alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. RAYMOND GARCIA AGUILAR, Defendant - Appellant. No. 17-3192 (D.C. Nos. 5:16-CV-04077-JAR & 5:02-CR-40035-JAR-1) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , BACHARACH , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ This matter is before us on the “Motion of the United States fo r Summary Affirmance” (“Motion”). The Unite d States moves for summary aff irmance of the district court’s judgment based on this c ourt’s recent published decisio n in United States v. Pullen, 913 F.3d 127 0 (10th Cir. 2019), en banc rev. deniedApril 15, 2019. DefendantAppellant does not dispute that U nited States v. Greer, 881 F.3 d 1241 (10th Cir. 2018) and Pullen control the outcome o f this appeal; Mr. Aguilar does not contest summary

* After examining the appellate record, this panel has determine d unanimously that oral argument would not materia lly assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Ci r. R. 34.1(G). The case is th erefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This or der and judgment is not binding p recedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive valu e consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 3, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 affirmance of the district court’ s judgment, but he reserves th e right to appeal this matter to the United States Supre me Court for further review. In light of the foregoing, the Mo tion is GRANTED. Based on this court’s decision in Pullen, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Chris Wolpert Chief Deputy Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          13,163
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  129,562
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,029
<INVENTORY>                                     59,745
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               204,541
<PP&E>                                         567,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                 348,576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 474,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           78,809
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         2,721
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     311,130
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   474,610
<SALES>                                        304,206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               304,206
<CGS>                                          219,544
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  219,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,104
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,437
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,692
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,433
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,259
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,259
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
        

</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7336 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit franchising authorities 

from requiring approval for the sale of cable systems, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2020 

Mr. BURGESS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit franchising authorities from requiring approval for the sale 

of cable systems, 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 ‘‘Consumer Access to 

5 Broadband for Local Economies and Competition Act’’ or 

6 the ‘‘CABLE Competition Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. SALES OF CABLE SYSTEMS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 621 of the Communica9 tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 541) is amended by adding 

10 at the end the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7336 IH

1 ‘‘(g)(1) A franchising authority may not— 

2 ‘‘(A) preclude a cable operator from transfer3 ring a franchise to a person to which such franchise 

4 was not initially granted; or 

5 ‘‘(B) require a cable operator to which a fran6 chise is initially granted to receive approval from the 

7 franchising authority for the transfer of such fran8 chise to a person who to which such franchise was 

9 not initially granted. 

10 ‘‘(2) In the case of the transfer of a franchise to a 

11 person to which such franchise was not originally granted, 

12 a franchising authority may require a cable operator to 

13 which a franchise was initially granted to, not later than 

14 15 days after a transfer of a franchise, notify the fran15 chising authority in writing of such transfer. 

16 ‘‘(3) In this subsection, the term ‘transfer’ means the 

17 assignment rights under a franchise through any trans18 action, including a merger, sale, assignment, restruc19 turing, or transfer of control of a cable operator or a cable 

20 system.’’. 

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section, and the amend22 ment made by subsection (a), shall take effect 6 months 

23 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7336 IH

1 (c) APPLICATION.—This section, and the amendment 

2 made by subsection (a) shall apply to a franchise grant3 ed— 

4 (1) on or after the effective date established by 

5 subsection (b); or 

6 (2) before such date, if such franchise (includ7 ing any renewal term thereof) is in effect on such 

8 date. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4060]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Invention of Licensing; Government 
Owned Invention

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

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is assigned to the United States 
Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and is available 
for licensing by the Department of the Navy. Requests for copies of the 
patent application cited should be directed to the Office of Naval 
Research, ONR 00CC, Ballston Tower One, 800 North Quincy Street, 
Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660 and must include the patent application 
serial number.
    Patent Application Serial No. 07/253,106: CAGED POLYNITRAMINE 
COMPOUND; filed September 30, 1988.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. R.J. Erickson, Staff Patent 
Attorney, Office of Naval Research, ONR 00CC, Ballston Tower One, 800 
North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660, telephone (703) 
696-4001.

