alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8847)

#### American Steroids, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 100.

(Decided June 13, 1957)

*Richard G. Green*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Joseph E. Weil,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted this appeal for reappraisement on a stipulation of record (R. 2, 3) as follows:

> Ms. Weil: May it please the court, the merchandise involved before the court is known as crude pregnenolone. It was appraised on the basis of United States value at 10 cents a gram, which was also the entered value.

> The Government is ready to stipulate that there is no foreign or export- value or United States value and that the proper basis of value is cost of production. I have been apprised by the Appraiser, Mr. Passarell, that he is satisfied that the cost of materials of, and of fabrication, manipulation, or other process employed in manufacturing or producing such or similar merchandise, at a time preceding the date of exportation of the particular merchandise under consideration which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production of the particular merchandise under consideration in the usual course of business, and/or plus the usual general expenses in the case of such or similar merchandise, and the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the particular merchandise under consideration in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and an addition for profit equal to the profit which ordinarily is added, in the case of merchandise of the same general character as the particular merchandise under consideration, by manufacturers or producers in the country of manufacture or production who are engaged in the production or manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind, is 8 cents a gram rather than 10 cents a gram.

Counsel for plaintiff agreed to this stipulation, and it was approved *698and made of record. Accepting this stipulation as an agreed statement of facts, I find and hold that the cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for determination of value of the crude pregnenolone described in the invoice and entry covered by this appeal, and that such value is 8 cents a gram.

The appeal is dismissed as to all other merchandise. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 50667.

#### Protests 39752-K, etc., of Armour & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and the .cited decisions, the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) 2)4 percent for cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42148, and Abstract 48269; and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained *to this extent.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.20(d)


                              INTROGEN THERAPEUTICS
                         301 CONGRESS AVENUE, SUITE 1850
                                AUSTIN, TX 78701
                                 (512) 708-9310


April 19, 1999

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals Inc.
500 Arcola Road
P.O. Box 1200
Collegeville, PA 19426-0107

Gentlemen:

This letter confirms the understanding reached by Introgen and RPR with respect
to certain issues regarding the manufacturing process for Ad5CMVp-53 (the "p53
Product"). In particular, the parties agree as follows:

1.   Introgen will [*] for the purpose of supplying the p53 Product materials
     for clinical trials. Accordingly, until [*].

2.   Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 1, above, in the event that
     [*].

3.   [*]

      [*] Certain information on this page has been omitted and filed
          separately with the Commission. Confidential treatment has been
          requested with respect to the omitted portions.



<PAGE>   2
Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals Inc.
April 19, 1999
Page 2


4.   RPR represents and warrants that, other than the patent(s) and patent
     applications(s) listed on Exhibit A hereto, neither RPR nor its Affiliates
     has rights to any patent or patent application (including without
     limitation any invention disclosure or draft patent application for which a
     patent application is intended to be filed) the rights under which would be
     required to carryout the [*]. Introgen represents and warrants that,
     other than the patent(s) and patent applications(s) listed on Exhibit
     C hereto, Introgen does not have rights to any patent or patent application
     (including without limitation any invention disclosure or draft patent
     application for which a patent application is intended to be filed) the
     rights under which would be required to carryout the [*]. To the
     extent that Exhibits A and C are not completed as of the date hereof,
     the parties will complete and exchange such Exhibits within 30 days and the
     same shall be initialed by the parties and attached hereto.

5.   Nothing in this Letter Agreement is intended to modify the terms of the
     Collaboration Agreement or the Agreement Memorandum, except as expressly
     provided in and subject to Paragraph 2 above.

If RPR agrees with these terms and conditions, please execute in the spaces
provided below, and return a signed copy to me at your earliest convenience.

Best Regards,

/s/ David G. Nance

David G. Nance
Chief Executive Officer



AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

RHONE-POULENC RORER PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

By:
   -----------------------------

Title:
      --------------------------

Date:
     ---------------------------

cc:      Robert Werner, RPR
         Ken Clark, WSGR

      [*] Certain information on this page has been omitted and filed
          separately with the Commission. Confidential treatment has been
          requested with respect to the omitted portions.
Case No. 6,491.

#### GODDARD v. DAVIS et al.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 33.] 2

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1801.

Pleading — Trespass — General Issue — Jurisdiction.

1. In trespass, the defendant cannot justify under the general issue.

2. This court has jurisdiction in trespass, although the damages do not amount to twenty dollars.

[Cited in Hellrigle v. Dulauy, Case No. 6,313.]

Trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s house.

THE COURT

refused to permit the defendants, upon the issue of not guilty, to give in evidence testimony to prove that they had a warrant for entering the house. Verdict for the plaintiff, ten dollars damages. Motion in arrest of judgment because the damages are less than twenty dollars. Overruled, and judgment for plaintiff.
#### Pettingill *versus*Patterson, *Executor.*

A bond, given to two persons, is not rendered inoperative by the previous decease of one of them.

