alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BANKERS PROTECTIVE LIFE INS. Co. v. MOZINGO.

No. 12668.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

Oct. 29, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 26, 1938.

G. R. Lipscomb, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

■ Touchstone, Wight, Gormley & Price, of Dallas, and William V. Brown, of Tex-arkana, for appellee.

BOND, Chief Justice.

A beneficiary of a life policy is the person designated, by the terms of the contract as the one to receive the proceeds of the insurance; he is not a party tp the contract — only the recipient of its proceeds. The defendant not being a party to the fraud alleged, she cannot, because of fraud committed by the insured, be sued to cancel the policy out of the forum of her own domicile against a plea of privilege: While fraud may vitiate an insurance policy on trial of the case on its merits against both the insured and the beneficiary, yet, it is not available to avoid the domestic jurisdiction of one not a party to the fraud. First Nat. Bank of Coleman v. Gates et al., Tex.Civ.App., 213 S.W. 720; Krueger v. Waugh, Tex.Civ.App., 261 S.W. 196. The appeal being one of venue originating in the county court, under article. 1873, R.S., we are not required to announce in writing our conclusions and, for reasons aptly stated by Judge Bickett in Associated Indemnity Corporation et al. v. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294, we forego burdening the record and law books with an extended written opinion. Judgment of • the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001011451
<NAME> MECHANICAL DYNAMICS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          16,501
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,415
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (219)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,519
<PP&E>                                           6,693
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,214)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,795
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,631
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,905
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,771
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,795
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,820
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,466
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (24)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       416
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (466)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (466)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        





</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2371

JUAN CARLOS SANMARTIN PRADO,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: October 31, 2018 Decided: January 15, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abraham F. Carpio, CARPIO LAW FIRM, LLC, Hyattsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. 

Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Justin Markel, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Juan Carlos Sanmartin Prado, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for review 

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s order finding him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2012) 

as an alien convicted of “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” For 

the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review.

We review legal issues de novo, affording deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc., v. 

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), to those determinations when the 

Board interprets or applies the Immigration and Nationality Act. Shaw v. Sessions, 898 

F.3d 448, 452 (4th Cir. 2018). Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). We defer to the agency’s factual findings under the substantial 

evidence rule. Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 252 (4th Cir. 2008).

After conducting de novo review of the legal issues raised in Sanmartin Prado’s 

brief,* we uphold the agency’s finding that his conviction for second degree child abuse 

pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-601(a)(2), (d) (LexisNexis Supp. 2018) is 

categorically a “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under 8 U.S.C. 

 * We lack jurisdiction to consider Sanmartin Prado’s claim that there is a realistic 

probability that the State of Maryland will prosecute conduct under its child abuse statute 

that falls outside of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) and his claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel on the ground that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before the 

Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th 

Cir. 2008).
3

§ 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the 

Board. In re Sanmartin Prado (B.I.A. Nov. 1, 2017). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED IN PART,

DISMISSED IN PART
EXHIBIT 10(iii)

                              ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT


     This ASSIGNMENT  AGREEMENT (this  "Agreement") is made as of the 3rd day of
April, 2001, by and among Aluminum-Power,  Inc. (hereinafter "Aluminum-Power" or
"Assignor") and Trimol Group, Inc. (the "Assignee").

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

     WHEREAS,  Sagem and  Aluminum-Power  entered into that certain  Cooperation
Agreement  (the  "Cooperation  Agreement"),  dated  December  8,  2000,  whereby
Aluminum-Power   and  Sagem  agreed  to  cooperate  in  the  development  of  an
Aluminum-air  fuel cell that will serve as the power source for Sagem's cellular
phones.; and

     WHEREAS, the Cooperation Agreement provides that neither party may transfer
or assign the  Cooperation  Agreement  without the prior written  consent of the
other; and

     WHEREAS,  Aluminum-Power  has requested  from Sagem and Sagem has agreed to
consent to the assignment of the Cooperation  Agreement from  Aluminum-Power  to
Assignee;

     NOW  THEREFORE,  for and in  consideration  of one dollar ($1.00) and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, Aluminum-Power and Assignee do hereby agree as follows:

     1.  Aluminum-Power  hereby  sells,  assigns and conveys to Assignee  all of
Aluminum-Power's rights, title and interest in and to the Cooperation Agreement.

