alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ronald McPHERSON, Appellant, v. Jeffery and Flora REDDING, Appellees.

No. 77-414.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 4, 1978.

Rehearing Denied May 8, 1978.

*738Shutts & Bowen and Thomas H. Anderson and Brenton N. Ver Ploeg, Miami, for appellant.

Tobias Simon and Theodore L. Tripp, Jr., Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, NATHAN and KE-HOE, JJ.

NATHAN, Judge.

By this appeal, the defendant, Ronald/ McPherson, seeks review of an order of the trial court dismissing with prejudice his counterclaim against plaintiffs Redding to impress an equitable lien on property owned by McPherson.

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint and defendant’s counterclaim thereto emanate from the order on mandate of the trial court which followed our opinion in a prior appeal in this cause. See *McPherson v. Redding,*323 So.2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Plaintiffs’ original complaint was to impress a lien. Defendant answered and counterclaimed alleging among other things, that plaintiffs were trespassers and thus, should be required to remove themselves from the property and to pay any damages to which the defendants/counter-plaintiffs are justly entitled.

These issues were litigated and judgment entered thereon in favor of plaintiffs, granting them a $60,000.00 equitable lien for the period of time from 1964 to the winter of 1972. Upon reversal and remand, this court, with reference to the equitable lien opined,

> “Thus, plaintiffs are not entitled to a lien for improvements beyond the date that McPherson’s rejection was communicated to them by Tripp & Snyder. At most, plaintiffs are entitled to equitable lien for the three month period, April — June 1974.”

Following and pursuant to the trial court’s order on our mandate, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint for an equitable lien for the three month period from April, 1964, to June, 1964. The defendant filed an answer and counterclaim for damages for trespass, destruction of property and profits growing out of the use of the property by plaintiffs from April, 1964, to the present time.

Plaintiffs contend that when defendant asserted his counterclaim for damages, these issues now sought to be tried were raised and already tried and resolved by the trial court, and upheld by this court, except that recovery was limited to an equitable lien for improvements during the three month period. We agree. Not only did the trial court properly dismiss the counterclaim sub judice, for damages from April, 1964, to the date of the judgment in January, 1975, but we also find that there was no abuse of discretion in not permitting the counterclaim at such a late date for the period after January 2,1975, to the present time.

The only issue now to be tried is whether plaintiffs are entitled to an equitable lien for their improvements on the property during the three month period, and the damages to the plaintiffs therefor, if any. Trial of this issue does not preclude defendant from bringing whatever separate action he may choose from the date of, and after the judgment of the trial court of January 2, 1975.

Affirmed.
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 24, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10812 Summary Calendar

CARDELL RHETT, JR., Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WAYNE SCOTT; ET AL., Defendants, T. REVELL; NFN GONZALEZ, Defendants-Appellants.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:96-CV-114

-------------------- Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: 1
Dr. William Gonzale z and Dr. Tim Revell appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment in Cardell Rhett, Jr.’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court determined that Rhett had produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding deliberate indifference to2

his serious medical needs. We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s determination. N erren v. Livingston Police Dep’t , 86 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 1999).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
60°0'0"E 62°0'0"E 64°0'0"E 66°0'0"E 68°0'0"E 70°0'0"E 72°0'0"E 74°0'0"E 76°0'0"E