It is available to the survivor.

It is no defence to an action upon a bond, that the fulfilment of it is also charged upon real estate.

Debt on bond, given to Howard Pettingill and Anne, his wife, and the survivor of them, by the defendant’s testator, and four other persons. The obligors were the children of said Howard. The bond was conditioned to furnish support and comfort to his wife, during her lifetime. This action is brought by her.

The said Howard devised his lands to several of his children in different proportions, and charged the lands with the performance of the bond. The will was dated in February.

The bond was dated and executed in March, more than a month after the death of said Howard, and it recites that the said Howard had, on the day of its date, devised his estates to the obligors, upon the understanding they should maintain his said wife.

If the action can be maintained upon these agreed facts, the case is to go to a jury to fix the damage, otherwise the plaintiff is to become nonsuit.

*Lancaster &*Baker, for the plaintiff.

*Vose,*for the defendant.

At the time of executing the bond, Howard Pettingill was dead, and the plaintiff was no longer his wife. There were then no obligees, and the bond was a nullity. There was no consideration for it.

Again, the recitation contained in the bond, as to the devise to the obligors, was an impossibility. The bond was therefore void.

The will charges the testator’s lands, and gives the executor power to sell, in order that this bond should be fulfilled. To that remedy, provided in the will, the plaintiff must resort.

*570Wells, J.,

orally.—No authority is shown, nor do we see how the position could be maintained, that a bond, given to two persons, one of whom had previously died, is therefore inoperative. It fails only as to one. It is not defeated as to the survivor.

It is said there was no consideration for the bond. But the seal sufficiently evidences a consideration. Besides there was an ample consideration in the devises and legacies of the will, given on condition that this very bond should be fulfilled.

Again, it is said the bond cannot support an action, because the fulfilment of it was charged upon the real estate. That was but an alternative mode of enforcing *it;*a mere cumulative remedy. There is no ground for the defence.

*Continued for trial.*
EXHIBIT 32.2



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

     In connection with the Trinity Learning Corporation (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Christine R. Larson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
          and

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


Date:     May 14, 2004             /S/ Christine R. Larson
                                   ------------------------------------
                                   Christine R. Larson
                                   Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Trinity Learning Corporation and will be retained by it
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00365

- CV
In the Matter of J. M. B., A Child
On Appeal from the 449th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. J

- 192

- 14

- K

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. No cost are assessed as appellant is exempt from payment

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 7, 20 14
U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management Facility

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

Application to Amend

Section 333 Exemption No. xxxxx

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-20158663

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Petitioner:

A Top Shot LLC

Austin Hilgenberg, CEO

1695 Hunter Drive

Wayzata, MN 55391

Email: Austin@Atopshot.com

Dear Sir or Ma’am,

By letter from the FAA dated Dec 30 2015, an exemption has yet to be granted to A Top Shot LLC for

relief under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption Regulatory Docket No. FAA2015-8663. 

Austin Hilgenberg hereby requests that the exemption so granted be amended to include Matrice 600/DJI

models. Relevant facts and reasoning are:

• DJI has developed a commercial grade UAS that adheres to the FAA rules and regulations.

• Similarities to DJI Inspire 1:

o Pixhawk flight controller

o Flight modes: Loiter, Altitude hold, Return to Launch and Land

o Emergency modes: Loss of comms, Low battery, Return to Launch, etc

o Voltage/current sensor

o Communications: 915Mhz for Telemetry, 2.4 for R/C control and 5.8Ghz for video

• Size, weight and performance specification of the SUI Endurance are as follows:

o Flying weight: 15.1KG (x.0LB)

o Diagonal Size: 1133mm

o Maximum climb rate: 5m/s

o Maximum descent rate: 3cm/s

o Maximum pitch/roll angle: 25 degrees

o Maximum flight time: 40 minutes

Privacy

The Matrice 600 / DJI systems Operating and Maintenance Handbook will be submitted separately and

confidentially under 14 C.F.R. 11.35(b), as the Handbook contains proprietary information that the

applicant has not and will not share with others. The Handbook contains operating conditions and

procedures that are not available to the public and are protected from release under the Freedom of

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552, et seq. (

Thank you for your consideration of this important request. Please advise us of any additional information

that is required.

Sincerely,

Austin Hilgenberg

CEO, A Top Shot LLC
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v KENNETH A. GORDON, Seaman, U. S. Navy, Appellant

18 USCMA 611, 40 CMR 323

*612No. 22,270

September 26, 1969

*Captain Frank A. Nelson,*JAGC, USN, and *Captain Jeffery W. Maurer,*USMC, were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, and *Lieutenant Anthony A. Derezinski,*JAGC, USNR, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

A special court-martial convicted the accused of failing to obey a superior commissioned officer, willful disobedience of a noncommissioned officer, sitting down on post, and violation of a ship’s order by wearing tennis shoes instead of black shoes while standing bow sentry. The court sentenced the accused to confinement at hard labor for six months, reduction to pay grade E-l, and a bad-conduct discharge. All of the offenses except the last were set aside by the supervisory authority; he modified the sentence by reducing the confinement to one month.

