alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### W. H. Brownyard Corporation, Appellant, v American International Group, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[655 NYS2d 1021]

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated September 26, 1995, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants American International Group and American Home Assurance Company and to dismiss the fourth through tenth causes of action asserted against the defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, W.H. Brownyard Corporation (hereinafter Brownyard) is an insurance agent which developed and marketed liability policies for security guard companies. In 1980 Brownyard entered into an agency agreement with the defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (hereinafter National), a subsidiary of the defendant American International Group (hereinafter AIG). Among other things, the agency agreement granted Brownyard the right to bind and write general liability policies for what the agreement termed the "Security Guard Program”. In 1982 Brownyard entered into a contingent commission agreement with National which, *inter alia,*provided that Brownyard would be paid a commission on the policies it wrote for the Security Guard Program.

In 1994 Brownyard cancelled its agency agreement with *595National and then instituted an action against the defendants, alleging 10 causes of action, including breach of contract and fraud. According to Brownyard’s complaint, its causes of action arise out of a conspiracy by the defendants to remove it from the market for providing security guard liability policies. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint against AIG and American Home Assurance Company (hereinafter American Home) in its entirety and all but the breach of contract causes of action against National. The motion was granted by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the first three causes of action for breach of the agency and contingent commission agreements insofar as asserted against AIG and American Home, both of which had been entered into between the plaintiff and National only. AIG and American Home were not parties to either of those contracts and are not bound by their terms *(see, e.g., National Survival Game v NSG of LI Corp.,*169 AD2d 760). Contrary to Brownyard’s argument, there were neither allegations in the complaint nor evidence in the documents submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss which would support sustaining a cause of action on an alter-ego theory holding AIG, as the parent company of National, or American Home liable under the contract *(see, Abelman v Shoreatlantic Dev. Co.,*153 AD2d 821, 823; *Cusumano v Iota Indus.,*100 AD2d 892, 893).

Brownyard’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Pizzuto, J. P., Altman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.
#### Frost vs. Wiggins.

Where no motion for a new trial has been made, nor any question of law reserved at the trial, there is nothing before this court for adjudication.

Ihe rule established in *State Bank vs. Conway,*13 *Ark. 344*— which *is simple and easily understood and followed*— applies as well to cases submitted to the court, as to a jury, and to cases where there is an agreed statement of facts, as where the facts are proved by witnesses.

*Writ of Error to Ashley Circuit Court.*

Hon. Tiieodoric F. Sorrells, Circuit Judge.

Johnston & Harrison, for plaintiff.

Garland & Randolph, for defendant.

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the opinion of the court.

Although the plaintiff did not obtain judgment in the court below, to which he was clearly entitled, on the facts proven, as presented in the bill of exceptions, yet *The State Bank vs. Conway,*13 *Ark.*344, disposes of this, as on the trial before the court, as a jury, no principle of law was asked to be declared as applicable to the case, and no motion was made for a new-trial.

The plaintiff simply excepted to the finding and judgment of the court, but the bill of exceptions brings nothing before this court.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ambassadors International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Joseph J. Ueberroth, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Joseph J. Ueberroth                 
|Joseph J. Ueberroth                     
|Chief Executive Officer November 9,
2006

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
and in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8238, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Opinion issued May 1 6 , 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 23 - 00131 - CV

——————————— CHARLOTTE DUBRAY , Appella nt

V. 3DDY’S TRUCKING, LLC , Appell e e On Appeal from the 212th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 21 - CV - 0322
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. No opinion has issued. The Court grants the motion and dismisses this appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a); 43.2(f). Any other pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas

- Molloy, and Farris.
#### Edith Lillian Adams GUISE, Petitioner, v. Burton GUISE, Respondent.

No. 41064.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50135

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IGNACIO CARRILLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-92-CR-15-1

- - - - - - - - - -

October 27, 1997

Before DUHE, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ignacio Carrillo appeals from the denial of his motion to

reduce his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Relying

on amendments 433 and 461 to the Sentencing Guidelines, Carrillo

argues that his firearm offense was not a “crime of violence” for

purposes of the armed career criminal guideline. Although

Carrillo’s offense of conviction, possession of firearms by a

felon, did not constitute a crime of violence for purposes of 

U.S.S.G § 4B1.1, his possession of the firearms was in connection
No. 97-50135

-2-

with a controlled substance offense under § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A),

namely, possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, as

charged in count one of the indictment. United States v. Ford,

996 F.2d 83, 85 (5th Cir. 1994). We also find that the

amendments do not apply to § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A), the guideline under

which Carrillo was sentenced. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s denial of Carrillo’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.

AFFIRMED.
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Colman Cheng,
the Chief Financial Officer of CHINA NUTRIFRUIT GROUP LIMITED (the Company),
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2011 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.
Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned has executed this statement this 22nd day of June, 2011.

| | /s/
      Colman Cheng                            
| | --------------------------------------------------
| | Colman Cheng                                      
| | Chief Financial Officer                           
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting
      Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to China Nutrifruit Group Limited and will be retained by
China Nutrifruit Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
********
 ****


****







CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





This 30th
day of March, 2005.