38°0'0"N

36°0'0"N

34°0'0"N

32°0'0"N

30°0'0"N

1 Khanneshin

Carbonatite

EXPLANATION

Area of interest

Province border

Country border

Scale 1:7,000,000

15 South Helmand

Travertine, copper, gold

10 Tourmaline

Tin

9 Dusar-Shaida

Copper, tin

20 Herat

Baruim, limestone

12 Nalbandon

Lead, zinc

25 Ahankashan

Gold, copper

26 Kandahar

Bauxite

 11

KharnakKanjar

Mercury

 21

Bakhud

Flourite 8 Kundalyan

Gold, copper

22 Uruzgan

Tin, tungsten

7 Zarkashan

Gold, copper

29 Parwan

Gold, copper

14 Katawas

Gold

23 Ghunday-Achin

Magnesite, talc

5 Aynak

Copper

3 Haji-Gak

Iron

2 Balkhab

Copper

16 Baghlan

Clay, gypsum

 18

Dudkash

Industrial

minerals

19 Kunduz

Celestite

28 N. Bamyan

Copper

27 S. Bamyan

Spectral anomaly

13 Panjsher Valley

Emeralds, 

 silver

24 Nuristan

Pegmatites

17 Takhar

Evaporite

 4

 North 

Takhar

Placer gold

 6

Badakhshan

Lode gold

HERAT

FARAH

NIMROZ

HELMAND

KANDAHAR

ZABUL

GHAZNI

PAKTIKA

URUZGAN

GHOR

DAYKUNDI

BADGHIS

FARYAB

SARI-PUL

JAWZJAN

BALKH

SAMANGAN

BAMYAN WARDAK

LOGAR

KABUL

PAKTYA

KHOST

NANGARHAR

LAGHMAN

KUNAR

BADAKHSHAN

TAKHAR

KUNDUZ

BAGHLAN

PARWAN KAPISA

NURISTAN

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

0 75 150 MILES

PANJSHER
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,681,671
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,978,850
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (594,854)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,970,210
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,754,750
<PP&E>                                       5,797,446
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,461,502)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,836,574
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,190,262
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,808
<OTHER-SE>                                  82,427,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,279,119
<SALES>                                     19,205,611
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,767,677
<CGS>                                       13,208,278
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,755,352
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,169,593
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             106,571
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,788,185)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (11,788,185)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,788,185)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.75)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3249 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3249

   To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans 
  Affairs in Wyandotte County, Kansas City, Kansas, as the ``Captain 
                      Elwin Shopteese VA Clinic''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 8, 2023

