alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BESSE v. WEST.

No. 20637.

Opinion Filed March 8, 1932.

A. M. Armstrong, for plaintiff in error.

J. W. Stalcnp and Chas. R. Weaver, for defendant in error.

ANDREWS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Ottawa county in favor of the defendant in error, the plaintiff in the trial court, against the plaintiff in error," the defendant in the trial court. Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. The action was to recover damages for conversion of personal property. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered thereon, from which judgment the defendant appealed.

The plaintiff alleged ownership of the property in question, and the defendant filed a general denial, which put in issue the question of the ownership of the property. The burden was upon the plaintiff to show ownership of the property in him. The record '(shows that he testified that the property belonged to “myself and son.” There *245is nothing in the record to show what portion of the property belonged to the plaintiff: or the value of the portion thereof which belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to sustain the burden placed upon him to prove ownership of the property in himself. There is no competent evidence in the record reasonably tending to support the plea of ownership of the property by the plaintiff and there is no competent testimony in the record reasonably tending *to*show the value of that portion of the property owned by the plaintiff. There is nothing on which to support the judgment rendered.

Por the reason stated, the judgment of the trial court must be, and it is reversed, with directions to grant the defendant a new trial.

LESTER, O. J., and RILEY, KEENER, OULLISON, SWINDALL, McNEILL, and KORNEGAY, JJ., concur. CLARK, Y. C. J., absent.

Note. — See under (1), 26 R~ O. L. 1147, 1148 ; R. C. L. Perm. S-upp. p. 5848.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

SCUNGIO BORST & ASSOCIATES

 v.

410 SHURS LANE DEVELOPERS, LLC

AND KENWORTH II, LLC AND ROBERT

DEBOLT

PETITION OF: SCUNGIO BORST &

ASSOCIATES

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 30 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

 AND NOW, this 28th day of July, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issue as set forth by Petitioner is:

 Did the lower court commit an error of law or abuse its discretion in granting

summary judgment to [Robert] DeBolt under [the Contractor and Subcontractor

Payment Act (“CASPA”), 73 P.S. §§ 501 et seq.], where: (a) CASPA makes the owner

[(410 Shurs Lane Developers, LLC)] and the “agent of the owner acting with the

owner’s authority” (DeBolt) liable to contractors such as [Petitioner], (b) DeBolt is a fifty

percent owner of [410 Shurs Lane Developers], (c) [Petitioner] consistently dealt with

DeBolt and received his authorizations for change orders, (d) [Petitioner] never received

payment for the change orders, and (e) [Petitioner’s] construction of CASPA is

consistent with the courts’ construction of the Wage Payment and Collection Law[, 43

P.S. §§ 260.1 et seq.]?
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                    FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of
January 24, 2001, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
("Employer") and K.C. Breen ("Executive").


                                    RECITALS

A)     On March 31, 1998 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by
       and between Employer and Executive.

B)     On March 31, 1999, a First Amendment to Employment Agreement was made and
       entered into by and between Employer and Executive.

C)     On October 1, 1999, a Second Amendment to Employment Agreement was made
       and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.

D)     On January 11, 2000, a Third Amendment to Employment Agreement was made
       and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.

E)     Pursuant to a Memorandum dated August 1, 2000, Executive's Base Salary
       was increased to $170,000, effective as of November 1, 2000.

F)     Employer and Executive now desire to further amend the Employment
       Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:

                                    AGREEMENT

1.     Section 3.1 of the Agreement which provides:

       3.1 TERM. The term of Executive's employment hereunder shall commence on
       April 1, 1998 and shall continue until March 31, 2001 unless sooner
       terminated or extended as hereinafter provided.

     is hereby amended, effective January 24, 2001, to provide as follows:

       3.1 TERM. The term of Executive's employment hereunder shall commence on
       April 1, 1998 and shall continue until March 31, 2002 unless sooner
       terminated or extended as hereinafter provided.

<PAGE>


2.     All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain
       unaltered and fully effective.



Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.



EXECUTIVE                                      EMPLOYER

                                      PRICESMART, INC.

K.C. Breen                            By: /s/ Gilbert A. Partida
                                          -------------------------------
/s/ Kevin C. Breen                    Name: Gilbert A. Partida
---------------------                 Its: President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20- 0502 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NICHOLAS LEE WINZENBURG,

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 November 12 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 7 2021

10/07/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0502
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 G2 Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the nine month period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Jinghe Zhang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Jinghe Zhang       
|Jinghe Zhang           
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 15, 2010      

A signed original of this
certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# SERVED JAN 171 990

U
. S
. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C
.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN AIRWAYS, INC. FAA DOCKET CP89NM0483

(Civil Penalty Action)
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 88NM030033) has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge Ronnie A. Yoder
. All future pleadings and other communications regarding the proceeding shall be served on him and on the other persons named in the attached service list.

# !:~Jr**.** Chief Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST Rocky Mountain Airways, Inc. Hanger 6 Stapleton International Airport Denver, Colorado 80207 Leonard A. Ceruzzi Continental Airlines P. 