/s/
David D. Stovall


Chief
Executive Officer




/s/
Annette Banks


Chief
Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              444
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            6,715
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                      0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                      0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      36,793
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           12,367
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             12,233
<LOANS>                                          57,799
<ALLOWANCE>                                         209
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  117,364
<DEPOSITS>                                       75,827
<SHORT-TERM>                                     26,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1,501
<LONG-TERM>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             11
<OTHER-SE>                                       13,536
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  117,364
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   2,328
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1,457
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    212
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  3,997
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1,885
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,495
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             1,502
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        55
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   50
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                     993
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     647
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          647
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                        408
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .49
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     7.53
<LOANS-NON>                                         167
<LOANS-PAST>                                          0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                      0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     476
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    158
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                         4
<RECOVERIES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   209
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                130
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              79
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 11

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Quarter Ended
                                                                        December 31, 1996
                                                                        -----------------
<S>                                                                    <C>
Net Income                                                             $     392,341
                                                                             =======

Weighted average shares outstanding                                        3,770,117

Reduction for common shares not yet
 released by Employee Stock Ownership Plan                                  (276,240)

Common stock equivalents due to dilutive
 effect of stock options                                                      24,797
                                                                           ---------

Total weighted average common shares and
 equivalents outstanding                                                   3,518,674
                                                                           =========

Primary earnings per share                                             $         .11
                                                                                 ===

Total weighted average common
 shares and equivalents outstanding
 for primary computation                                                   3,518,674

Additional dilutive shares using the end
 of period market value versus the average
 market value when applying the treasury
 stock method*                                                                 6,484
                                                                           ---------

Total weighted average common shares and
 equivalents outstanding for fully diluted
 computation                                                               3,525,158
                                                                           =========

Fully diluted earnings per share                                       $         .11
                                                                                 ===
</TABLE>


*    Note:     If the average share price is greater than the ending price, use
               average price for both primary and fully diluted calculation.
# C_2022207EN.01004001.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Établissement Amra v EUIPO — eXpresio (Shape of a rebound shoe)

(Case T-264/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU three-dimensional mark - Shape of a rebound shoe - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Presence of word elements - Lack of essential non-functional characteristics)

(2022/C 207/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Établissement Amra (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) (represented by: M. Gómez Calvo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: eXpresio, estudio creativo, SL (La Nucia, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 (Case R 1083/2020-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Établissement Amra and eXpresio, estudio creativo.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 March 2021 (Case R 1083/2020-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 March 2021 (Case R 1083/2020-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual
report of China Nutrifruit Group Limited (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the
period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Colman Cheng, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Colman
ChengColman Cheng Chief Financial Officer

June 29, 2010

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to China Nutrifruit Group Limited and will be retained by
China Nutrifruit Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
#### NAPLES FRUIT & VEGETABLE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. David C. TOWNSEND, Appellee.

No. 72-429.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 18, 1973.

*223Sheppard, Majewski & Johnson, Fort Myers, for appellant.

Schryver & McDonnell, Naples, for ap-pellee.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

Naples Fruit & Vegetable Company entered into a contract with David C. Townsend to harvest the remains of the 1970 crop of limes. Subsequently, when appellant thought Townsend had harvested the crop of limes sold to him, they requested Townsend cease picking. This occurred on May 13, 1971. Consideration for the contract was $200, and Townsend had harvested $2,003.50 worth of limes by that date.

Subsequently, Townsend brought suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, enjoining appellant from denying him the right to pick limes after May 13, 1971. The trial judge determined that the contract was ambiguous and allowed parol evidence to clarify the ambiguity. A judgment of $9,915.56 was entered for appellee.

After reviewing the record, the contract, and the evidence, we conclude that the trial judge misconstrued the parol evidence regarding the parties’ intent as to the leftovers from the 1970 crop. We believe it inconceivable that Naples Fruit and Vegetable Company intended to exchange nearly $12,000 worth of limes for $200. Nor do we believe the appellee expected such a return on his investment. Misconstruction of the contract consequently caused error in assessing damages and the damages appear excessive. *See generally,*James v. Gulf Life Insurance Co., 66 So.2d 62 (Fla.1953) ; Triple E Development v. Floridagold Citrus Corp., 51 So.2d 435 (Fla.1951); Holmes v. Kilgore, 89 Fla. 194, 103 So. 825 (Fla.1925).

We, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial.

McNULTY, J., and DEWELL, JOHN H., Associate Judge, concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6142

MALCOLM MUHAMMAD,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

RANDALL C. MATHENA, Warden; JOHN D. WARATH, Assistant Warden; 

GEORGE HINKLE, Regional Administrator; P. SCARBERRY, Food 

Service Director; MR. BROCK, Assistant Food Service Director; 

LINDA SHEAR, Head Dietician for VADOC; CURTIS L. CARR, 

Regional Ombudsman; B. TAYLOR,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:14-cv-00134-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: June 29, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before KING, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malcolm Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Malcolm Muhammad appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed 

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

for the reasons stated by the district court. Muhammad v. Mathena, 

No. 7:14-cv-00134-JLK-RSB (W.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2015). We deny the 

motion for appointment of counsel and 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