alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES CHERRY, Jr., Corporal, U. S. Army, Appellant

8 USCMA 610, 25 CMR 114

No. 10,738

Decided January 17, 1958

*Major Edward Fenig*and *First Lieutenant Edwin E. Allen*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee*and *First Lieutenant John E. Riecher*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

HomeR FeRGüson, Judge: ■

The accused’s unauthorized absence from his organization, terminated by apprehension, resulted in his subsequent conviction of desertion. He had pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of absence without leave, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886. On the question of intent, the law officer instructed the court as follows:

> “. . . an intent on the part of the accused to remain permanently absent may be proved by circumstantial evidence, that is evidence of facts and circumstances from which, according to the common experience of mankind, such an intent may reasonably be inferred such as evidence of a much prolonged period of absence without authority, for which there is no satisfactory explanation, . . .”

A similar instruction was held prej-udicially erroneous in United States v Soccio, 8 USCMA 477, 24 CMR 287. The conviction of desertion therefore must be set aside. The record is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for reference to a board of review. The board, in its discretion, may approve the lesser offense of absence without leave and reassess the sentence or it may order a rehearing on the desertion charge.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

LatimeR, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Soccio, 8 USCMA 477, 24 CMR 287.
No. 46416.

#### Protests 713642-G, etc., of Turin Grotto Restaurant (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The invoices describe the merchandise as Italian peeled tomatoes and tomato sauce. A question arose on circuit whether, in view of *Vitelli*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 326, C. D. 154), affirmed in *Vitelli*v. *United States*(28 C. C. P. A. 131, C. A. D. 134), on tomato paste, the plaintiff should be precluded from presenting his case insofar as tomato sauce is concerned. The court held that he should not be precluded from so doing. No sample was produced but the plaintiff introduced testimony of the owner of the restaurant in question, who is the importer of the merchandise. He testified, among other *285things, that he, together with the chef, always examined the importations of tomato paste by “smelling the spices, tasting the sauce and looking at it,”-and that from his examination he is able to identify the ingredients which, in this case, consist of bay leaves, cloves, rosemary, marjoram, and sometimes whole peppers, together with the “meaty substance of tomatoes,” celery, carrot juice, and garlic. He stated that the main use of the merchandise by him in his business was to put it on spaghetti, over 90 percent being used in that way, although he also uses it to put on veal cutlet to make it tasty; that it is used in the condition as imported to make food more palatable, and that he never uses it alone. He also testified that the uses to which he puts the imported commodity differ from those to which tomato paste, tomato purée, whole tomatoes, and tomato juice are put. On cross-examinatipn he stated the cans were labeled “Salsa-Pomidoro,” which he interpreted to mean tomato sauce. It appeared from the testimony that the so-called tomato sauce herein differs considerably from the commodity the subject of *Schroeder*v. *United States*(14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 267, T. D. 41882), affirming Abstract 50727, wherein the merchandise was invoiced as “Salsa di Pomodoro.” The plaintiff cited the case *oí. United States*v. *Heinz*(26 C. C. P. A. 9, T. D. 49557) in which the court held the merchandise consisting of tomatoes, onions, sugar, salt, vinegar, and spices, to be a sauce. From the entire record in this case the court found that the testimony of the importer, standing alone, is not conclusive as to the chief use of the commodity, and that the importer’s conclusion as to the contents based on smell and taste was not sufficient to establish that the goods are anything more than tomatoes, prepared or preserved in any manner. The court held that the plaintiff failed to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action. The protests were-therefore overruled.
file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-4/July/P-13-0563/p130563.eng.txt[8/2/2013 2:57:16 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0563 Focus Ready Draft 7/8/2013 ENGINEER: Arnold \ REC PV (kg/yr): 200,000 YX SUBMITTER: The Dow Chemical Companyfile:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-4/July/P-13-0563/p130563.eng.txt[8/2/2013 2:57:16 PM] SAT (concerns) (06/28/2013): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Ecotox: Analogs:
. Migration to groundwater: PMN negl; Hyd Pdt negl PBT rating: P3B1T1 PMN - P1B1T1; Hyd Pdt - P3B1T1 Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation, XB Testing (No Testing desired) Eco: 1 No releases to Water, XB Testing (No Testing desired) OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1B NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-4/July/P-13-0563/p130563.eng.txt[8/2/2013 2:57:16 PM] EXPOSURE -BASED REVIEW: Yes (0 criteria met) 1) # of workers exposed: 12 >1000? No 2) >100 workers with >10 mg/day inhalation exposure: No 3) (a) >100 workers w/1-10 mg/day inh. exp. & >100 days/yr: No (b) Routine Dermal Cont: >250 workers & >100 days/yr: No INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0563file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-4/July/P-13-0563/p130563.eng.txt[8/2/2013 2:57:16 PM]file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-4/July/P-13-0563/p130563.eng.txt[8/2/2013 2:57:16 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0563file:///J|/SNURS/Quarterly%20SNUR%20Batches/Q13-4/July/P-13-0563/p130563.eng.txt[8/2/2013 2:57:16 PM]
No. 96-5825.

