alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ERICKSON v. SHAMROCK TOWING CO., Inc.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

July 21, 1948.

- Nathan Baker, of New York-City, for plaintiff.

Alexander *&*Ash, of Nevy York City, for defendant.

BONDY, District Judge.

Defendant moves to dismiss the first cause of action solely on the ground that it fails to state a claim against the defendant. The first cause of action is based upon unseaworthiness of the ship upon which the plaintiff sustained injuries. Defendant’s contention is: “Since the cause of action for unseaworthiness lies against the ship, the cause of action is one essentially in rem and is not cognizable in personam at common law. As the plaintiff’s claim in the first cause of action is bottomed on unseaworthiness, he can only enforce the same on the admiralty side of this Court by proceeding against the vessel in rem. Such a ■cause of action for unseaworthiness is not enforceable in a common law action against the owner of the ship in personam. Therefore, in the instant case, the first cause of action is not here enforceable.”

In Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 88, 66 S.Ct. 872, 874, 90 L.Ed. 1099, it is stated: “It is now well settled that a right peculiar to the law of admiralty may be enforced either by a suit in admiralty or by one on the law side of the *851court.” In German v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, 3 Cir., 156 F.2d *977, 979,*it was held that “the injured seaman may-join in the same complaint causes of action based upon negligence under the Jones Act, [46 U.S.C.A. § 688] and unseaworthiness under general maritime principles.”

The defendant’s motion accordingly is denied.
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

# C&E sends heavy equipment to support Iraq, counter ISIL

By Jason KaneshiroDLA Troop Support Public Affairs

                PHILADELPHIA  –              Construction and Equipment supply chain’sHEPP currently

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

## Related Stories

"Make way -- 1TSC bulldozers are rolling"

Inherent Resourcefulness: Supporting the fight in Iraq and Syria

Subsistence supports Peshmerga forces fighting ISIL

Anniston distribution center supports Operation Inherent Resolve

## Related Links

DLA Troop Support Construction & Equipment

Heavy Equipment Procurement Program

DLA Troop SupportConstruction & EquipmentHeavy Equipment Procurement ProgramHEPPOperation Inherent Resolve
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

# DLA Energy Summit

By Dawn SuttonDLA Land and Maritime People and Culture Directorate

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
 The Defense Logistics Agency’s Energy Summit on Aug. 16 included key players from DLA Land and Maritime as well as DLA Energy Commander’s Action Group, Workforce Development and Intern Center.

Best business practices were shared during the DLA Land and Maritime’s People and Culture Directorate briefings including scorecards, metrics, and professional leadership development as well as several other topics. 

Those in attendance were able to take back these ideas and implement or tailor them to work in each of their respective areas. 

DLA Land and Maritime received positive feedback on the summit and is considering expanding the invite list for future summits.

Stay tuned!

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA L&MCommand L&MCommunity L&MCulture L&MDetachments L&MLeadership L&Mmanagement L&MSupervisors L&M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1630
JONATHAN IDEMA, Appellant, and PATRICIA DAWN GLOSSON, Plaintiff, versusEQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICES, INCORPORATED, a/k/a Equifax, a/k/a Equifax Options, a/k/a Equifax Credit Info Services, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-104-5-BR) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Jonathan Idema, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edmond Weddington, SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court’s order imposing sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Idema v. Equifax Credit Info. Serv. , No. CA-95-104-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 1997). We deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. We further dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Allan CLEVENGER, Appellant, v. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Dennis Benson, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Executive Officer (Warden) of the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater; Linda Harder, individually and in her official capacity as Unit Director of Health Services at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater; David Crist, individually and in his official capacity as Associate Warden-Operation at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater; and Kathy Dodge, individually and in her official capacity as Supervisor in Health Services at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater, Appellees.

No. 98-2767.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 1999.

Filed July 27, 1999.

Ordered Published July 29, 1999.

Stephen Charles Fiebiger, Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued, for Appellant.

Mark B. Levinger, St. Paul, Minnesota, argued (Hubert H. Humphrey, III, on the brief), for Appellee.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this employment-discrimination case, the plaintiff, Allan Clevenger, asserts that the defendants, including the Minnesota Department of Corrections, his former employer, discriminated against him on the basis of gender and disability. Plaintiff also claims that the defendants violated his right to free speech and to equal protection of the laws under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court1 entered summary judgment for defendants, explaining its reasons in a full opin*992ion delivered from the bench at the conclusion of oral argument on the motion.