    Dated: January 22, 1997
D. E. Koenig, Jr.,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-4060 Filed 2-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
#### Vincent J. MORTELLARO, Appellant, v. Al E. FELLNER, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 72-626.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 13, 1973.

Hammond & Holman, Pinellas Park, for appellant.

Harold Soehl, St. Petersburg, and Laurence I. Goodrich, Tampa, for appellees.

*75PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals an order of the circuit court sustaining the grant of a height restriction variance by the Board of Adjustment of the Town of North Redington Beach, Florida.

The board’s determination comes to the courts with a presumption of correctness and the courts will not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Troup v. Bird, Fla. 1951, 53 So.2d 717.

We have carefully examined the record on appeal and conclude that the appellant has not overcome this presumption and the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., and PIERCE, J., (Ret.), concur.
#### Homer M. VANATER, doing business as Kirby’s Shoe Store, and Kirby’s Shoe Corporation of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-164.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 6, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 2, 1973.

George J. Baya, Miami, for appellants.

Edna L. Caruso, of'Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D’Aiuto, Dean.& Hallowes, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant-plaintiff, Homer M. Vanater, appeals a final judgment denying reformation of a fire insurance policy in an action for reformation of the insurance policy and seeking payment under the policy as reformed. We reverse.

The sole point on appeal which we consider is that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that appellant must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a mutual mistake had been made in the issuance of the insurance policy.

 The general rule is that when, because of a mutual mistake, a written instrument does not express the true agreement of the parties, equity will reform the written instrument where the mutual mistake has been established by clear and convincing evidence. 76 C.J.S. Reformation of Instruments §§ 26, 84 (1952); Bell Corporation v. Bahama Bar & Restaurant, Inc., 74 So.2d 292 (Fla.1954); Coastal States Life Insurance Co. v. Raphael, 183 So.2d 274 (Fla.App.1966) and cases cited n. 1. *41It was, therefore, error for the trial court to instruct the jury that the mutual mistake need be established beyond a reasonable doubt. 4

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded1 for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

Reversed and remanded.

REED, C. J., and CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.

1

. In the event that reformation of the insurance policy is again denied, the plaintiff would be entitled to interest on the amount for which the insurance company is determined liable despite the insurance company’s offer to settle. A mere offer to settle unaccompanied by payment either to the insured or to the registry of the court does not terminate the insurance company’s liability for interest, Employers’ Liability Assur. Corp. v. Royals Farm Supply, Inc., 186 So.2d 317 (Fla.App.1966) ; 18A Fla.Jur., Insurance § 861 (1971), even though the amount for which it is ultimately held liable is less than or equal to its prior offer.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000373

30-APR-2015

08:20 AM
EXHIBIT 21



LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



Unless otherwise noted, all of the entities listed below are subsidiaries of KSwiss Inc.



|    |  |                                                                               
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1.  |  | KSwiss Pacific Inc., a Massachusetts corporation.                            
|2.  |  | KSwiss International Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of Bermuda.
|3.  |  | KS UK Ltd., a United Kingdom corporation.                                     
|4.  |  | KSwiss Europe B.V., a Dutch corporation.                                     
|5.  |  | KSwiss S.A. de C.V., a Mexico corporation.                                   
|6.  |  | KSwiss Australia Pty. Ltd., an Australia corporation.                        
|7.  |  | KSwiss Direct Inc., a California corporation.                                
|8.  |  | KSwiss Sales Corp., a Delaware corporation.                                  
|9.  |  | KSwiss NS Inc., a Delaware corporation.                                      
|10. |  | KSwiss Canada Corp., a Nova Scotia corporation.                              
|11. |  | 1166789 Ontario Inc., an Ontario, Canada corporation.                         
|12. |  | KSwiss Germany GmbH, a Germany corporation.                                  
|13. |  | KSwiss France SAS, a France corporation.                                     
|14. |  | KSwiss S.r.l., an Italy corporation.                                         
|15. |  | KSwiss Singapore Private Ltd., a Singapore corporation.                      
|16. |  | KSwiss Retail Ltd., a United Kingdom corporation.                            
|17. |  | KSwiss Iberia S.L., a Spain corporation.                                     
|18. |  | Royal Elastics LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.                     
|19. |  | Royal Elastics Inc., a California corporation.                                
|20. |  | ARFI SAS, a France corporation.                                               
|21. |  | Palladium SAS, a France corporation.                                          
|22. |  | KSwiss International Manufacturing Ltd., a Bermuda corporation.              
|23. |  | KSwiss (Hong Kong) Ltd., a Bermuda corporation.                              
|24. |  | KSwiss Japan GK, a Japan corporation.                                        
|25. |  | KSwiss International Manufacturing Ltd., a Hong Kong corporation.
255 La. 787

