LLP, Melanie E. Damian, Mary Claire Espenkotter and

Allison J. Leonard

, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and FERNANDEZ, and LUCK, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J.

Florida Capital Group, Inc. appeals the trial court’s order granting Bart S.

Bishop’s motion to vacate dismissal and entry of the final judgment confirmingpayment of Bishop’s severance package awarded in arbitration. Because the final

judgment does not include the condition of approval contained in the arbitration

award, we reverse the final judgment. We affirm the vacatur of the dismissal order

without further discussion.

Pursuant to an arbitration agreement, Florida Capital, a bank holding

company, and Bishop, a former executive of Florida Capital, submitted a dispute to

the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) regarding Bishop’s severance

payment. The parties stipulated that the severance payment constituted a “golden

parachute payment,” as Florida Capital was deemed to be in a “troubled

condition.” See 12 C.F.R. § 359.1(f) (2011). AAA awarded payment of Bishop’s

severance, conditioned on Florida Capital obtaining the necessary approval from

the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) and the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). See 12 C.F.R. § 359.4 (2011). 1

Upon motion to confirm and enforce the arbitration award, the trial court

entered the final judgment confirming payment but did not include the condition of

approval. Because the trial court did not modify or correct the award pursuant to

section 682.10 or section 682.14, Florida Statutes, or vacate the award pursuant to

1 On or about March 26, 2009, the OCC determined that Florida Capital was in a

“troubled condition,” as is defined by section 303.101(c), Code of Federal

Regulations. This designation requires approval of the OCC and the FDIC before a

golden parachute payment may be made.

2section 682.13, Florida Statutes, see § 682.12, Fla. Stat. (2016), it was required to

“confirm the award as made,” see § 682.14(2), Fla. Stat. (2016).

Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand to the trial court

with instructions to enter final judgment in conformity with the award as made;

i.e., condition payment upon required approval from the OCC and the FDIC.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

3
Case: 2:10-cv-00113-EAS-MRA Doc #: 40 Filed: 08/01/11 Page: 1 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:10-cv-00113-EAS-MRA Doc #: 40 Filed: 08/01/11 Page: 2 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:10-cv-00113-EAS-MRA Doc #: 40 Filed: 08/01/11 Page: 3 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:10-cv-00113-EAS-MRA Doc #: 40 Filed: 08/01/11 Page: 4 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:10-cv-00113-EAS-MRA Doc #: 40 Filed: 08/01/11 Page: 5 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:10-cv-00113-EAS-MRA Doc #: 40 Filed: 08/01/11 Page: 6 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:10-cv-00113-EAS-MRA Doc #: 40 Filed: 08/01/11 Page: 7 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:10-cv-00113-EAS-MRA Doc #: 40 Filed: 08/01/11 Page: 8 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:10-cv-00113-EAS-MRA Doc #: 40 Filed: 08/01/11 Page: 9 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:10-cv-00113-EAS-MRA Doc #: 40 Filed: 08/01/11 Page: 10 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:10-cv-00113-EAS-MRA Doc #: 40 Filed: 08/01/11 Page: 11 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:10-cv-00113-EAS-MRA Doc #: 40 Filed: 08/01/11 Page: 12 of 12 PAGEID #: <pageID>
----

# Political Map of Bosnia and Herzegovina
No. 56050.

protest 159154-K (New York).

#### Mrs. Tonstad *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
#### American Shipping Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6639.

Entry No. C 5576, etc.

Invoices dated Arbroath, Scotland, March 18, 1941, etc.

Certified March 19, 1941, etc.

Entered at Chicago, Ill., May 28, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 18, 1946)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisemeht listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 *228the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Alcantar Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Alcantar 

Apartments,

 

 Appellant,

v.

Carlos Gallegos and Luz Maria Rivas, 

Individually and as Next Friends of 

Jennifer Gallegos and Ashley Gallegos, 

Minors,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00165-CV

Appeal from the

327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2011-DCV05300)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellees’ third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until February 24, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE THE APPELLEES’ BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. John P. Mobbs, the Appellees’ attorney, prepare the 

Appellees’ brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 24, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
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 Annual Report of SL Green Operating Partnership, L.P. (the "Company") on Form 10-K as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc Holliday, Chief Executive Officer of SL Green Realty Corp, the sole general partner of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

/s/ MARC HOLLIDAYName:

Marc HollidayTitle:

Chief Executive Officerof SL Green Realty Corp.,
the general partner of the registrant


March 11,
2011

---



QuickLinks
#### The City National Bank of Poughkeepsie, *Respondent, v.*William Phelps, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Cullen, J.
Exhibit 10.P

                   ADDENDUM TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

     This Addendum to Severance Agreement and Release  ("Addendum") is made this
6th day of March, 2001,  between FINOVA Capital  Corporation (the "Company") and
Robert M. Korte ("Employee").

                                    RECITALS

     A.  Employee and the Company are entering  into a Severance  Agreement  and
Release (the  "Agreement") on this date,  which provide,  among other things for
the payment of certain  compensation  and for the  repayment of a loan  Employee
owes to the Company (the "Loan").