Having reviewed the briefs and heard oral argument ourselves, we hold that the District Court did not err. Its opinion fully explains the appropriate result with respect to each of plaintiffs claims. We add only that we commend the District Court for delivering its opinion orally from the bench. This practice has the advantage of allowing the parties to know the result of a case without delay, and of enabling the Court to decide the case when the matter is still fresh in mind. Substantially for the reasons given in the District Court’s opinion, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minne-soJa.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 23.2



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-58315, 333-58319, 333-58323) of Aztec 
Technology Partners, Inc. of our report dated June 7, 1996, except for 
Note 9, as to which the date is October 24, 1996, relating to the financial 
statements of Fotran Corp., appearing on page F-3 of this Form 10-K.


Rubin, Koehmstedt and Nadler, PLC
Springfield, Virginia
July 21, 1998
34052.

#### HARRIS v. HARRIS.

Nichols, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal in a divorce and alimony proceeding. The husband enumerates as error the admission of a deposition of the doctor who had been treating the wife. He contends the deposition was not admissible because he was not present to cross examine the doctor at the time it was taken.

He had proper notice of the time and place of the taking of the deposition. If he was unable to be present because of previous commitments, he should have moved for a protective order under Section 26 (c) of the Civil Practice Act (Code Ann. § 81A-126 (c)). See *Reams v. Composite State Bd. of Medical Examiners,*233 Ga. 742 (213 SE2d 640) (1975). The failure of his counsel to be present to cross examine the deponent was no fault of the appellee. Therefore, the trial court did not err in allowing the deposition into evidence. Code Ann. § 81 A-132. Wong *577Ho v. Dulles, 261 F2d 456 (3) (9th Cir.) (1958).

Submitted September 15, 1978

Decided October 25, 1978

Rehearing denied November 21, 1978.

*William I. Sykes, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Jack C. Bell,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
PFEIFFER PUBLIC RELATIONS, INC.
           INVESTOR RELATIONS AND CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS




                               LETTER OF AGREEMENT
Hans Nehme                                                       January 7, 2000
President
Vertica Software Inc.

Dear Hans:

This is to confirm our understanding  regarding the retention of Pfeiffer Public
Relations,  Inc. (PPR) as investor  relations  consultants for Vertica  Software
Inc. (VERT).

As public relations  consultants,  PPR will work,  subject to your direction and
that of other  representatives  of the  leadership and  management,  on investor
relations activities for VERI. For providing services, PPR will be paid a $2,500
per month retainer fee.  Additional fees for special  projects,  such as analyst
tours and collateral  materials  production  should VERI commission PPR for such
work, will be billed on a case-by-case basis at a mutually agreed upon rate. PPR
will be reimbursed for all approved out-of-pocket  expenses,  including postage,
long  distance,  travel,  printing  and similar  expenses,  some of which may be
payable in advance. Invoices will be submitted on the first business day of each
month and are payable upon receipt.

In providing services, PPR will use and rely upon information,  representations,
reports and/or data furnished by yourself.  PPR will have no  responsibility  to
determine the accuracy of any such  information.  VERI agrees to exempt PPR from
responsibility for, and protect,  defend and indemnify PPR against,  all losses,
claims,  damages and/or  liabilities  which arise out of PPR's reliance upon and
use of such information, representations, reports and/or data.

This agreement shall commence January 15, 2000, and will continue in force for a
one-year period, after which time it will continue on a monthly basis and may be
canceled by either party upon 30 days' written notice.

If this  agreement  meets with your approval  please sign one copy and return to
PPR along with payment on the enclosed invoice.



PPR:     By: /s/Jay Pfeiffer
            ------------------------
            Jay Pfeiffer, President

VERI: By:   /s/ Hans Nehme
            ------------------------
            Hans Nehme


            600 SOUTH CHERRY STREET SUITE 515 DENVER, COLORADO 60246
                       PHONE 303-393-7044 FAX 303-393-7122
No. 55548.

#### Jacques Artel et al. *v.*United States,

protests 157726-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 54942.

#### D. Hauser, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 163455-K (New York).

Opinion by

Olivee, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as-those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
No. 47019.