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Francis Dale FITZSIMMONS.

No. 50462.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 24, 1970.

In re: Francis Dale Fitzsimmons applying for writs of prohibition and mandamus.

Writ Refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. See dissent in denial of writs in State v. King and Williams, 255 La. 500, 231 So.2d 402.
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 10.76



July 25, 1997



Sam Pirnazar
c/o TDC
P.O. Box 219
Manhattan Beach, CA 90267

Dear Sam,

This letter sets forth the terms of Trimark Holdings' agreement to purchase your
options to acquire 20,000 shares of Trimark Holdings stock (out of your
remaining options to purchase 52,123 shares) pursuant to the Stock Purchase and
Option Agreement dated September 1, 1989.  The aggregate purchase price shall be
$58,200.00  Trimark Holdings confirms that the expiration date for the remaining
(32,123) is September 1, 1998.

In exchange, you agree not to exercise or sell the remaining options for four
months from the date of this agreement.  Furthermore you agree to perform
consulting services for Trimark Holdings at the rate of $40.00 per hour, subject
to your availability.  Such consulting services would be in the area of helping
the company with cost reduction, etc.

Please sign and date below to indicate your acceptance of this agreement.

Sincerely,        Agreed To and Accepted By


 
                  ------------------------------
Mark Amin         Sam Pirnazar      Date



MA/jg
SERVE D JANUAR Y 4 , 201 1

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C 

### •I'RTMENTO F :.ePORWIO M

N S JPPAT I 

### ^'A N - U P 2^5 5 I N TH EMATTE RO F FEDERA LEXPRESS , INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP09NM001 0 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No . FAA-200 9 - 072 1 AMENDE D POS T HEARIN GBRIEFIN GSCHEDUL E Thi s matte r

cam e fo r hearin g o n Octobe r

25 , 201 0 i n Portland , OR . Th e hearing transcrip t i s forthcoming . WHEREFORE , th e partie s shal l adher e t o th e followin g Pos t Hearin g Briefin g Schedule : 1 . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (hereinafte r "Complainant" ) shal l file it s Post-Hearin g Brie f

o n o r befor e January 28 , 2011 ; 2 . Federa l Express , Inc . (hereinafte r "Respondent" ) shal l file it s Post-Hearin g Brie f o n o r before February 14 , 2011 ; an d 3 . Complainan t

shal l file it s Rebutta l Brief , i f any , o n o r

befor e February 22 , 2011 .

iichar dC . Goodwi n U.S . Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachment(s ) - Servic e Lis t3 . C»p,ai„a„ , 3ha „ file i, . Reb^, , Brief , i f a.y . o n o r

before Marc h, I

ichar d(X/Goodwh [ _ ^ •S . Administrativ e Law^Jiidg e Attachment(s ) - Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No . CP09NM001 0 (Civil Penalt

y Action) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON

E COPY Federa l Aviation Administration 80 0 Independence Avenue , S.W . Washington , D

