alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Florencio FANA, Appellant, v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO., INC., etc., Appellee.

No. 98-1618.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 28, 1999.

Richard F. Joyce, III, Miami, and Israel J. Encinosa, Miami, for appellant.

Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell and Mark E. Grimes and David J. Pyper, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Florencio Fana appeals from an order of final summary judgment entered in an action for negligence. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Fana and Orkin entered into a contract for the fumigation of Fana’s townhouse. His townhouse was the end unit in a building that contained other townhouses; all the other owners had entered into similar contracts. Paragraph 2 of the contract provided that “Orkin is not responsible for vandalism, theft, or breaking and entering during fumigation and aeration procedures.” The contract further contained the following:

> Dear Customer: Due to the fact that Orkin is not responsible for vandalism, theft or breaking and entering during the fumigation and aeration procedures, we are encouraging you to obtain some type of security.

On March 25, 1992, Orkin began the fumigation process but had to suspend the tenting for bad weather. Only a portion of *435Fana’s townhouse was tented. On the evening of March 25, Fana returned to his partially tented residence and confronted several intruders; the intruders attacked Fana and caused him significant injuries.

Fana sued Orkin for negligence. Orkin moved for summary judgment on the basis of the contract’s release and the warning to the homeowners to obtain their own security guard. The trial court entered summary judgment for Orkin, and in doing so, erred.

“It is settled law that a pre-incident release is not effective to preclude an action based on the releasee’s subsequent negligence unless the instrument clearly and specifically provides for a limitation or elimination of liability for such acts.” *Witt v. Dolphin Research Ctr., Inc.,*582 So.2d 27, 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Fana did not sue Orkin for vandalism, theft, or breaking and entering; he sued Orkin for negligence for failing to complete the tenting process and leaving his property exposed, although the other townhouses were completely covered. That alleged breach of duty is not addressed by the releases.1 In this case, as in *Witt,*because “there is no specific reference in the releases to the appellee’s ‘negligence’ at all, it is clear that, as a matter of law, they provide no defense to the negligence claim in this case,” and that the order of summary judgment must be reversed. *Id.*

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1

. On remand, the trial court is, of course, free to determine what duty, if any, Orkin owed Fana under these circumstances.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.37


              AMENDMENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

     Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. (the "Company") hereby amends the Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter & Co. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, as amended
(the "SERP"), as follows:

1.   The second sentence of Paragraph I of the SERP is amended, effective as of
January 1, 1999, by adding the following clause, immediately prior to the end
thereof:

     "; and provided further, that effective January 1, 1999, the term "Firm"
     shall not include Morgan Stanley International Incorporated ("MSII") to the
     extent of MSII employees primarily servicing business units and/or cost
     centers of subsidiaries of the former Dean Witter, Discover & Co.,
     determined immediately prior to its merger with Morgan Stanley Group Inc.
     and no employment in such an excluded position shall count as "Credited
     Service" under the Plan, except as specifically provided in Appendix C."

1.   The third paragraph of Appendix C of the SERP is amended, effective as
of January 1, 1999, by adding the following sentence to the end thereof:

     "Effective January 1, 1999, the provisions of this paragraph shall be
     applied to an employee in an excluded position at MSII who transfers
     directly from MSII to the Firm as if the prior service with MSII in an
     excluded position had been service with DWD."

3.   The last paragraph of Appendix C of the SERP is further amended, effective
as of January 1, 1999, by adding the following sentence at the end thereof:

     "Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, for former Kearny
     employees, the term "Salary" shall mean only base compensation earned for
     any period while employed with the Firm, whether or not paid during such
     period and Salary shall be limited to an annual base compensation rate of
     $200,000."


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed on
its behalf as of January 1, 1999.

                                        MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER & CO.


                                        By:  /s/ Michael T. Cunningham
                                             -------------------------
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-51234 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. EDGAR HERMOSILLO-MINOR, also known as Edgar Hermosillo, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-1986-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * E d g ar H e r m o sillo-Minor appeals th e 7 7

- m o nth s e nt e n c e i m p o s e d f o ll o wi n g his guilty plea conviction for i m portation of marijuana and possession with intent to dis t r ib u te marijuana. He argues that his sentence was greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Hermosillo-Minor asserts that application of the career offender enhancement yielded an advisory guidelines range that overstated the seriousness of hi s o ffense and did not properly account for the § 3553(a) factors. He also argues that the sentence fails U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 11, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-51234 Document: 00511569133 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2011No. 10-51234

to account for mitigating factors in his personal history and characteristics, particularly his problems with substance abuse. Hermosillo-Minor does not dispute the calculation of the guidelines range. Rather, he challenges the reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Where the district court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonabl e . See United States v. Campos-Maldonado , 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). H e r e , the district court considered HermosilloMinor’s arguments for a lower sentence and made an individualized sentencing decision based on the facts of the case and in light of the § 3553(a) factors. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). Hermosillo-Minor’s sentence is presumed to be reasonable because it was within his guidelines range, and he has not shown sufficient reason for this court to disturb that presumption. See Cooks , 589 F.3d at 186. Thus, he has not shown error, plain or otherwise, with respect to the sentence imposed. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 10-51234 Document: 00511569133 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2011
Order entered June 30 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 15 - 00397 - CV BARBARA SIPRIANO, Appellant