     2.  Assignee  hereby  assumes  and  agrees  to  perform  all of  Assignor's
obligations under the Cooperation Agreement.

     3. This  Agreement may be executed in any number of  counterparts,  each of
which shall be an original,  but such counterparts together shall constitute one
and the same agreement.

     4. The terms and  provisions  of this  Agreement  shall be binding upon and
inure to the  benefit  of the  parties  hereto  and their  respective  permitted
successors, heirs and permitted assigns.


<PAGE>



     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  this  Agreement  is executed by the parties as of the
date hereinabove first set forth.

                                                ALUMINUM-POWER, INC.


                                                /s/ Alan Birshtein
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name: Alan Birshtein
                                                Title: VP Sales


                                                TRIMOL GROUP, INC.


                                                /s/  Alexander Gordin   4/3/01
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name:  Alexander Gordin
                                                Title: President
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11.1

                    UNITED PAYORS & UNITED PROVIDERS, INC.
                               AND SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                  (Unaudited)


<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                     
                                                Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                    1997            1996
                                                -----------      ----------

<S>                                             <C>              <C>
                       PRIMARY
Net income                                      $ 3,150,399      $2,449,612
                                                ===========      ========== 

Weighted average number of common shares
 outstanding:
   Shares outstanding from beginning of 
    period                                       11,551,136       8,800,000
   Other issuances of common stock                   12,363               -
   Purchases of treasury stock                       (1,705)              -
   Common stock equivalents:
Additional equivalent shares issuable from
   assumed exercise of common stock options          42,959               -
                                                -----------      ----------   

Weighted average common and common share
 equivalents                                     11,604,753       8,800,000
                                                ===========      ========== 

Net income per common share                     $      0.27      $     0.28
                                                ===========      ========== 

                       FULLY DILUTED

Net income                                      $ 3,150,399      $2,449,612
                                                ===========      ========== 

Weighted average number of common shares
 outstanding:
   Shares outstanding from beginning of 
    period                                       11,551,136       8,800,000
   Other issuances of common stock                   12,363               -
   Purchases of treasury stock                       (1,705)              -
   Common stock equivalents:
Additional equivalent issuable 
   from assumed exercise of common 
   stock options                                    100,025               -
                                                -----------      ----------   

Weighted average common and common share
 equivalents                                     11,661,819       8,800,000
                                                ===========      ========== 

Net income per common share                     $      0.27      $     0.28
                                                ===========      ========== 
</TABLE>
STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Three Months Ended                             Nine Months Ended
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        September 30,          September 30,          September 30,          September 30,
                                             1996                   1995                  1996                   1995
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                          <C>                      <C>                      <C>                      <C>    
Net income (loss) in
thousands                                          $394               ($1,486)              ($1,336)                ($4,446)
                                   =============================================================================================
Weighted average common
shares outstanding                            5,023,131              1,408,945             3,199,202               1,514,147
Weighted average preferred
shares outstanding
assuming conversion                           1,838,113              1,838,113             1,838,113               1,596,223
Effect of conversion of
convertible subordinated
debentures                                    1,202,965                      -             1,202,965                       -
Additional shares pursuant
to SAB 83                                             -                883,052               922,599                 883,052
Additional shares for
options and warrants
outstanding under treasury-
stock method                                  1,007,339                      -                     -                       -
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              9,071,548              4,130,110             7,162,879               3,993,422
                                   =============================================================================================
                                                    $0.04                ($0.36)               ($0.19)                 ($1.11)
                                   =============================================================================================

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74968-74969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20873]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2024-N-2803]


