alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jose Ramon SANCHEZ and Enterprise Leasing Co., d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Appellants, v. Joanne RENWICK and Dale Renwick, Appellees.

No. 98-0824.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 23, 1999.

Hightower *&*Rudd, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Shelley Ray Senecal, Ft. Laud-erdale, for appellants.

Ginsberg & Schwartz, Miami, and Andy M. Custer, Ft. Lauderdale, and Arnold Ginsberg, Miami, for appellees.

Before JORGENSON, COPE and LEVY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Jose Ramon Sanchez and Enterprise Leasing Company appeal a judgment after jury trial in favor of the plaintiffs in an automobile accident case. We affirm.

First, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury award for loss of future earning capacity. *See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Shilling,*374 So.2d 611, 612-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); *Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Ganey,*125 So.2d 576, 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Plaintiff Joanne Renwick sustained back injuries resulting in an eight percent permanent injury. Although she had returned to work, she continued to have back pain and was vulnerable to further accidental re-injury. The treating physician testified that, more probably than not, plaintiff would need back surgery in the future. In the meantime, plaintiff had sporadic work absence on account of the back problem, and had to be cautious in her physical activities. This was an ample basis on which the jury could conclude that there would be some diminution in the plaintiffs future earning capacity. The $15,000 award, for a plaintiff with 41.5 years of future life expectancy, was reasonable.

Second, defendants-appellants complain of certain closing arguments made by plaintiffs’ counsel. The trial judge quite properly intervened on his own with respect to the more significant of these comments. Defendants now complain about the unobjected-to comments. We conclude that these were not of a magnitude which rise to the level necessary to constitute fundamental error. *See Florida Supermarkets, Inc. v. White,*667 So.2d 848, 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We concur with the trial court that a new trial is not called for.

Third, assuming arguendo that defendant Enterprise should have been placed on a different portion of the jury verdict *596form, we are unable to see how Enterprise was harmed.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1926

JOHN M. DICKSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICER SOREL V. UTSEY, in his official and individual 

capacity; CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS POLICE CHIEF JAMES D. FOX, in 

his official and individual capacity, acting under color of 

state law; CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS POLICE DEPARTMENT, in its 

official capacity, and as a person acting under color of 

state law; CLERK MRS/MS JANE DOE OF THE GENERAL DISTRICT 

COURT THE TRAFFIC/CIVIL DIVISION, in her individual capacity 

acting under color of state law,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (4:13-cv-00057-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John M. Dickson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Darlene P. Bradberry, 

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John M. Dickson, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Dickson v. Utsey, 

No. 4:13-cv-00057-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va. July 29, 2014). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

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

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Static displays on DSCR get scheduled five year facelift 

By Leon MooreDLA Aviation Public Affairs

                RICHMOND, VA  –              
Earlier this summer, a team of contractors descended on Richmond with one mission; restoring the appearances of the mighty military static displays scattered around Defense Supply Center Richmond. Lee Scott, engineering technician, Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, DLA Installation Operations, said between May 15 and July 15, 2018, eight static displays, including the Navy F-14 Tomcat, Air Force F-15 Eagle and Army UH-1 Iroquois that sit on the grounds of the headquarters building, underwent a makeover, including a fresh coat of paint. 

Scott said the goal is to have this done once every five years. He said Energy Engineering and Controls Inc., based out of Center Valley, Pennsylvania, was awarded the $93,000 contract to do the work. 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Aviation RichmondDefense Supply Center RichmondMilitary Static Displays
No. 42003.

#### Protest 548330-G of Irving W. Rice & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the flasks in question were held dutiable as hollow ware at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed. *Viking Trading Co.*v. *United States*(C. D. 132) cited.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99(i)

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                           NONSOLICITATION AGREEMENT


     This Amendment dated as of the 15th day of June, 1999, by and between
JWGENESIS FINANCIAL CORP. ("Company"), and MARSHALL T. LEEDS ("Employee");

                              W I T N E S S E T H:
                              -------------------

     WHEREAS, Employee entered into a Nonsolicitation Agreement ("Agreement")
with the Company, effective June 12, 1998, pursuant to which the Employee
agreed, among other things, to avoid soliciting Company clients and Company
personnel for a period of seven years; and

     WHEREAS, the Company desires additional protection to ensure the Employee
will comply with the terms of the Agreement; and

     WHEREAS, in exchange for other valuable consideration, the receipt of which
is hereby acknowledged, Employee has agreed to this amendment of the Agreement;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants
and agreements contained herein and in the Plan, the parties hereby agree as
follows:

                                       1.