#### Kalasho *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 73-6659.

#### Butler et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 6290.

#### ELKHARDT BRIDGE & IRON CO. vs. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PORT OF NEW ORLEANS.

Syllabus.

1. Damages stipulated for delay in the performance of a contract are apart from the damages for the non-execution of the contract; the latter are never due when the contract has been fully performed even though tardily, the former are due for the mere delay.

2. Failure to complete and deliver a thing at a time agreed upon is a *total*breach of the obligation to make the delivery at the *193time fixed, even though the object be partly completed at the time.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “E,” No. 107,143. Honorable Gr. H. Theard, Judge.

P. M. Milner, for plaintiff and appellant.

Jas. Wilkinson, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the ’Court, as follows:

Plaintiff undertook to construct a shed for defendant within a given delay, and to pay liquidated damages at the rate of $25 per day for each additional day’s delay.

Having delayed 71 days- beyond the time agreed upon, it was paid the contract price in full, less the sum of $1,775, being a deduction of $25 per day for 71 days.

This sum it now seeks to recover, on the ground that defendant suffered no damage whatsoever by the aforesaid delay, and that under the provisions of Art. 1934 of the Civil Code, “when the contract is executed in part the damages agreed on by the parties may be reduced to the loss really suffered.”

In our opinion the above has no possible application to the ease at bar.

Article 2125, C. C., shows that “liquidated damages” and penalites, are one and the same thing — and may be stipulated either for the non-execution of the contract, or for mere delay in the -execution thereof.

In the case before us there is no question of the nonperformance of a contract. The contract, though tardily was none the less fully performed and no damage for its non-execution could be allowed even if claimed. One *194cannot demand both the performance of a contract and the penalty for its non-performance. C. C., 2125.

Opinion and decree, February 1st, 1915.

Rehearing refused, February 17th, 1915.

Writ denied, March 24th, 1915.

Hence there is no question in that respect of penalty or damage for non-execution of a contract; and therefore no room for a reduction of damages because of partial performance.

But the damages or penalites here in question were clearly stipulated for mere delay in the performance of the contract, and quoad the 'time of performance plaintiff was not partially but totally in default.

For there was and could be no partial performance in that respect; the shed was to be completed and delivered as a whole, not in parts; and plaintiff either did or did not complete and deliver it on the day agreed upon. If it did not it owes the whole penalty because the breach was total, not partial.

Judgment Affirmed.
No. 46424.

#### Petitions 6106-R, etc., of G. Fox & Co., Inc. (Bridgeport).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The petitions were dismissed on motion of counsel for the respondent and agreement of counsel.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. §1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Sajan, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the fiscal period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shannon Zimmerman,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 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/
      Shannon ZimmermanShannon
      Zimmerman, Chief Executive Officer and
                  PresidentNovember
      12, 2010
#### Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6489.

Entry No. 731793, etc.

Invoices dated Hale End, England, December 1945, etc.

Certified December 12, 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 7, 1946, etc.

(Decided November 6, 1946)

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

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

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern 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. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

A written stipulation of fact, upon which the cases have been submitted’, establishes that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)) is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made on entry by the importers because of advances in similar cases.
<SEQUENCE>3
<FILENAME>robinsoncert 033102.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 March 31, 2002
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
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.33-21704, No. 33-24096, No. 33-37300, No. 33-65104, No. 33-56717, No. 333-42903, No. 333-59811, No. 333-61214 and No. 333-117850 on Form S-8 and No. 333-47909 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 4, 2011, relating to the consolidated financialstatements of The McClatchy Company, and the effectiveness of The McClatchy Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The McClatchy Company for the year ended December 26, 2010.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Sacramento, California 

 

March 4, 2011
34142.

#### BROOKS v. BROOKS.

Bowles, Justice.

Doris Kennedy Brooks filed a complaint for divorce on October 21, 1976, against Billy Joe Brooks on the ground that the marriage was irretrievably broken. The defendant was personally served but did not file any pleadings. On April 12,1977, a final judgment and decree was entered which granted the plaintiff a divorce but reserved issues of child support, custody, alimony and attorney fees for future determination. On March 13, 1978, plaintiffs attorney sent via certified mail to the defendant notice of the date and time of trial. The defendant never received said notice although the post office attempted to deliver it on three separate occasions. Defendant’s present wife had advised the defendant that there was certified mail for him but the defendant made no effort to claim the mail.

A trial on the issues previously reserved was held on March 29, 1978. The defendant did not appear. After hearing evidence, the court entered judgment granting the plaintiff custody of the minor child, child support in the amount of $350 per month, a lump sum alimony award of $10,000, and attorney fees.