V. REGIONAL FINANCE COR PORATION OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Tex as Trial Court Cause No. CC - 13 - 02841 - D



### O RDER W e GRANT appellant’s June 26, 2015 unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than July 17, 2015

. /s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
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

# First-ever DLA Industry Day helps agency promote key SECDEF priorities

By John R. Bell

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

industryprivatecontractoracquisitionreadinessmateriel availabilitycorporatepartnershipsvendorDLA Industry DayStrategic Engagement
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7772
ROBERT LEWIS PRICE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus G. L. WOODARD, Respondent - Appellee.

No. 97-7868
ROBERT LEWIS PRICE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus G. L. WOODARD, Respondent - Appellee.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-97-134-5-H)2 Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 30, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lewis Price, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &Supp. 1997) (No. 97-7772). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in No. 97-7772 on the reasoning of the district court. Price v. Woodard , No. CA97-134-5-H (E.D.N.C. Nov. 14, 1997). Appellant also appeals the district court's denial of a certificate of appealability (No. 97-7868). Finding no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we further deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in No. 97-7868 on the reasoning of the district court. Price v. Woodard, No. CA97-134-5-H (E.D.N.C. Dec. 9, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 96-5858.

#### Williamson *v.*United States.

C.. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### August F. Stauff & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6848.

Entry No. 751628.

Invoice dated Edinburgh, Scotland, March 1946.

Certified March 22, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 15, 1946.

(Decided February 6, 1947)

*Daniel P. McDonald*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been stipulated between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to golf-club heads are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

*374Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
**Exhibit 31.1**CertificationsI, Gary Allhusen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, of Caneum, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 

 
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: August 14, 2006
# C_2013026EN.01006905.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/69

---

Order of the General Court of 12 November 2012 — Shannon Free Airport Development v Commission

(Case T-200/12) (1)

1

2013/C 26/139

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.

1

---
No. 44306.

#### Protests 937556-G, etc., of American Merchandise Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Tape measures stipulated to be like those the subject of Abstract 43372 were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-102089, 333-102091, 333-64193 and 333-90361 on Form S-8, No. 333-68710 on
Form S-3 and No. 333-90597 on Form S-4 of School Specialty, Inc. of our report
dated May 30, 2003 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" as
described in Note 3), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of School
Specialty, Inc. for the year ended April 26, 2003.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
July 8, 2003
* 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. 96-40416

Summary Calendar

 

JOHN EDWARD EASTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BRANDEE FERGUSON,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:94-CV-712

- - - - - - - - - -

October 31, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Edward Easter, Texas prisoner # 622867, proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the district court’s

grant of summary judgment, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint. Easter contends that he was deprived of his

constitutional rights because he was prohibited from receiving

publications that contained sexually explicit photographs.
No. 96-40416

- 2 -

After conducting a de novo review and applying the same

standard as a district court, Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.2d 816,

819-20 (5th Cir. 1993), we AFFIRM the judgment of the district

court. The limitation placed on Easter’s First Amendment rights

due to the censorship of the materials he requested did not

amount to a constitutional violation. See Guajardo v. Estelle,

580 F.2d 760, 761-62 (5th Cir. 1978); see Thompson v. Patteson,

985 F.2d 202 (5th Cir. 1993). Easter did not demonstrate a

violation of equal protection. Thompson, 985 F.2d at 207. Texas

provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy for property-loss

claims. Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543-44 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Easter’s blackmail and conspiracy claims are abandoned. 

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993)(issues must

be briefed to be preserved on appeal). Any claims relating to

September publications are also abandoned pursuant to Easter’s

request.

Easter’s motion for a trial is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Ho-Shang Lee, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe small business issuer and we have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 13, 2004     By: /s/ Ho-Shang Lee, Ph.D.      (Signature)     Name: Ho-Shang Lee, Ph.D.Title: President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-4 (No. 333-85527) and Form S-8 (No. 333-48343, No.
333-48345, No. 333-48349 and No. 333-48353) of Vlasic Foods International Inc.
of our report dated September 15, 1999, except Note 26 which is as of March 13,
2000, appearing on page 47 of the Annual Report to Shareowners, which is
incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.




PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 27, 2000
No. *74-576.*

#### Sterrett et al. *v.*Taylor et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari denied.