On further review, a Navy board of review noted that, under the Table of Maximum Punishments, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969, section A, paragraph 127c, footnote 5, the maximum punishment for the approved offense did not include a punitive discharge. However, a majority of the board of review concluded that under section B, Manual, supra, it could approve the bad-conduct discharge as additional punishment because the accused had two previous convictions. Member Faw dissented. In his opinion, dismissal of the “three most serious offenses constituted . . . radical surgery” as to the findings of guilty and “the pettiness” ,of the remaining offense presented a fair possibility that the court-martial might not have added a bad-conduct discharge to the sentence on the basis of the accused’s previous misconduct. We agree with those views. United States v Voorhees, 4 USCMA 509, 531, 16 CMR 83; United States v Kowert, 7 USCMA 678, 23 CMR 142.

The decision of the board of review as to the sentence is reversed, and the sentence is set aside. A rehearing thereof may be ordered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Union
Carbide Corporation's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1999, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000100790
<NAME> UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              41
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1075
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        599
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1962
<PP&E>                                            8714
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4363
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    7465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1362
<BONDS>                                           2044
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                        2284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      7465
<SALES>                                           2820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  2820
<CGS>                                             2157
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   275<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  66
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    238
<INCOME-TAX>                                        59
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                127
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                           20
<NET-INCOME>                                       107
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.80<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.79<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Other expenses are equal to research and development of 76 and depreciation and
amortization of 199.
<F2>The EPS-PRIMARY amount represents basic earnings per share and the EPS-DILUTED
amount represents diluted earnings per share, computed in accordance with
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, "Earnings Per Share."
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         $15,267
<SECURITIES>                                    22,716
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                       639
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,175
<PP&E>                                          20,775
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,826
<BONDS>                                         20,652
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,261
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,053
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,087
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,056
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,458
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,018<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   108
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 788
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,884
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,709
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,175
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (2,065)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       110
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS THE TOTAL DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION EXPENSE, BUT DOES NOT
INCLUDE S, G, & A EXPENSES OF $9,656.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 98-20583

Summary Calendar

____________________

WAYNE T. ZIEGLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ASSOCIATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-1492)

_________________________________________________________________

May 25, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, POLITZ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Wayne T. Ziegler appeals from the district court’s order

granting the Bank of America’s (Bank) motion to dismiss his

diversity complaint on the res judicata grounds.

Ziegler has filed several lawsuits in California state courts

containing allegations that are almost identical to those raised in

his complaint in federal district court in Texas. To varying

degrees , the instant lawsuit and the California complaints all2

allege that in the 1980s the Bank fraudulently depleted a ccounts

that Ziegler maintained w ith the Bank at various California

branches and that Bank employees sank his sailboat over

disagreements about a loan Ziegler had with the Bank. The instant

complaint, like some of Ziegler’s California actions, also alleges

that Ziegler’s sour relationship with the Bank dates to his

childhood in the 1950s, when mental-health employees, apparently in

a conspiracy with the Bank, kidnapped a pet collie belonging to the

then-seven-year-old Ziegler because Ziegler had publicly supported

a mental patient who had allegedly been victimized by the Bank’s

loan practices.

This court can affirm the district court’s dismissal on any

ground fairly supported by the record. S ee Nagle v. Lee

, 807 F.2d

435, 439 (5th Cir. 1987).

The district court’s jurisd iction in this case was based on

diversity of citizenship; we ther efore must apply Texas law,

including Texas statutes of limitations. S ee Vincent v. A.C. & S.,

Inc.

, 833 F.2d 553, 555 (5th Cir. 1987) . Under Texas law, the

statute of limitations is a procedural issue that is governed by

the law of the state in which the claim is brought, in this case,

Texas. S ee Hill v. Perel

, 923 S.W.2d 636, 639 (Tex. App.--Houston

[1st Dist.] 1995, no writ); Los Angeles Airways, Inc. v. Lummis

,

603 S.W.2d 246, 2 48 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1980).

F rom the face of Ziegler’s complaint it is clear that he had

knowledge of the underlying facts giving rise to his claims in

1993. Thus, the statute of limitations has expired on each claim3

under Texas law. S ee T EX C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 16.003 (setting

forth two-year statute of limitations for claims based on fraud and

taking of personal property of another). The district court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED. Ziegler’s motion “to take judicial notice of

applicable California statutes and cases” is DENIED as unnecessary.