alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-390   -      -CV

IN RE 	RELATOR

InN rReE ShHaArRtTaA SaAnNdDeErRsS, DeEmMeEtTrRiI 	RELATORS

AnNaAsStTaAsSiIaAdDiIsS, aAnNdD OfFfFiIcCeE oOfF tThHeE 

TeExXaAsS AtTtToOrRnNeEyY GeEnNeErRaAlL	

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s’ petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator’s’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

	RelatorSs shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL aB :  MCCOY, LIVINGSTON, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  December 123, 2007
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 16-3814

___________________________ Marvin Douglas Sundquist lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v. State of Nebraska; Nebraska Attorney General’s Office; Ed Vierk, Assistant Nebraska Attorney General; Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services; Ruth Schuldt, Probation Compliance Monitor; Douglas J. Peterson; Courtney Phillips lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________ Submitted: June 28, 2017 Filed: July 12, 2017 [Unpublished]

____________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Marvin Sundquist appeals from the a dverse judgment the district court 1 entered in his action asserting a deprivation of his rights while he was in the process of seeking, and ultimately obtaining, a license from the State of Nebraska to practice massage therapy. He challenges the denial of a motion to amend his complaint and the adverse grant of summary judgment. We first conclude that the denial of Sundquist’s motion to amend was not an abuse of discretion. See Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs. , 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that decisions regarding a plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint are reviewed for abuse of discre tion). We further conclude that summary judgment was appropriately granted for the reasons stated by the district court. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman , 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that a grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo , viewing the record in the light most favorable to nonmovant). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2-
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.4

                                PROMISSORY NOTE
                            (Interest Only--Balloon)


$16,372.13                    Las Vegas, Nevada               November 30, 1999

         FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the undersigned promises to pay to:

                HENRY E. CARTWRIGHT

The sum of Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Two and 13/100 DOLLARS
together with interest on the unpaid principal from December 1, 1999 at the
rate of Nine (9%) percent per annum, payable at maturity, and continuing
until June 1, 2000 at which time the payment of principal and accrued
interest will be due and payable in full.

PREPAYMENT CLAUSE: In the event of prepayment by borrower of the outstanding
principal balance at any time during the term of this loan, there will be no
prepayment penalty, nor will there be any refund of prepaid interest.

LATE CHARGE CLAUSE: In the event any payment is not paid within five (5) days
of the due date, a late charge equal to five (5%) of the payment due will
apply. In the event the balloon payment is not made within five (5) days of
the due date, a late charge of five (5%) percent of the balloon payment will
apply.

DEFAULT RATE: In the event any payment becomes delinquent more than thirty
(30) days, interest shall accelerate to Fifteen (15%) percent per annum
until the principal balance and accrued interest thereon are paid in full.

Should interest not be paid it shall thereafter bear like interest as the
principal. Principal and interest payable in lawful money of the United
States. If action be instituted in any Court to enforce any obligation
hereunder, the undersigned promise to pay such sum as the court may fix as
attorney's fees in said action.

AMERICABILIA.COM, INC.



By: /s/ GARY R. MOORE
-----------------------------
    Gary R. Moore, President
Before the Third Division,

March 25, 1943

No. 48138.

#### Protests 846595-G, etc., of Grain Products Corp. et al. (San Diego, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case No. 14,637.

#### UNITED STATES v. BRANT et al.

[Pet. C. C. 14.] 1

Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.

April Term, 1806.

Offence against Customs Laws — Unlading Vessel Befóse Arrival at Port of Discharge.

An information against the defendants, for assisting to unlade rum from a vessel before her arrival at her port of discharge, stating the offence to be contrary to the SOth section of the act of congiess, passed 2d March, 1799 [1 Stat. 665], dismissed, because that section does not prohibit the offence, the same being contrary to the 27th section of the act, and which was not recited in the proceedings.

[Cited in Walsh v. U. S.. Case No. 17,116: U. S. v. Twenty Cases of Matches, Id. 16,559.}

■ [Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of .New Jersey.]

This was an information filed in the district court, against the defendants, for assisting to unlade rum from the ship Hunter before her arrival at her port of discharge, contrary to the provisions of the 50th section of the act of congress passed 2d March, 1799 (3 Laws 183 [1 Stat. 665]). The decree of the district court was against the defendants, and an appeal was entered to this court.