     Section 10 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the existing
section in its entirety and substituting the following therefor:

     "10.  Relief.  If Employee breaches any term of this Agreement, Employee
           ------
     will pay to Company the sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) as
     liquidated damages.  In addition to and in no way limited by the liquidated
     damages provision in the prior sentence, the parties acknowledge that a
     breach or threatened breach of any term of this Agreement by Employee would
     result in material and irreparable damage and injury to Company, and that
     it would be difficult or impossible to establish the full monetary value of
     such damage.  Therefore, Company shall also be entitled to injunctive
     relief by a court of appropriate jurisdiction in the event of Employee's
     breach or threatened breach of this Agreement."

                                       2.

     Except as hereby modified, the terms and conditions of the Plan shall
remain in full force and effect.  This Amendment shall be effective as of
January 1, 1999.
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day
and year first above written.

                                        EMPLOYEE



                                        /s/ Marshall T. Leeds
                                        -------------------------
                                        MARSHALL T. LEEDS



                                        JWGENESIS FINANCIAL CORP.



                                        By: /s/ Gregg S. Glaser
                                            ---------------------
No. 74-5812.

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

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00007-CR

Somer Rachelle Nesloney

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-21-5196-CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 13, 2023
Smith Barney Futures Management LLC
                         388 Greenwich Street, 7th Floor
                          New York, New York 10013-2396

May 31, 2000



AAA Capital Management Inc.
5051 Westheiemr - Suite 2100
Houston, Texas 77056

Attention:  Mr. Anthony Annunziato

         Re:      Management Agreement Renewals

Dear Mr. Annunziato:

We are  writing  with  respect  to your  management  agreements  concerning  the
commodity pools to which reference is made below (the "Management  Agreements").
We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2001 and
all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged.

                       Smith Barney AAA Energy Fund L.P.

                       Salomon Smith Barney Orion Futures Fund L.P

Please  acknowledge  receipt of this  modification  by signing  one copy of this
letter and returning it to the  attention of Mr. Daniel  Dantuono at the address
above or fax to  212-723-8985.  If you have any  questions  I can be  reached at
212-723-5416.

Very truly yours,

SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT LLC


By:
         Daniel A. Dantuono
         Chief Financial Officer,
         Director & Treasurer

By:

AGREED AND ACCEPTED

AAA CAPITAL MANAGMENT INC.

DAD/sr
No. 96-5814.

#### Toler *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
| (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. |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                  |                                               |
|--------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   |                  |                                               |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Carl      Palmer                          |   |
|   |                  | Carl      PalmerChief      Executive Officer  |   |
No. 48832.

#### Protest 8022-K of M. S. Levy & Sons, Inc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consist of hats similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218). In accordance therewith the claim at only 25 percent was sustained.
www.uavsolutions.com 8280 Patuxent Range Rd. Suite E · Jessup, MD 20794 · (Phone) 240-456-0195
The UAV Solutions, Inc. (UAVS) line of multi rotor systems, developed for military and commercial use, is built from 

7075 aircraft grade aluminum and composite materials. Our systems are designed to be assembled quickly to enable 

the user to gain instant situational awareness utilizing the UAVS Dragon View combined electro-optic/infrared imager with 

pan and tilt stabilized gimbal. These UAS also have the capability to carry different sensors such as SLR cameras and 

multi-spectral payloads. We have adopted an open architecture philosophy for software and hardware components that 

provides customers with fl exibility for future product enhancement. Components such as motors, propellers, booms and 

avionics are interchangeable among our larger VTOL UAS. UAVS designs and builds ground control systems (GCS) for 

command and control of unmanned vehicles. These solutions range from the Tactical GCS which houses two screens for 

mission planning and video viewing in a rugged container to a lower cost solution that is a communications radio which can 

be attached to an IP-based tough book or lap top. A common GCS can be used for UAVS multi rotor and fi xed wing platforms. 

