alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Encore Communications, Inc., Respondent, v Stick Sales and Distribution, Inc., et al., Defendants; and Keith Rhodes, Appellant.

[700 NYS2d 560]

—Mugglin, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered December 28, 1998 in Albany County, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant Keith Rhodes’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him.

Plaintiff, a videographic advertising company, produced a promotional video for a product manufactured by defendant Stick Sales and Distribution, Inc. In exchange for plaintiff’s agreement to release the video to Stick Sales, defendant Keith Rhodes signed a stipulation on May 25, 1994 as president of Stick Sales agreeing that Stick Sales was indebted to plaintiff *935for videographic services rendered in the amount of $20,616.04. Rhodes and the remaining individual defendants also signed the stipulation in their personal capacities evidencing their agreement to “acknowledge liability for and guarantee the payment of said outstanding obligation” in the event that Stick Sales failed to pay by a specified date.

Plaintiff did not receive payment by the specified date and subsequently commenced this action alleging two causes of action, namely, that all defendants owe plaintiff $20,616.04 for videographic services performed at the request of defendants and that all defendants are liable based on an account stated on May 25, 1994. After Rhodes successfully moved to vacate the default judgment entered against him, he moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment against Rhodes. Rejecting Rhodes’ argument that plaintiff’s failure to sign the stipulation precluded enforcement thereof, Supreme Court denied Rhodes’ motion and granted plaintiff’s cross motion. Rhodes appeals.

We affirm. Rhodes contends that Supreme Court erroneously granted summary judgment against him since the complaint states no cause of action against him in his individual capacity. Specifically, he argues that he has not been sued on his guarantee found in the stipulation. We believe that Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment was proper on the second cause of action for an account stated *(see, Interman Indus. Prods. v R. S. M. Electron Power,*37 NY2d 151).

This stipulation and agreement binds defendants despite plaintiff’s failure to sign the document *(see, Owen Mumford, Ltd. v Ulster Scientific,*235 AD2d 804; *Lane Crawford Jewelry Ctr. v Han,*222 AD2d 214).

Rhodes’ remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
99-0651 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Sherry CLIFTON v. DITTO’S APPAREL. Sherry Clifton v. Ditto’s Apparel.

No. 99-C-0651.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Ditto’s Apparel; Executive Risk Consultants Inc; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist. 2 Number 96-03871, 94-08199; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CA98-1180, CA98-1181

Denied.

MARCUS, J. not on panel.

VICTORY and TRAYLOR, JJ. would grant the writ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          12,723
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  158,545
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     59,402
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               246,720
<PP&E>                                         394,163
<DEPRECIATION>                                 103,790
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 638,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          160,124
<BONDS>                                        277,249
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           69,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,332
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   638,878
<SALES>                                        454,384
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               454,384
<CGS>                                          387,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  436,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,396)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,020
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,330
<INCOME-TAX>                                       474
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,360
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,360
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
No. 40443.

#### Protest 958323-G of Coffee Products of America, Inc., Ltd. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Seeck*v. *United States*(T. D. 47383) the claim for free entry as a crude drug under paragraph 1669 was sustained.
#### Carl SHINGLEDECKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-1471.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 12, 1999.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Marcy K. Allen, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elaine L. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Carl Shingledecker was convicted of driving under the influence and driving while his license was suspended. He raises two points on appeal, but only one merits discussion.

During the trial, the state requested permission to publish a video tape for the jury that included conversations appellant had with the officers while at the scene. Appellant’s counsel stated, “No objection, Your Honor.” After the video tape was played, defense counsel objected to its publication on grounds that the tape contained a comment on appellant’s right to remain silent because it depicted his request for an attorney and that its admission constituted fundamental error.

Appellant’s statement on the video tape amounted to a comment on his right to remain silent. *See Jackson v. State,*522 So.2d 802, 807 (Fla.), *cert. denied,*488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 183, 102 L.Ed.2d 153 (1988). However, we hold that the admission of the tape, when *484viewed in the light of the evidence presented at trial, constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. *See State v. DiGuilio,*491 So.2d 1129, 1139 (Fla.1986). Furthermore, defense counsel invited the error by stating that appellant had no objection to the publication of the video tape to the jury. A party may not invite error at trial and then be heard to complain of that error on appeal. *See Norton v. State,*709 So.2d 87, 94 (Fla.1997); *Terry v. State,*668 So.2d 954, 962 (Fla.1996); *Czubak v. State,*570 So.2d 925, 928 (Fla.1990). Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions.

AFFIRMED.

DELL, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLENDA BRUNSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 21

- 16380

D.C. No.

2:19

- cv

- 00917

- RFB

- DJA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted J a

n u a r y 1 1

, 2 0 2 3 * *

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN

, OWENS

, Circuit Judge s

.

Glenda Brunson appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of her

complaint. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the

district court’s jurisdiction de novo. See Carriger v. Lewis , 971 F.2d 329, 332 (9th

* 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

JAN 12 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

C ir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court did not err in holding that it had no jurisdiction , as Brunson

failed to allege that she exhausted her administrative remedies as required under the

F ederal Tort Claims Act , 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), and the S ocial S ecurity A ct , 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g)

. See Vacek v. United States Postal Serv. , 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir.