BY THE COURT.

The case stated in the libel and proceedings comes within the provisions of the 27th section of the act of congress, which imposes .no' fine on the persons who assisted in the unlawful unlading. A fine is imposed by thp 50th section, but this s'ection applies only to a vessel, after her arrival in port. The sentence of the district court reversed.
<SEQUENCE>3
<FILENAME>robinsoncert 093001.txt
                                                                Exhibit 99.1



                          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 Uptowner Inns, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2001
as filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of operations of the
Company.



_____________________________________
/s/ David Robinson
Chief Financial Officer
______________________, 2002
No. 53814.

protests 151202-K, etc. (New York).

#### G. Loewus, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[TA-W-61,360]

Employment and Training Administration: Bayer Clothing Group 
Inc., Sales and Merchandising Office, New York, NY; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 23, 2007 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Bayer Clothing 
Group Inc., Sales and Merchandising Office, New York, New York.
    The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active amended 
certification (TA-W-59,299A) which expires on May 31, 2008. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of May, 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-9109 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 1106 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 084 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          25,849
<SECURITIES>                                    16,801
<RECEIVABLES>                                  962,494
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,112
<INVENTORY>                                    264,714
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          22,503
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,902
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,004,581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                     838,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,004,581
<SALES>                                        478,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               862,754
<CGS>                                          428,094
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  834,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,333
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             162,921
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,521
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,539
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,982
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,982
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Serafin LOPEZ-FLORES, also known as Antonio Lopez, Appellant.

No. 05-1339.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2005.

Decided Sept. 21, 2005.

Susan T. Lehr, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.

Serafín Lopez-Flores, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.

Carlos Monzon, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Serafín Lopez-Flores appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 upon him claiming error for overstating his criminal history. He also contends the district court impermissibly relied upon the Sentencing Guidelines and the ultimate sentence was higher than necessary to achieve the sentencing purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (West 2005).

Lopez-Flores agreed with the district court’s assessment of his criminal history category under the Guidelines, but asked for a downward departure from that category. *(See*Tr. at 5.) The district court was aware of its authority to depart from the Guidelines. *(Id.*at 7-9, 17.) There being no unconstitutional motive for the lack of departure alleged, the district court’s failure to depart is not reviewable. *United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez,*335 F.3d 793, 799 (8th Cir.2003).

Lopez-Flores argues the district court impermissibly relied upon the Sentencing Guidelines in violation of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). However, the district court made clear it recognized the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines and considered the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). (Tr. at 19.) According*735ly, the district court committed no *Booker*error.

In light of the offense level, criminal history category, nature and circumstances of the offense, history of Lopez-Flores, and the other factors enumerated in § 3553(a) and *United States v. Adams,*401 F.3d 886, 895 (8th Cir.2005), this Court concludes the sentence imposed by the district court is in all aspects reasonable.

We therefore affirm the district court.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
No. 42049.

#### Protests 193221-G, etc., of Lord & Taylor (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Pustet*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 530, T. D. 41396), Abstract 12555, *United States*v. *Jabara*(22 C. C. P. A. 77, T. D. 47065), and *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 id. 353, C. A. D. 40) embroidered trimmings, filet lace articles, Normandy lace articles, and embroidered sachets, wearing apparel, cushions, and handkerchiefs were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430. Artificial flowers similar to those the subject of *Robinson-Goodman*v. *United States*(17 C. C. P. A. 149, T. D. 43473) were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 1419.
Document Headings

                    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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-61,274] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 10, 2007 in response to a petition filed by the State of South Carolina on behalf of workers at Robert Bosch Corporation, Sumter, South Carolina. 

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification applicable to workers of Bosch-Sumter Plant, Automotive Technology-Chassis Division, Sumter, South Carolina (TA-W-60,006), which expires on September 22, 2008.

Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of April, 2007. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-7624 Filed 4-20-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.25

                        UNWIRED CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT

        This Contribution Agreement is dated as of January 1, 2000 between US
Unwired Inc. ("Unwired") and Louisiana Unwired, LLC ("La. Unwired").

