alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 13,973.

#### THOMPSON v. The PHILADELPHIA.

[1 Pet. Adm. 210.] 1

District Court, D. Pennsylvania.

1805.

Seaman — Wages — Failure to Report at Time Appointed in Articles — Indulgence by Master — Unlading—Witness.

1. Wages withheld by the owner of the ship in consequence of the mariner not having rendered himself on board at the hour appointed in the articles.

2. Wages decreed, on proof of special indulgence to the mariner.

3. Time given beyond 15 days, on special circumstances, for unlading.

[Cited in The Martha, Case No. 9,144; The Mary, Id. 9.191.]

4. Where seamen may be admitted witnesses for each other; and where not.

A sum of money, said to be due to a seaman for wages, was withheld as a penalty for not rendering himself on board, agreeably to act of congress, at the hour appointed. A seaman, one of the crew, who was involved with the present complainant, in a controversy with the owners, by an entry in the logbook. for neglect to render himself on board, was offered as a witness by the complainant's counsel. The entry in the log-book was insisted on by the owner of the ship, as incontrovertible evidence.

PETERS, District Judge.

At first I thought the witness should be rejected, as one concerned in interest on the same points, agreeably to the law. as laid down in Strange and other books of authority. But as it is stated, that special circumstances attend the case of the complainant, distinguishing it from that of others, I admit the witness. As to the *1070entry in the log-book, it is only prima facie evidence. The witness proving an indulgence given to the seaman by the captain, beyond the hour set down on the articles, wages in full decreed to be paid. In this case, although the ship had ended her voyage more than fifteen days, yet it having been alleged and not denied, that due diligence had been used, but the vessel could not be unloaded, I give further time for payment.

On the point of admitting seamen to be witnesses for each other, it is settled here, that one seaman cannot be a witness for another, if the witness and the party have a common interest in the point in contest. If the question be the loss of the ship — embezzlement equally affecting the whole crew — -negligence, misfeazance, or malfeazance, to which all must contribute in damages, one of the crew cannot be admitted a witness for another. But where special circumstances distinguish cases — -where one having made a similar contract with the other, the breach or performance whereof may happen without affecting the other — where special indulgences are given to one, though not to the rest, a seaman may be a witness for another. Where seamen are involved in similar breaches of contract, though the agreement of each is separate and independent, I hear them with caution. But this affects credit, not competency.
No. 49438.

#### Protest 103636-K of First National Oil Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with agreement of counsel and the various papers admitted in evidence the court held that the gas oil covered by entry 728241-was properly taxable at J4 cent per gallon upon the basis of 2,762,964 gallons. The collector was therefore directed to reliquidate accordingly.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN LUCAS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 16439

D.C. No. 1:20

- cv

- 00552

- DAD

- JLT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021 * *

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

John Lucas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment sua sponte

dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Lucas fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 28 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 16439

challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his action

. See Indep. Towers of Wash.

v. Washington , 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any

claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta

- Huerta

v. Estelle , 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro

se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

The district court did not abuse its discret ion by denying leave to amend the

complaint because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

, 656 F.3d 1034 , 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth

standard of review and explaining that a district court may dismiss without leave to

amend when amendment would be futile).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from B.B.
Walker's Form 10-Q for the first quarter of fiscal 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000104218
<NAME> B.B. WALKER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,444
<ALLOWANCES>                                       461
<INVENTORY>                                     10,201
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,644
<PP&E>                                           8,006
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,817
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,312
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         83
<COMMON>                                         1,727
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,555
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,817
<SALES>                                         16,388
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,435
<CGS>                                           12,182
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,023
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   151
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 654
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (243)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (80)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (163)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (163)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
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 Shoreside Investments, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
M.  Karz, Chief Executive 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  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/Robert  M.  Karz
                         ------------------------
                         Chief  Executive  Officer
                         August  19,  2002
Dismissed and Me morandum Opinion filed October 4 , 2016

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 16

- 00060

- CV

WILLIAM SATTERWHITE, JR. , Appellant

V.

STEVEN AKINS AND HOU STON PRESS, L.P. AND CRAI G MALISOW , Appellee s

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1061321

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed December 18 , 201 5 . No clerk’s
record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record.

On April 1 , 201 6 , notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s

i ntention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days,2

appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, McCally, and Wise.
Number 210031







[ex11001.jpg]







CERTIFICATE

OF

CHANGE OF NAME

COMPANY ACT





CANADA

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA











I Hereby Certify that



YELLOW POINT MINING CORP.



has this day changed its name to



DESERT SUN MINING CORP.



ISSUED UNDER MY HAND OFFICE AT

VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA,

[seal of British Columbia]

ON AUGUST 26, 1994

/S/ JOHN S. POWELL

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES



---





CANADA

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Number 210031

[ex11002.jpg]





Province of British Columbia



Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations



REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES



COMPANY ACT



CERTIFICATE



I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT



SUN RIVER GOLD CORP.



HAS THIS DAY CHANGED ITS NAME TO THE NAME



YELLOW POINT MINING CORP.







GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF

OFFICE AT VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA,

[seal of British Columbia]

This 11th day of March, 1991

/s/DAVID :W. BOYD

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES







---

CANADA

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

NUMBER 210031



[ex11003.jpg]





Province of British Columbia

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES





COMPANY ACT





Certificate



I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT



CONSOLIDATED FREDONIA RESOURCES LTD.





HAS THIS DAY CHANGED ITS NAME TO THE NAME





SUN RIVER GOLD CORP.





GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF

OFFICE AT VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA,

[seal of British Columbia]

This 20th day of February, 1986

/s/ Roberta J. Lowdon

DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES





---



CANADA

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

NUMBER 210031



[ex11004.jpg]





Province of British Columbia

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES





COMPANY ACT





Certificate



I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT



FREDONIA OIL AND GAS LTD.







HAS THIS DAY CHANGED ITS NAME TO THE NAME



CONSOLIDATED FREDONIA RESOURCES LTD.







GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF

OFFICE AT VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA,

[seal of British Columbia]

This 21st day of February, 1985

/s/ L.G. Huck

DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

---



CANADA

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

NUMBER 210031



[ex11005.jpg]





Province of British Columbia

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES





COMPANY ACT





Certificate of Incorporation



I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT



FREDONIA OIL L GAS LTD.



HAS THIS DAY BEEN INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANY ACT







GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF

OFFICE AT VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA,

[seal of British Columbia]

MAY, 1980

L.G. HUCK

DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
I, David Koontz, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of O2DieselCorporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared; b) [Omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8238 (June 5,2003).] c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: May 17, 2004 By:     /s/ David Koontz   Name: David Koontz
(Reap. Dec. 8394)

Entry Nos. 776243/2; 788726/2.

#### Selsi Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided February 24, 1955)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

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

LaWREnce, Judge:

Presented for determination by the court is the question of the proper value for duty purposes of certain barom*461eters exported from Germany. The merchandise in issue is represented by the items marked “A” and initialed “WR” by Examiner W. Rippner on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the above-enumerated appeals for a reappraisement.

The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed that the market value or the price of said items of merchandise, at the time of exportation to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, is the invoiced unit price in each instance, less the nondutiable charges as invoiced. The parties further stipulated and agreed that, on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise here involved, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in the country of exportation.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the items of merchandise marked and initialed as aforesaid, and that said value is the invoiced unit price in each instance, less the nondutiable charges as invoiced.

As to merchandise not marked “A” and initialed “WR” by Examiner W. Rippner on the invoices accompanying the entries, the appeals for a reappraisement, having been abandoned, are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
### SERVED: October 21, 2013 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0620
NOTICE Ira Leibowitz, Attorney-Advisor retired on September 30, 2013. All future communications should bedirected to the undersigned at: Richard C. Goodwin, U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, Attn: Room Ell-310 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 (Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov) Administrative matters should be directed to Patricia Matthews, StaffAssistant (202) 366-5121 (Patricia.Matthewsia),dot.gov) ·

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List :-· .**~,\** -- ·.·'. :_,. .**~** ' . - ··:

0.**~** . ., l
... · :_;.**~·**SERVICELIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI000 1

Kate Barber, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Great Lakes Region Federal Aviation Administration 2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7 Des Plaines, IL 60018 TEL: 847-294-7862 FAX: 847-294-7498 ONE COPY

Martin A. Blumenthal, Respondent's Counsel Attorney One Northfield Plaza, Suite 300 Northfield, IL 60093 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310). Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0620 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.2
Exhibit 10.13



Private & Confidential



Mr I Cleminson

[personal address information]



1st December 2010



Dear Ian



On behalf of the Board of Directors, I am delighted to confirm that the Board have decided to award you a special one off bonus to show their appreciation of what has been accomplished and the loyalty you
have shown to the Company over what has been an extended and testing period in the Companys history. The Board anticipates your continued loyalty and endeavour over the coming period as we grow the business both geographically and by
acquisition.



The main elements of this bonus are as follows:-



|1. | You will receive a one off bonus payment of $250,000. This will be paid in January 2011 using the relevant exchange rate at the time.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | You are required to use 1/3 of this bonus, after tax, to purchase Innospec stock in the open market. This should be done in the first stock trading window after you
receive this payment. Please make sure you let Nicola Earl in Ellesmere Port have the details of your stock purchase so the necessary filings can be completed.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | You will be required to hold the stock purchased in point 2 above for a minimum of 1 year.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | If you decide to end your employment with Innospec of your own accord, within two years of receiving this bonus, the Company reserves the right to require you to repay
some or all of this bonus payment. Any such repayment will be at the absolute discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board and you will be notified of their decision in writing.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Please sign the attached copy of this letter and return to Cathy Hessner in
Ellesmere Port, to confirm your acceptance of the above terms.



On
behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your contribution and loyalty to our company to date and to wish you continued success in the future as we focus on driving the business forward.



Kind regards

|              
|--------------
|/s/    BOB
BEW
|Bob Bew       
|Chairman