On April 18, 1978, the defendant filed a motion to vacate the March 29, 1978 judgment, requesting a new trial on grounds that he had not received notice of trial. After a hearing, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

This court has several times held that where a defendant has failed to file pleadings in a divorce action, he waives all notices, including notice of the time and place of trial. Code Ann. § 81A-105 (a); *Gibson v. Gibson,*234 Ga. 528 (2) (216 SE2d 824) (1975); *Mackey v. Mackey,*
      *445232 Ga. 207 (205 SE2d 855) (1974); *Wallace v. Wallace,*229 Ga. 607 (1) (193 SE2d 832) (1972).

Argued October 10, 1978

Decided October 25, 1978.

*Robert S. Windholz,*for-appellant.

*E. C. Harvey,*for appellee.

The defendant was not entitled to *any*notice of the time and place of trial in the present case since he had failed to file defensive pleadings in the case. Although plaintiff attempted to notify defendant via certified mail of the time and place of trial such notice was unnecessary.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
33715.

#### BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA v. C.F.I. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

Argued July 11, 1978

Decided September 7, 1978.

*Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Michael E. Hobbs, Assistant Attorney General, G. Thomas Davis, Special Assistant Attorney General,*for appellant.

*Mason & Hall, William*V. *Hall, Jr.,*for appellee.

Per curiam.

The application for certiorari being improvidently granted, the writ is hereby dismissed.

*Dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Undercofler, P. J., Bowles and Marshall, JJ., who dissent.*
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

# Anniston's Smith named DLA Distribution Big Ideas award winner

By DLA Distribution Public AffairsDLA Distribution Public Affairs

                ANNISTON, Alabama  –              
Willis Smith, who currently runs the kitting section in the Vehicles and Artillery Division at DLA Distribution Anniston, Alabama, is the winner of the DLA Distribution Big Ideas award, individual category for second quarter, fiscal year 2017.  His section provides Components of End Items and Basic Issue Items for assets ranging from artillery pieces, troop carriers, Paladin vehicles, and recovery vehicles.  Smith’s dedication to the mission enabled the V&A kitting section to set the standard for audit readiness and process excellence.  This includes managing the kitting requirements, which has over 600 locations and about 300 lines of material, totaling approximately $2.4 million in assets.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLADLA DistributionBig Idea awardPeople and Culture
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin SCOTT.

No. 98-KH-1027.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 8, 1998.

In re Scott, Kevin;—Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “M”, No. 330-709.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., not on panel.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle, Judge of the United States District **

Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID B. JONES,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP; WALMART STORES, INC.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-16873

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-07775-SMM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 4, 2010

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SETTLE, District Judge.** 

Even assuming that Jones established a prima facie case of discrimination,

he has not raised a genuine issue of material fact that Wal-Mart’s explanation for

FILED

DEC 03 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

terminating him (namely, that he engaged in sexual harassment of several female

coworkers) was pretextual, and therefore cannot overcome Wal-Mart’s motion for

summary judgment. See, e.g., Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530

U.S. 133, 148 (2000); Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 890 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Jones, Vasquez v. County of Los

Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639–40 (9th Cir. 2003), he did not offer any direct evidence

of discriminatory animus on the part of Wal-Mart. Nor did Jones offer any

“specific and substantial” indirect evidence that Wal-Mart’s proffered

nondiscriminatory reason for terminating him was a pretext to disguise a racially

discriminatory reason. Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062

(9th Cir. 2002) (citing Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir.

1998)). 

Jones’s allegations that Wal-Mart conducted an investigation of his alleged

wrongdoings that was more thorough than prior investigations, that Wal-Mart

failed to properly evaluate the evidence uncovered by the investigation, and that it

imposed harsher punishment on Jones than on other employees accused of sexual

harassment, do not create a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext. There is no

evidence that discredits Wal-Mart’s assertions that it terminated Jones because he

had engaged in sexual harassment. See Villiarimo, 281 F.3d at 1063. 
3

AFFIRMED.
Order filed January 24 , 20 12

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 10

- 00 324

- CV

____________ CHRIS THYGESEN AND BRUCE W. DERRICK, DERIVATELY ON BEHALF OF CLEARMEDIAONE, INC., AND ITS SHAREHOLDERS , Appellant s

V.

ROBERT F. STRANGE, JR., ROBERT J. VIGUET JR., AND THOMPSON & KNIGHT, L.L.P. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 157th Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2008

- 35835



### O R D E R

On May 6, 2010 , this court abated this appeal because appellee , Robert F. Strange,
petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of Texas, under cause number 09

- 37417

- H1

- 11

. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

Through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, the court has learned that the bankruptcy case was closed on December 14, 2011 . The parties failed
to advise this court of the bankruptcy court action.2

Unless within 20 days of the date of this order , any party to the appeal files a
motion demonstrating good cause to retain this appeal, this appeal will be reinstated and
dismissed for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Paul JAMES.

No. 98-KK-0428.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Paul James, applying for reconsideration of this Court’s Action dated March 27, 1998, from the 22nd Judicial District Court, No. 272,475, Div. F, 1st Circuit Court of Appeal, No. KW97 2790.

Reconsideration denied. See Rule 9, Sec. VI LA supreme Court.

VICTORY, J., not on panel.