                                   RECITALS

        1. La. Unwired is the wholly-owned subsidiary of Unwired.

        2. Pursuant to a Telecom Distribution Agreement dated contemporaneously
herewith (the "Telecom Distribution Agreement"), Unwired obtained from its
subsidiary, Unwired Telecom Corp., a distribution of an undivided interest in
certain assets, liabilities and obligations (collectively, the "Undivided
Interest") distributed to Unwired Telecom Corp. pursuant to a Distribution
Agreement contemporaneously herewith ("Meretel Distribution Agreement") between
Meretel Communications Limited Partnership and certain of its limited partners,
including Unwired Telecom Corp.

        3. Unwired desires to convey all of the rights, liabilities and
obligations received by it in and to the Undivided Interest pursuant to the
Telecom Distribution Agreement as a contribution to La. Unwired, and La. Unwired
desires to accept such contribution.

        NOW, THEREFORE, Unwired and La. Unwired hereby agree as follows:

                                   AGREEMENT

        Unwired hereby contributes, transfers and conveys to La. Unwired all of
its rights, liabilities and obligations received and assumed by it in and to the
Undivided Interest under the Telecom Distribution Agreement, which constitutes
all of the rights, liabilities and obligations received and assumed by Unwired
Telecom Corp. under the Meretel Distribution Agreement, and La. Unwired agrees
to accept and to be bound by and assume the Undivided Interest.

                                        US Unwired Inc.

                                        By: /s/ Thomas G. Henning
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                Thomas G. Henning



                                        Louisiana Unwired, LLC

                                        By: /s/ Robert Piper
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                Robert Piper
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-77509 and File No. 333-79605) of Navigant International, Inc. of our report datedFebruary 4, 2003, except for the information in Note 15 as to which the date is March 20, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report onForm 10-K. 

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Denver, Colorado 

March 24, 2003
No. 40415.

#### Protests 490721-G, etc., of C. H. Arnold & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Bbown, J.

Following *Wile*v. *United States*(T. D. 49494) the court held the sherry flavoring in question dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 775 as claimed.
#### Harrell *vs.*Stringfield.

*Error to Besmoines.*

The technical phraseology of a verdict is not material, provided the intention of the jury is evident beyond all question.

A judgment will not be disturbed for a substantial defect in a verdict where the record shows that such defect cannot by any possibility, operate to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error.

This was an action of replevin, brought by Harrell against String-field, upon which the following verdict was rendered. “ We, the jurors, find a verdict for the defendant and award him legal damages.”— Judgment was thereupon rendered against the plaintiff for costs of suit only.

Two errors were assigned—first, that the verdict of the jury does not dispose of the issue, and secondly, that the verdict is not found in accordance with the statute, which requires the jury, where they find for the defendant, to assess his damages.

For the plaintiff in error, Rorer & Starr.

For the defendant, Browning & Grimes.

By the Court,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The errors relied upon for reversing the judgment in this case, are, 1st: That the verdict of the *19jury does not dispose of the issue. 2d, That the verdict is not found in accordance with the statute which requires the jurry to assess the damages.

The action was originally commenced before a Justice of the Peace. In his transcript sent up to the District Court on appeal, he states that issue was joined, without declaring what that issue was. Upon that issue the verdict of the jury in the District Court was, “ We, the jurors, find a verdict for the defendant and award him legal damages. ”

This is certainly a very informal verdict. But the case comes nearly within the principle decided at the present term in the case of *Gordon*& *Washburn vs. Higley,*except that the verdict was not rectified in form in the court below. Whatever might have been the issue, there can be no doubt as to the intention of the jury. It would have been proper for the District Court to have changed the phraseology of the verdict, so as to have given it a correct technical form—but we do not deem it essential.

As to the omission of the jury to assess damages for the defendant in pursuance of the statute, it is a defect which must have operated beneficially to the plaintiff, and therefore he will not be allowed to reverse the judgement on that account.

We take this opportunity of recommending to the members of the bar greater care in relation to the entries in the records of the District courts. While we are determined not to disturb proceedings, in those courts, for technical errors, which can Work no possible harm, we shall not hesitate to do so, whenever there are plausible grounds for supposing that sucn erros may create an injury to the party asking a reversal.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.