     B. The parties desire to provide certain  additional bonus  compensation to
Employee and to assure that  Employee  applies the  proceeds  from that bonus to
satisfy  certain  portions of the Loan,  pursuant to the terms of this Addendum.
Employee has  conditioned  his acceptance of the Agreement on the payment of the
bonus and its application to the Loan as provided in this Addendum.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows. Capitalized terms not defined
in this Addendum shall have the meanings given them in the Agreement.

     1. BONUS. Provided Employee executes the Agreement,  on the Effective Date,
the Company shall pay to Employee the sum of Three  Hundred  Thousand and no/100
dollars ($300,000.00), less applicable withholding taxes.

     2.  APPLICATION TO LOAN. The net proceeds of the Bonus will also be applied
to Employee's  obligations under the Loan. Any excess proceeds shall be remitted
to Employee.

     3.  REPAYMENT TO COMPANY.  If a court orders  repayment of the proceeds due
under the  Agreement  or this  Addendum  for the  benefit of the  Company or its
creditors,  except in satisfaction of the Loan, then any amounts  required to be
repaid shall again be deemed to have been borrowed  under the Executive  Officer
Loan Program, pursuant to the same terms as govern the Loan, as modified by this
Agreement.

     4. INTERPRETATION.  This Addendum supplements the Agreement.  To the extent
the Addendum and  Agreement are in conflict,  the terms of this  Addendum  shall
control.

Dated as of the date noted above.


                                     /s/ Robert M, Korte
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Robert M, Korte
                                     Employee


                                     FINOVA CAPITAL CORPORATION


                                     By: /s/ William C. Roche
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         William C. Roche
                                         Senior Vice President - Human Resources
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1033

_____________________________

MICHAEL CHARLES MCGILL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

June 21, 2019

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

ROWE, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Michael Charles McGill, pro se, Appellant.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Robert E. Wester v. State.

176 Sou. 120.

Division A.

Opinion Filed September 15, 1937.

*Thomas E. Walker,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *Tyrus A. Nor-wood,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Buford, J.

Having been convicted of a statutory offense, plaintiff in error seeks to have the judgment reviewed here on writ of error. He presents two questions for our consideration. The first is:

“Was the evidence sufficient to support the verdict that the defendant was guilty of having carnal intercourse with *275a female person who was unmarried, of previous chaste character, and under eighteen years of age?”

The second question is:

“Did the court err in overruling motion for new trial?”

The questions as stated do not meet the requirement of amended Rule 20.

Motion for new trial contained five grounds, as follows:

1. The verdict is contrary to the evidence.

2. The verdict is not supported by the evidence.

3. The verdict is contrary to law.

4. The court erred in permitting the witness to testify to an attempted abortion on her.

5. The court erred in charging the jury to the effect.

The fifth ground of the motion is so incomplete that it presents no question.

There is ample substantial evidence to support the verdict and judgment and whether or hot that evidence was worthy of credence was a matter for the jury and the trial court to determine, as were also the conflicts in the evidence. See Williams v. State, 92 Fla. 125, 109 Sou. 305; May v. State, 89 Fla. 78, 103 Sou. 115; Mitchell v. State, 43 Fla. 188, 30 Sou. 803; Broxson v. State, 99 Fla. 1187, 128 Sou. 628.

Therefore, we revert to the fourth ground of the motion for new trial which is argued under the second question propounded.

It appears to us that the testimony elicited was entirely proper because if it could be shown that a defendant charged with an offense of this sort had shortly after the crime was alleged to have been committed, been active in procuring an attempted abortion to be performed on the prosecutrix, it would tend to show not only guilty knowledge on his part, but also a personal interest in her condition subsequent to the commission of the alleged crime. It can hardly be as*276sumed that a young man will go about procuring the performance of an abortion on a young woman unless he realizes that he is responsible for that condition which suggests the performance of such operation. Any conduct on the part of the accused which would throw light on the association with the prosecutrix and which would tend to show an abnormal interest in her physical condition, the result of sexual intercourse, would be admissible in aiding the jury to determine whether or not the defendant was guilty of the offense charged.

The judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.

Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14602-14603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5707]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

[CBP Dec. 07-13]


Re-Accreditation and Re-Approval of Amspec Services as a 
Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of re-approval of Amspec Services of Wilmington, North 
Carolina, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 
151.13, Amspec Services, 2841 Carolina Beach Road, Suite 3B, 
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412, has been re-approved to gauge 
petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils, 
and to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in 
accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13. Anyone 
wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analysis or gauger 
services should request and receive written assurances from the entity 
that it is accredited or approved by the Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. 
Alternatively,

[[Page 14603]]

inquiries regarding the specific tests or gauger services this entity 
is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry 
may also be sent to http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_ svcs/org--and--operations.xml.

DATES: The re-approval of Amspec Services as a commercial gauger and 
laboratory became effective on May 26, 2005. The next triennial 
inspection date will be scheduled for May 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene J. Bondoc, PhD, or Randall 
Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, 
Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

    Dated: March 22, 2007.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
 [FR Doc. E7-5707 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P