#### Protests 385-K, etc., of E. de Grandmont, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel laces made on a bobbinet-jacquard machine were held dutiable at 50 percent ad valorem -■under paragraph 1529 (a) by virtue of T. D. 48316 as claimed.
Exhibit 21

List of Subsidiaries

The Company has fourteen wholly-owned subsidiaries located throughout the
world. The wholly-owned subsidiaries are as follows:



| | 1. | Mannatech Australia Pty Limited
| | -- | -------------------------------



| | 2. | Mannatech Japan, Inc.
| | -- | ---------------------



| | 3. | Mannatech Korea, Ltd.
| | -- | ---------------------



| | 4. | Mannatech Limited New Zealand
| | -- | -----------------------------



| | 5. | Mannatech Limited, UK
| | -- | ---------------------



| | 6. | Mannatech Taiwan Corporation
| | -- | ----------------------------



| | 7. | Mannatech Taiwan Corporation Taiwan Branch
| | -- | ------------------------------------------



| | 8. | Mannatech Foreign Sales Corporation
| | -- | -----------------------------------



| | 9. | Mannatech Payment Services Incorporated
| | -- | ---------------------------------------



| | 10. | Mannatech Products Company Inc.
| | --- | -------------------------------



| | 11. | Internet Health Group, Inc.
| | --- | ---------------------------



| | 12. | Mannatech (International) Limited
| | --- | ---------------------------------



| | 13. | Mannatech Incorporated Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------



| | 14. | Mannatech Singapore Pte. Ltd.
| | --- | -----------------------------



| | 15. | Mannatech Canada Corp.
| | --- | ----------------------
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOSIAS PLEASANT, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2648 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed November 2, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Susan Maulucci and Deno Economou, Judges. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 10

- 00364

- CV

SHERYL BUCHANAN APPELLANT

V.

AMERICAN HOME MORTGA GE SERVICING, INC. APPELLEE

------------
FROM THE 236TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Sheryl Buchanan, acting pro se, attempts to appeal from the
“Order Granting Defendant’s Motion For Final Summary Judgment,” which was
signed August 20, 2010. Buchanan filed a document entitled “Motion For New
Trail” [sic] on September 23, 2010, more than thirty days after the final judgment,
but the document was merely the order form for a motion for new trial along with

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

an affidavit and exhibits. On October 15, 2010, Buchanan filed a second

document enti tled “Motion For New Trail” [sic] and her notice of appeal. See
Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 (providing that notice of appeal is generally due within thirty
days after judgment is signed).
On October 19, 2010, because it appeared that the motion for new trial

wa s filed after its September 20, 2010 due date and was untimely, depriving this
court of jurisdiction, we notified Buchanan of our concern and requested that she

advise us whether she had mailed the motion for new trial on or before its due

date. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1, 26.1 (providing, together, that appellate court
has jurisdiction over timely filed notice of appeal). Buchanan did not respond.
Accordingly, because Buchanan’s motion for new trial was late, it did not
extend her deadline for filing the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1

. The notice of appeal remained due September 20, 2010, but it was not filed until
October 15, 2010. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Because the notice of appeal was
untimely, we dismiss this appeal for want of juris diction. See Tex. R. App. P.
26.1, 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

SUE WALKER JUSTICE

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 24 , 2010
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20858

Conference Calendar

__________________

DAVID OGIEMWANYE,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

 Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-1649

- - - - - - - - - -

April 17, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Ogiemwanye appeals from the magistrate judge's order

granting summary judgment in favor of respondent because he had

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We have reviewed

the appellant's brief, the record, and the magistrate judge's

opinion and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. The motion for a writ

of certiorari is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
No. 96-5895.

#### Sorenson *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
132 STAT. 1536 PUBLIC LAW 115–207—JULY 24, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1496: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

May 7, considered and passed House. 

June 28, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–207 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3585 South 

Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, California, as the ‘‘Marvin Gaye Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. MARVIN GAYE POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 3585 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, 

California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Marvin Gaye 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Marvin Gaye Post Office’’. 

Approved July 24, 2018. 

July 24, 2018 

[H.R. 1496] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUB LAWS PDF
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41183

Conference Calendar

 

TROY HAMILTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES SLAUGHTER, PA,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:00-CV-888

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

February 19, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Troy Hamilton, Texas prisoner #450170, appeals from the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for

failure to state a claim. Hamilton contends on appeal that a

physician’s assistant (PA) was deliberately indifferent to his

broken wrist because the PA relied on an x-ray technician’s

advice that the wrist was sprained instead of examining the x-ray

himself.
No. 02-41183

-2-

Hamilton does not explain how a PA’s reliance on an x-ray

technician’s reading of an x-ray poses a substantial risk of

serious harm or that the PA disregarded such a risk. See Farmer

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). The district court did not

err by dismissing Hamilton’s complaint. 

AFFIRMED.