### 0. Box 4607 Houston, Texas 77210-4607 Karl B. Lewis Attorney Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 17900 Pacific Highway South C-68966 Seattle, Washington 98168 Hearing Docket (2 copies) Room 924A

- AGC-10 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, 

## s.w. Washington, D.C
. 20591 The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder Admi nistrative Law Judge Office of Hearings, M-50 Room 9228 Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, 

## s.w. Washington, D
.C
. 20590 (202) 366-2142 FAA Docket CP89NM0483 (Civil Penalty Action)
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8781 

To prohibit the implementation of the Proposed Resource Management Plan 

Amendment and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

for Federal coal managed by the Buffalo, Wyoming Field Office of 

the Bureau of Land Management. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2024 

Ms. HAGEMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the implementation of the Proposed Resource 

Management Plan Amendment and Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Federal coal managed by the Buffalo, Wyoming Field Office of the Bureau 

of Land Management. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8781 IH

1 SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON PROPOSED RESOURCE MAN2 AGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND FINAL 

3 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

4 STATEMENT FOR FEDERAL COAL MANAGED 

5 BY BUFFALO, WYOMING FIELD OFFICE OF BU6 REAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT. 

7 The Secretary of the Interior may not finalize, imple8 ment, administer, or enforce the Proposed Resource Man9 agement Plan Amendment or Final Supplemental Envi10 ronmental Impact Statement for Federal coal managed by 

11 the Buffalo, Wyoming Field Office of the Bureau of Land 

12 Management referred to in the notice of availability pub13 lished by the Bureau of Land Management titled ‘‘Notice 

14 of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management 

15 Plan Amendment and Final Supplemental Environmental 

16 Impact Statement for the Buffalo Field Office, Wyoming’’ 

17 (89 Fed. Reg. 43431; published May 17, 2024). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### John G. Bain *v.*Thomas Kinch.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by Bockes, J. /,
No. 38948.

#### Protests 230810-G, etc., of Lippmann, Spier & Hahn (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of atomizers and photo frames chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained. *Woolworth*v. *United States*(T. D. 47867) and *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373) cited.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8789 

To require benefit eligibility determinations to be made within a certain 

period of time. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2024 

Mr. WEBER of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require benefit eligibility determinations to be made 

within a certain period of time. 

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 ‘‘Officer John Barnes 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION. 

7 Section 1205 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 

8 and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10285) is amend9 ed by adding at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8789 IH

1 ‘‘(f) Not later than 270 calendar days after receiving 

2 a claim filed under this subpart, the Bureau shall inform 

3 the claimant of the Bureau’s determination as to the 

4 claimant’s benefit eligibility.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Before the Third Division,

March 24, 1944

No. 49288.

#### Protest 48640-K of Ti Hang Lung & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The only witness was the United States examiner who testified that the merchandise was “just dry frog; whole frogs, dried.” The court was of the opinion from a review of decisions that the collector’s classification was incorrect inasmuch as the court has held that frogs are not meats *(Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States,*8 Cust. Ct. 221, C. D. 610) and no decision relating to dried frogs had come to its attention. The evidence was further held not sufficient to show that dried frogs are raw or unmanufactured articles and it was assumed, therefore, that labor was used in the drying process. On the record presented the merchandise was held dutiable as nonenumerated manufactured articles at 20 percent under paragraph 1558. That claim was therefore sustained. *Ingersoll*v. *United States*(T. D. 11566), Abstract 5410 (old series), *Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 251, C. D. 335), and *United States*v. *Kagawa*(5 Ct. Cust. Appls. 388, T. D. 34934) cited.
- 1

- Supreme Court

No. 202 4

- 3 6

- M.P

.

In the Matter of Raymond J. Haskell, Jr

. :

O R D E R

On January 26, 2024 , pursuant to Article III, Rule 13 of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure for Attorneys, the respondent, Raymond J. Haskell,

Jr. , filed an affidavit with the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court setting forth that he is aware that he is the subject of an investigation of professional misconduct. The respondent’s affidavit sets forth that he freely and voluntarily consents to disbarment, and that he is fully aware of the implications of submitting his consent.

On February 5 , 202 4 , Disciplinary Counsel filed the respondent’s affidavit with the

Court. Upon review of the respondent’s affidavit, we deem that an order disbarring respondent is appropriate. Accordingly, pursuant to Article III, Rule 13, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the respondent, Raymond J. Haskell, Jr. , be and is hereby disbarred on consent from engaging in the practice of law

.- 2

-

The respondent is directed to comply with all aspects of Article III, Rule 15

and within ten (10) days after the effective date of the disbarment order the respondent shall file with the Clerk of this Court an affidavit showing:
(1) That he has fully complied with the provisions of the order and with the requirements of Article III, Rule 15 ; (2) A list o f other state, federal and administrative jurisdictions to which he is admitted to practice; and
(3) That he has served a copy of this affidavit upon Disciplinary Counsel . The

affidavit shall also set forth the residence or other address where communications may thereafter be directed to the respondent.

Entered as an Order of this Court this 19 th day of February 2024.