C 2059 1 Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building - Suit

e 2W1000 ' ONE COPY Courtne y E . Felts , Respondent' s Counsel Staf f Attorney , Federa

l Express , Inc . 362 0 Hack s Cros s Roa

d Buildin g B , 3^' ' Floo

r Memphis , T

N 38125-8800 TEL : 901-434-863 2 FAX : 901-434-828 3 Lawrence W . Bierlein , Respondent' s Counsel 110 1 30 * Street, NW , Suit

e 500 Washington , D

C 20007 TEL : 202-625-835 5 FAX : 202-625-436 3 * Scot t R . Morris , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAvenue , S.W . Renton , W A 9805 7 TEL : 425-227-141 7 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorable Richar

dC . Goodwin , Administrative La w Judg e Offic e of Hearings , M-20 U.S . Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . East Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo

mE12-320 Washington , D

C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Advisor

202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t 202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Hearin g Docket , Federa l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S . W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m2014 , Washington

, D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Adjudication 

U.S. Mail and FAX 

September 16, 2016 

I.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

800 Independence Ave., S.W., Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Re: In the Matter of Joseph Maridon, Sr., FDMS No. F AA-2014-0 116 

Dear Judge Sullivan: 

I spoke to Walter Ayers, the attorney representing Joseph Maridon, Sr., in the above-referenced matter, 

about four documents that he had filed with the FAA Hearing Docket, but which do not appear on 

regulations.gov. The FAA Hearing Docket received each of these documents and forwarded them to the 

DOT Docket Management Staff for uploading to regulations.gov as follows: 

I. Motion to Dismiss. Respondent sent the Motion to the FAA Hearing Docket on May 28, 2014. 

The FAA Hearing Docket received it on June 3, 2014, and sent a scanned copy of it by email to 

the DOT Docket Management Staff on June 3, 2014, and again on June 11, 2014. 

2. Respondent's Reply to FAA's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Request to Find Opposition 

Timely Filed. Respondent sent the Reply to the FAA Hearing Docket on June 30, 2014. The 

FAA Hearing Docket received it on July 7, 2014, and sent a scanned copy of it via email to the 

DOT Docket Management Staff on July 8, 2014. 

3. Respondent's Opposition to Complainant's Motion for Partial Decision (Summary Judgment). 

Respondent sent the document to the FAA Hearing Docket on October 30, 2014. The FAA 

Hearing Docket received it on October 30,2014, and sent a scanned copy of it to the DOT Docket 

Management Staff on October 31, 2014. 

4. Respondent's Second Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Respondent's Rights under the United 

States Constitution (Errata- With Exhibits). Respondent sent this document to the FAA Hearing 

Docket on January 7, 2015. The FAA Hearing Docket received the document on January 7, 

2015, and sent a scanned copy of it to the DOT Docket Management Staff on January 9, 2015. 

The FAA Hearing Docket re-sent each of these four documents to the DOT Docket Management Staff 

today. Each document bears either the Hearing Docket's "received by" date stamp or the received date 

from the FAA Hearing Docket's FAX machine. 
In addition, the FAA Hearing Docket received a package containing additional copies of these four 

documents on August 18, 2016. The FAA Hearing Docket sent a scanned copy of this group of 

documents to the DOT Docket Management Staff today. 

If you have any questions about these documents or need information about other documents that were 

filed in the FAA Hearing Docket in this case, you may contact me at 202-267-0415. 

Sincerely, 

Vicki 

-~#~ S". Leemon 

Senior Attorney, AGC-70 

Cc: David F. Shayne, Esq., FAA (by U.S. Mail and email) 

Walter Ayers, Esq. (by U.S. Mail and email)
----

----

EXHIBIT(32)(a)

| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                      |   |                                       |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                      |   |                                       |   |
| Date:      April 29, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Vinod M. Khilnani                 |   |
|                      |   | Vinod      M. Khilnani                     |   |
|                      |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                      |   |                                       |   |
#### William A. ROSSITER, Jr., and Lillian G. Rossiter, Appellants, v. B. STEVENSON, INC., Appellee.

No. 71-286.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 29, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; George Richardson, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.