2006); Bass v. Soc. Sec. Admin. , 872 F.2d 832, 833 (9th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Senior Army logistician visits Troop Support 

DLA Troop Support Public Affairs

                PHILADELPHIA  –              
A senior Army logistician got a closer look at how the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support provides materials to the service, the organization’s largest customer.

Lt. Gen. Aundre Piggee, the deputy chief of staff for Army logistics, or G4, was briefed by four of DLA Troop Support’s five supply chains during his visit to Philadelphia June 5: Subsistence, Clothing & Textiles, Construction & Equipment, and Medical.

Piggee thanked Troop Support employees for their support and for “providing the first-class products that our soldiers deserve.”

Piggee oversees policies and procedures used by all Army logisticians throughout the world.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

## Related Stories

Subsistence PaCER helps provide new performance bar to Army recruits

Army general officer named new DLA director 

DLA helps Army units save time, money in 'surge' disposition event

ArmyG4Lt. Gen. Aundre PiggeeDLA Troop Support
#### B. Altman & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6500.

Entry No. 746159.

Invoice dated London, England, February 5, 1942.

Certified March 13, 1942.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 8, 1942.

(Decided November 12, 1946)

*Marlow & Hines*for the plaintiff.

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

Keefe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of Í930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
RE: Revised Ch 7 - to mesh w/ preamble language 12/16/2011 04:55 PM

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Thanks. I'll make sure it's in the preamble as well.

-----Original Message----- From: RobertJ Wayland [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 4:53 PM To: Higgins, Cortney Cc: Bill Maxwell; Ron Evans Subject: Fw: Revised Ch 7 - to mesh w/ preamble language

Per Amanda's note below - we've accepted all your edits on Ch 7.

----- Forwarded by RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US on 12/16/2011 04:52 PM

----- |------------> | From: | |------------>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------| |Amanda CurryBrown/RTP/USEPA/US |

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | To: | |------------>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------| |RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA |

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------>| Cc: | |------------>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------| |Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA |

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Date: | |------------>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------| |12/16/2011 04:39

PM |

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Subject: | |------------>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------| |Re: Fw: Revised Ch 7 - to mesh w/ preamble language |

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------|

We accepted her line edits on EO 12866 section, which we accepted. Those were the only new ones we saw.

Amanda Curry Brown OAQPS/HEID/AEG 919.541.3808 CurryBrown.Amanda@epa.gov
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1406 

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 510 19th 

Street, Bakersfield, California, as the Myron Donovan Crocker United 

States Courthouse. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 22, 2011 

Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California, as the 

Myron Donovan Crocker United States Courthouse. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MYRON DONOVAN CROCKER UNITED STATES 

4 COURTHOUSE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse 

6 under construction, as of the date of enactment of this 

7 Act, at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California, shall be 

8 known and designated as the ‘‘Myron Donovan Crocker 

9 United States Courthouse’’. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1406 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the United States courthouse referred to in sub4 section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

5 ‘‘Myron Donovan Crocker United States Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsModeling Fiber Kinking at the Microscale and MesoscaleA computational micromechanics (CMM) model is employed to interrogate the assumptions of a recently developed mesoscale continuum damage mechanics (CDM) model for fiber kinking. The CMM model considers an individually discretized three dimensional fiber and surrounding matrix accounting for nonlinearity in the fiber, matrix plasticity, fiber/matrix interface debonding, and geometric nonlinearity. Key parameters of the CMM model were measured through experiments. In particular, a novel experimental technique to characterize the in situ longitudinal compressive strength of carbon fibers through indentation of micropillars is presented. The CDM model is formulated on the basis of Budiansky's fiber kinking theory (FKT) with a constitutive deformation-decomposition approach to alleviate mesh size sensitivity. In contrast to conventional mesoscale CDM models that prescribe a constitutive response directly, the response of the proposed model is an outcome of material nonlinearity and large rotations of the fiber direction following FKT. Comparison of the predictions from the CMM and CDM models shows remarkable correlation in strength, post-peak residual stress, and fiber rotation, with less than 10% difference between the two models in most cases. Additional comparisons are made with several fiber kinking models proposed in the literature to highlight the efficacy of the two models. Finally, the CMM model is exercised in parametric studies to explore opportunities to improve the longitudinal compression strength of a ply through the use of nonconventional microstructures.Document ID20180007919Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsHerraez, Miguel*(Universidad Politecnica de Madrid Madrid, Spain)*Bergan, Andrew C.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Gonzalez, Carlos*(Universidad Politecnica de Madrid Madrid, Spain)*Lopes, Claudio S.*(IMDEA Materials Institute Madrid, Spain)*Date AcquiredNovember 29, 2018Publication DateOctober 1, 2018Subject CategoryComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNF1676L-31270NASA/TP-2018-220105L-20964Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 826611.04.07.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20180007919.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Draeger Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6805.

Entry No. 726418.

Invoice dated London, England, October 26, 1941.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 25, 1941.

(Decided January 23, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

This appeal for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concerns the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch'. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

The cited case has been incorporated herein by consent of the parties who further agree on a set of facts, embodied in a written stipulation submitting the present case, showing export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values are the appraised values of the articles in question, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.