Features:

• Fully autonomous systems with multiple user modes

• Easily transportable / compact storage

• Powerful motor confi guration 

• Open architecture systems / sensor agnostic

• Comprehensive Operations and Maintenance Manuals including maintenance schedule and troubleshooting guide

UAV Solutions, Inc. is a woman-owned small business that designs, manufactures and delivers innovative unmanned 

systems. Our state-of-the-art facilities allow us to rapidly design, assemble, integrate and test high quality production 

systems. Helping our public and private sector customers fulfi ll their most important missions is our passion.

UAVS products are export controlled and may require U.S. Government authorization prior to export or re-export.

Ground Control System Options
# C_2013352EN.01001402.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Mundipharma v OHIM — AFT Pharmaceuticals (Maxigesic)

(Case T-328/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Maxigesic - Earlier Community word mark OXYGESIC - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 352/26

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mundipharma GmbH (Limburg an der Lahn, Germany) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Takapuna, New Zealand) (represented by: M. Nentwig, L. Kouker and G.M. Becker, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2012 (Case R 1788/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Mundipharma GmbH and AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mundipharma GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mundipharma GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

1

---
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

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# ‘Echo Company’ Soldiers maintain AUAB air defenses 

By Tech. Sgt. Christopher Hubenthal379th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs

                AL UDEID AIR BASE, Qatar  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Al Udeid Air Base43rd Air Defense Artillery RegimentgeneratorsHVACrepairmaintenancevehicle maintenance
#### John Cochran and Cyrus H. Ober plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Crawford Glover, defendant in error.

*Error to Van Burén.*

An assignee of a note may sue in his own name, although only part of the amount be assigned to him.

In actions before justices of the peace, if the sum claimed does not exceed fifty dollars, it is within his jurisdiction.

Crawford Glover sued John Cochran, before a justice of the peace of Van Burén county, on a note of which the following is a copy:

“ Twelve months after date I promise to pay A. J. Davis, or order, one hundred dollars for value received, to bear interest after due, at the rate of ten per cent, per annum ; for the payment of which I bind my heirs, &c., this seventeenth day of January 1840.

“ Keosauqua, I. T. “A. *w'*HARLAN, [seal.”}

Upon which note there were the following endorsements, viz :

“January 27, 1841. Received on the within, forty dollars, and interest on the same. “ HENRY GILLY.”

“ Cr. on the within ten dollars, *“*CRAWFORD GLOVER.”

“ 1 assign the within note to B. B. Rew, without any recourse on me.

“A, J. DAVIS.”

*152“ I assign the within note to John Cochran for value received, this April 20, 1841. “ B. B. REW.”

“November 2nd, 1841. I assign sixty dollars of the within to Crawt-ford Glover. ’ “JOHN COCHRAN.”

On the day previous to trial, the plaintiff entered a credit on the *note*for ten dollars. And the justice gave judgment against Cochran for *“ fifty*dollars, with interest and costs of suit until paid, and costs that accrued in the case of Glover against Piarían.” Cochran appealed to the District Court, O. H. Ober being security in the bond.

The case was submitted at the September term 1841, of the District Court, Judge Mason presiding, and a judgment was rendered for the plaintiff against the defendant, for the sum of $50 and costs.

The cause is here on a writ of error. Errors assigned:

1. The plaintiff in the court below, had no right to sue in his own name.

2. The justice of the peace had no jurisdiction.

3. The judgment of the court below is not good.

Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff in error seems to rely upon two points:

1. The plaintiff in the court below had no right to sue in his own name;

2. The justice of the peace had no jurisdiction.

In regard to the first point, the only ground for an argument arises from the fact, that Cochran in assigning the note to Glover, only assigned sixty dollars thereof. Such an assignment, is, we think, sufficient to render him liable as an endorser to that amount; and that Glover had the same right to sue in his own name, as though the assignment had been unqualified.

As to the question of jurisdiction, the point has been already settled in this court in the case of Hall vs. Biever*

The judgment of the court below will therefore be affirmed.

*

 Ante. page 113.