Sandoz Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 20 Abbreviated New 
Drug Applications; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice 
that appeared in the Federal Register on June 21, 2024. The document 
announced the withdrawal of approval of 20 abbreviated new drug 
applications (ANDAs) from multiple applicants, withdrawn as of July 22, 
2024. The document indicated that FDA was withdrawing approval of the 
ANDA 076648 for nitrofurantoin (monohydrate/macrocrystals) capsules, 75 
milligrams (mg) and 25 mg, held by Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc., 279 
Princeton-Hightstown Rd., East Windsor, NJ 08520; and the ANDA 090723 
for duloxetine hydrochloride capsules, delayed-release pellets, 
Equivalent to (EQ) 20 mg base, EQ 30 mg base, and EQ 60 mg base, held 
by Marksans Pharma, Inc., U.S. Agent for Marksans Pharma Ltd., 150 
Motor Pkwy., Suite 401, 4th Floor, Rm. 430, Hauppauge, NY 11788. Before 
FDA withdrew the approval of these ANDAs, Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc., 
and Marksans Pharma, Inc., U.S. Agent for Marksans Pharma Ltd., 
informed FDA that they did not want the approval of the ANDAs 
withdrawn. Because Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. and Marksans Pharma, Inc., 
U.S. Agent for Marksans Pharma Ltd., timely requested that approval of 
their respective ANDAs not be withdrawn, the approvals are still in 
effect. This notice corrects these errors.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Nguyen, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1676, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3471, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fdb09c8f89959cd3b39a88849893bd9b999cd395958ed39a928b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a371b080e121b54341d0f031f143a1c1e1b54121209541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of Friday, June 21, 
2024 (89 FR 52057), appearing on page

[[Page 74969]]

52058 in FR Doc. 2024-13660, the following correction is made:
    On page 52058, in the table, the entries for ANDA 076648 and ANDA 
090723 are removed.

    Dated: September 10, 2024.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-20873 Filed 9-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
*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 circumstancesset forth in 5THCIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-60473

Summary Calendar

HOLLIS L PURVIANCE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(5:97-CV-13-R-S)

December 30, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hollis Purviance, plaintiff-appellant, appeals the decision of the district court granting

summary judgment in favor ofthe defendant, EntergyOperations, Inc. The appellant urges this court

to find that Entergy discriminated against himin violation ofTitle VII ofthe CivilRights Act of 1964.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record, and find no reversible error. We AFFIRM for

essentially the same reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum ruling and order dated

June 4, 1998.
No. 72-1190.

#### Alarid et al. *v.*New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners.

Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 10.5.2

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
ANNTAYLOR STORES CORPORATION2002 STOCK OPTION AND RESTRICTED STOCK AND UNIT AWARD PLAN

The
AnnTaylor Stores Corporation 2002 Stock Option and Restricted Stock and Unit Award Plan
(the Plan) is hereby amended effective as of March 9, 2004 (the
Effective Date) as set forth below.

1.       
          The second sentence of Section 6(f) of the Plan is hereby amended in its
          entirety to read as follows, effective with respect to all Options (as defined
          in the Plan) granted pursuant to the Plan, including outstanding Options granted
          before the Effective Date:

| | In the event that the employment or service of an Optionee shall terminate or cease other
than by reason of death, Disability or Retirement, all Options theretofore granted to such
Optionee that are exercisable at the time of such termination may, to the extent not
theretofore exercised or canceled, be exercised at any time within three (3) months after
such termination of employment or cessation of service, as applicable; provided, however,
that the Committee may in its discretion extend the period for exercise of such Options to
a date later than three (3) months after such separation or cessation date, but in any
event not beyond the date on which the Option would otherwise expire pursuant to Section
6(e) hereof; provided, further, that if the employment of an Optionee shall terminate for
Cause, all Options theretofore granted to such Optionee shall, to the extent not
theretofore exercised, forthwith terminate immediately upon termination.
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except as set forth above, the Plan is hereby ratified and affirmed in all respects.
**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 Sunrise Energy Services, Inc. a Delaware
        corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31,
        2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
        (the “Report”), Konstantin Tsirulnikov, Vice President and Chief Financial
        Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Sunrise Energy Services, Inc., and will be retained by Sunrise Energy Services,
        Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon
        request.
 
 Date:
                  November 7, 2006By:
              /s/
                  Konstantin TsirulnikovKonstantin
                  TsirulnikovChief
                  Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 24, 2011 

h0516 

Order 

 

May 24, 2011 

142592 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142592 

 COA: 293201 

Wayne CC: 08-016400-FH 

KENNETH ANDRE HILL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 13, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.