By Order,

/s/ Meredith A. Benoit Clerk

.SU

- CMS

- 02 B (revised November 2022 ) STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT

– CLERK’S OFFICE L icht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case In the Matter of Raymond J. Haskell, Jr.

Case Number No. 2024

- 36

- M

. P

.

Date O rder Filed February 19, 2024

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
Source of Appeal N/A

Judicial Officer from Lower Court N/A

Attorney(s) on Appeal For Petitioner:
Kerry Reilley Travers , Esq. C hief Disciplinary Counsel For R e spondent: John F. Cicilline, Esq.
**Exhibit
32.1**
  CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 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 Great Wall Acquisition Corporation on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Kin Shing Li, Chairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of Great Wall Acquisition Corporation,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 Great Wall Acquisition
Corporation as of and for the period covered by the Report.
  Pursuant
to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.
 
 ****Date: 
      May
      16, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Kin Shing LiKin Shing LiChairman
      of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary (Principal Executive
      Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting
    Officer)
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on December 7, 2006, Sigma Aldrich Research, Biochemicals, Inc., 1-3 Strathmore Road, Natick, Massachusetts 01760, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I: Drug
SchedulePsilocybin (7437)
I5-Methoxy-N,N-diisopropyltryptamine (7439)
I
 The company plans on manufacturing reference standards for research purposes only. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL; or any being sent via express mail should be sent to DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA >Federal Register Representative/ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be filed no later than May 22, 2007. Dated: March 9, 2007. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E7-5391 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
**Exhibit 10.3**

 

October 14, 2005

 

Mr. John Hupalo

Executive Vice President- Capital Markets

 

John,

 

This letter willconstitute an amendment to your employment offer letter of February 24,2003 and is being offered as additional consideration for your execution of TheFirst Marblehead Invention, Non-Disclosure, Non-Competition andNon-Solicitation Agreement (the “Agreement”).

 

In the event that you areterminated by the company for any reason other than cause, First Marbleheadwill provide you with severance which includes salary and benefits (per theterms of the benefit plans) for one year. Cause shall mean (I) the substantial failure to perform your duties toFMC which failure is not cured within 30 days of receipt of notice from FMCdescribing in reasonable detail such failure, (II) a breach of your fiduciaryduties to FMC or (III) the conviction of a crime that constitutes a felony.

 

Please note that thisamendment does not constitute an employment contract or a contract for aspecific term of employment and that the employment relationship is atwill.  Please acknowledge this notice bysigning one copy and returning it to me.

 
| Sincerely,                                  |        |
|---------------------------------------------|-------------|
|                                        |        |
| /s/ Robin Camara                            |        |   |
| Robin Camara                                |        |
| Sr. Vice President –  Human Resources  |        |
|                                        |        |
|                                        |        |
|   /s/ John Hupalo                      |        | 11/7/05 |   |
| John Hupalo                                 | Date Signed |   |
| Executive Vice  President - Capital Markets |        |
|                                             |             |  |  |  |

 

 

cc:  H. R. file

 

1

----
No. 54154.

#### Hutzler Bros. Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 53250-K, etc. (Baltimore, Philadelphia, and St. Louis).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Matter of City of Amsterdam for the Opening of Grove and Jay Steeets.

Order amended.

1. By affirming appraisement of damages.

2. By stating that the reversal of that part of the snecial term order which sent the matter back to commissioners was made on the ground that the statute in question did not provide for notice to the parties to be assessed, and was, therefore, illegal.
#### Loftus, Appellant, *v.*Carbondale.

*289Argued April 30, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

reargument refused September 26, 1969.

*George I. Puhak,*with him *Daniel H. Jenkins,*for appellant.

*James D. Stone,*for appellees, submitted a brief.

June 27, 1969:

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bell,

This is an appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County dismissing the plaintiffs’ petition for a declaratory judgment. The petition which sought a determination of whether the defendants were legally qualified and legally appointed and legally elected members of the Board of Managers of the Firemen’s Pension Fund of the City of Carbon-dale under and in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1931, P. L. 932, §4320, as amended, 53 P.S. §39320, raised disputed questions of fact. For this reason the petition for a declaratory judgment was properly dismissed. *Mains v. Fulton,*423 Pa. 520, 522, 224 A. 2d 195; *Sheldrake Estate,*416 Pa. 551, 553-554, 207 A. 2d 802; *Mohney Estate,*416 Pa. 107, *290109, 204 A. 2d 916; *State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v.*Semple, 407 Pa. 572, 180 A. 2d 925; *McWilliams v.*McCabe, 406 Pa. 644, 179 A. 2d 222.

Order affirmed.

. Mr. Justice Jones and Mr. Justice Roberts concur in the result.
Before the First Division,

May 25, 1955

No. 59100.

protests 48801-K, etc. (New York).

#### Cohn & Rosenberger, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise marked “A” on the invoices consists of alabaster beads the same as those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1020) and the items marked “B” consist of white beads similar to those involved in *Eitinger Bead Co.*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 50, C. D. 867), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
March 23, 1950

No. 54142.

#### Page N. Goffigon *v.*United States,

protest 142614-K.

C. D. 1212. Plaintiff's application for rehearing granted.