Mr. Moran (for himself and Mr. Marshall) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans 
  Affairs in Wyandotte County, Kansas City, Kansas, as the ``Captain 
                      Elwin Shopteese VA Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF CAPTAIN ELWIN SHOPTEESE VA CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The outpatient clinic of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs located at 9201 Parallel Parkway, Kansas City, Kansas, 
shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 
designated as the ``Captain Elwin Shopteese Department of Veterans 
Affairs Clinic'' or the ``Captain Elwin Shopteese VA Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the outpatient 
clinic referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the Captain Elwin Shopteese VA Clinic.
                                 <all>
```
#### Howard Samuel James ELLARD, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-423.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 17, 1973.

Dwight N. Rockwood, Jr., Pensacola, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*46PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
#### William ARMSTRONG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-100.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 20, 1971.

Edmund, McDaniel & Garrard, Lake Alfred, for appellant. .

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant was charged with second degree murder. He was tried by jury and found guilty of manslaughter. He was subsequently adjudicated to be guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to a term of ten years in state prison. He appeals the judgment and assigns as error the court’s refusal to allow evidence of the violent and dangerous character of the deceased to be presented to the jury.

According to the record the only relevant evidence the judge refused to allow was the details of how the appellant had been previously shot. He allowed the appellant to testify that he had been shot in the arm and that his arm was paralyzed as a result of the shooting. What he did not allow, and properly so, were the details of the prior shooting of the defendant. This question has been answered many times by the courts of Florida beginning with Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835 (1891); Cole v. State, Fla.App.1966, 193 So.2d 47; Coker v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 648.

It is this court’s opinion that the trial judge went further in allowing the conduct of the deceased to be put into evidence than *Garner, Cole*and *Coker*would require. For this reason the judgment and sentence is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
#### Kenneth C. COWART and Mrs. Kenneth C. Cowart, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Jesse L. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11755.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Feb. 13, 1978.

James E. Kuhn, Denham Springs, for plaintiff s-appellees.

J. Lynn Ponder, Amite, for defendant-appellant.

Before LANDRY, SARTAIN and ELLIS, JJ.

SARTAIN, Judge.

Defendant, Jesse L. Martin, brings this appeal from a judgment rendered in the trial court against him in favor of plaintiffs, Kenneth C. and Toñita M. Cowart, based upon a breach of contract. The record before us is barren of either a transcript of the testimony or written reasons by the trial judge. However, in brief, plaintiffs assert that the judgment now sought to be appealed is based upon a compromise between the parties resulting in a consent judgment by stipulation. We agree and dismiss defendant’s appeal.

C.C.P. Art. 2085 provides in pertinent part that “An appeal cannot be taken by a party who confessed judgment in the proceedings in the trial court . . . ” Further, the lack of a right of appeal may be raised at any time. C.C.P. Art. 2162; *Cotton v. Wright,*214 La. 169, 36 So.2d 713 (1948).

Plaintiffs assert in brief and in oral argument that on the date this matter was set for trial on the merits, the parties entered into a compromise and by stipulation consented to the judgment that was rendered. The minutes of the court of that date so reflect. The judgment itself is signed by counsel for both parties.

*653Further, we particularly note that defendant's present counsel1 does not contradict, either in brief or oral argument, the contention of plaintiffs’ counsel relating to the compromise.

Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that the judgment now sought to be appealed was a consent judgment which is not appealable. C.C.P. Art. 2085.

For these reasons, appellant’s appeal is dismissed at his cost.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

1

. Defendant obtained different counsel in the interim period between the date of the judgment and the order of appeal.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 



 Exhibit 10.15

    
  














October    ,
2001

















Vertecon Inc.

The Shareholders of Vertecon Inc.

c/o Vertecon Inc.

622 Emerson Road

Suite 400

St. Louis, MO 63141

 




Gentlemen:

 




        Reference is made to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of October    , 2001 (the "Agreement") by and among Perficient, Inc. ("Parent"), Primary
Webworks, Inc., d/b/a Vertecon Inc. (the "Company"), Perficient Vertecon, Inc. ("Sub") and certain shareholders of the Company listed on the signature pages thereto. Capitalized
terms referred to herein but not otherwise defined shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.

 




        In connection with the Agreement and in consideration of the Company and the Shareholders entering into the Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, each of the undersigned
hereto irrevocably agrees that he shall vote or cause to be voted (in person or by proxy) all of his or its shares of Parent Common Stock beneficially owned by him or it at each Special or Annual
Meeting of Shareholders of Parent in which such matters are considered and subject to a vote (each, a "Meeting"), in favor of (i) the issuance of shares of Parent Common Stock in payment of the
Stock Price as provided in Section 1.05(a) of the Merger Agreement, and (ii) such other matters that come before the Meeting concerning the Agreement and the transactions contemplated
thereby, or any adjournment thereof, that are required to be approved by the shareholders of Parent. Each party to this letter agreement agrees not to grant any proxy or enter into any agreements
inconsistent with this letter agreement. This agreement shall be governed by Delaware law and may be executed in counterparts. This agreement shall automatically terminate upon the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Agreement.






Very truly yours,











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.15
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27177]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3281-001]


South Carolina Electric and Gas Company; Notice of Filing

October 8, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 28, 1997, South Carolina Electric and 
Gas Company tendered for filing its refund report in the above-
referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before October 21, 1997. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27177 Filed 10-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-5142 September Term, 2021

1:21-cv-00790-UNA

Filed On: October 19, 2021

Grant Anderson,

Appellant

v.

United States of America,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Rogers and Millett, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for

the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);

D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s May 17, 2021 order be

affirmed. The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain appellant’s

petition for a writ of audita querela because the underlying judgment he sought to

challenge was issued in D.C. Superior Court. On appeal, appellant presses no argument

challenging that jurisdictional ruling, and he has therefore forfeited any such challenge. 

See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is

directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of

any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P.

41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



In connection with the Quarterly Report of BGF Industries, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James R. Henderson, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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/ James R. Henderson
|----------------------
|James R. Henderson    
|President             
|November 12, 2003
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3037 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood 

educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 4, 2023 

Mr. BENNET (for himself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early 

childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting Early5 childhood Educators’ Deductions Act’’ or the ‘‘SEED 

6 Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. EDUCATOR EXPENSE DEDUCTION TO INCLUDE 

8 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 62 of the Internal Rev10 enue Code of 1986 is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3037 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a)(2)(D), by striking ‘‘ELE2 MENTARY AND SECONDARY’’ in the heading and in3 serting ‘‘EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND

4 SECONDARY’’; 

5 (2) in subsection (d)(1)(A), by striking ‘‘kinder6 garten through grade 12 teacher’’ and inserting, 

7 ‘‘early childhood or kindergarten through grade 12 

8 teacher, educator’’; and 

9 (3) in subsection (d)(1)(B), by striking ‘‘ele10 mentary education or secondary education’’ and in11 serting ‘‘early childhood education (through pre-kin12 dergarten) or elementary or secondary education’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to expenses incurred in taxable 

15 years beginning after December 31, 2022. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-1020 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CULTURAL PROPERTY 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and NICARAGUA 

Amending and Extending the 

Agreement of June 16, 1999 

 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Managua October 4 and 13, 2010 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 NICARAGUA 

 Cultural Property 

 Agreement amending and extending the 

 agreement of June 16, 1999. 

 Effected by exchange of notes at Managua 

 October 4 and 13, 2010; 

 Entered into force October 20, 2010.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual report of the PacificNorthwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council**
 
23rd | 24th
 
SuDoc:Y 3.N 81/8:1/
Item Number:1089-W-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000914199
 
November 8, 2017