alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 48 (Thursday, March 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05597]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Effective date: March 12, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
March 4, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request 
of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 120 
to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2015-40, CP2015-51.

Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Requirements.
[FR Doc. 2015-05597 Filed 3-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Park and others, Respondents, vs. Richardson & Boynton Co., Appellant.

*September*30

*October 22, 1895.*

*Sale of chattels: Breach of warranty: Measure of damages.*

The measure of damages for breach of warranty in the sale of a furnace is not the difference between the purchase price and its actual value, but the difference between its actual value and its value if it had conformed to the warranty.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Langlade county: JohN GoodlaND, Circuit Judge.

*Reversed.*

The plaintiffs bought of the defendant a furnace for heating their building. The furnace was warranted to work satisfactorily. It did not work satisfactorily. The plaintiffs brought this action to recover damages for the breach of the warranty. There was a jury trial, resulting in verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, from which the defendant appeals. Error is alleged in the charge of the court as to the measure of damages. The court instructed the jury that, in *190case they found for the plaintiffs, *“*the plaintiffs will be entitled to-recover the difference, between the purchase price of the furnace . . . and its actual value.”

For the appellant the cause was submitted on the brief of *Brown c& Pradt.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *ATbam, <& Barnesr*and oral argument by *John Barnes.*

Newman, J.

When this case was here before (81 Wis. 899),. it was said that the proper rule of damages for breach of the' warranty of the furnace would be *“*the difference between) its actual value and its value had it conformed with the warranty.” This is undoubtedly the true rule. Suth. Dam. (2di ed.), § 670; *Morse v.*Hutchins, 102 Mass. 440. The rule-stated by the trial court is not the equivalent of the true-rule. The rule of the trial court deprives the purchaser of the profit of his bargain if he has made a good one, and gives him an undue advantage if he has made a bad one. The furnace may have been either cheap or dear at the price' paid, even if it had conformed to the warranty. If it was a bad bargain aside from the defects complained of, the plaintiffs’ damages are less than if it had been a good bargain,. This consideration is an element in the rule of damages.. The question of the value of the furnace if it had conformed to the warranty should have been left to the jury, as well as the question of its actual value. The defendant may have-suffered by the error.

*By the*Gourt.— The judgment of the circuit court is'reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.'
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-40130 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Ashley Marie Herrera, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:22-CR-1837-2 

______________________________ 

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ashley Marie Herrera has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Herrera has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

January 23, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-40130 Document: 00517041196 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2024
No. 23-40130 

2 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review but note clerical errors in the judgment. Although the 

record reflects that Herrera pleaded guilty to transporting an illegal alien in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(i), the judgment 

indicates she also was convicted of an aiding-and-abetting offense, in 

violation of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II), and sentenced under § 1324(a)(1)(B)(ii). 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The case is REMANDED to the 

district court for the limited purpose of correcting the errors in the judgment. 

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. 

Case: 23-40130 Document: 00517041196 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2024
## Martin, Michael (OST)
From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Everyone: Martin, Michael (OST) Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:47 PM Kelly Smith (ksmith@deltacountymi.org); mtall@escanaba.org; 'nviau@deltacountymi.org' Brad Rawson; Kelly Carbone (KellyC@CharterAirTransport.com); Schlemmer, Kevin (OST); Harvey, Caitlin (OST) Essential Air Service at Escanaba, MI SkyWest ESC Bid 2015-16.pdf; Charter Air Transport EAS proposal- Escanaba- July 2014.pdf

Iwould like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Escanaba and give you an opportunityto offer any comments on the record before we submit a recommendation tothe Assistant SecretaryforAviation and InternationalAffairs. We issued Order 2014-6-14 on June 24, 2014, requesting proposals from airlines interested in providing EAS for a newterm. In response to our request, SkyWest Airlines, the incumbent, and CharterAirTransport submitted proposals.
I have attached each airline's proposal foryour review and Iexpect itto be uploaded on www.regulations.gov sometime this afternoon. I request thatyou review each proposal and submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but no laterthan Tuesday, August 19. Please send yourcomments directlyto me via e-mail at michael.f.martin@dot.gov. Also, please forward this e-mail to all relevant parties that I have not included on this email.
Ifyou have any questions, feel free to contact me. Regards,
Michael Martin United States Department ofTransportation Essential AirService (EAS) and Small CommunityAir Service Development Program (SCASDP) (202) 366-6494

1 

### c:::
REF ID:A63824 

'Ihl• morning I turaed over to Mr. Arthur Freedman,, Ottice or 'l'.ra1niJJa, 

ISA, the voice recOZ'411.1g or Lectures 1, 2 em 3, together vitb. an arig1Dal 

and one carbOA caw ot the manuscript tor each at these. The manucript 

waa ai.o aecoawanted b;y negat1 ves tar "tbe 1lluatrat1ons. 

It vu ~ that th1• •ter1al 1a not beine buae4 in as a final 

product but aa u interim product to be gcme over and edited atter rq 

return trom Yucatan. 

llr. P.reedman seemed to be anxious to have the material and 1t vas 

ror thie ree.aoa that I agreed to let him have 1 t at this tim. 

l!c iv v(\~ if\~\ -·· f 0 

I ''~),•. v'v. - . 

WILLIAM -, • FRDDMAR 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 11-18-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
Exhibit 31.1

 

 

CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas N. Hendrickson, Chief Executive Officer of CPAC, Inc., certify that:
1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CPAC, Inc.;
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.
The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b)
[Reserved] [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8392 and 34-49313.]
c)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon such evaluation; and
d)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
5.
The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
Date:  November 13, 2006
,, 

SECRET 

TO FHOIA 

/ 

Commanding Officer -__,--~} · tant Com:nanda-n~t-------

.J::.::::::.:..ir of C onun Res ear.c·hControl 0 ~ ------ ---Adrr.inistrative o ________ _ .Adjutant 

--- Intelligence -----::-------,--- o _______ _ Provost Mars ha 1 

--- ~rid )lig Se~:§n~---.--_---J-

~ Chief, -~V'·~ Pers & Trng Div 

i\ 

--- Chief, Pers Br -----

Chief, Trng Br --------- ___ ·Chief, Opor Serv Div _____ _ 

Chief, Conununioati ans Br --- Chief, LaboratorJ Br ....._ ___ _ _ Chief, r.fachine Br ______ _ 

Property & Supply 0 

---.,.-,--=~-

--- Purchasing & Contracting O' 

Fiscal & Certifying 0 

OIC, J.!ail Section ______ -----_ 

Chief, Security Div -,,,.--,,,.---- Chief, Protective Sec Br --- --- Chief, Cr~,rptographic Br --~-

--- Chief, Develop~ent Br ____ _ 

Chief, Intelligence Div --- ----- Chief, Language Br -,,-.,..,----,,-- .Chief, Mil Cryptanalytic Br 

--- ChiGf, Gen Cryptanalytic Br--

--- Cr.ief', T/A and Control Br .--

Chief, I & L Br 

pproved for Release by NSA on 12-18-2014 

ursuantto E.O. 13526 

As discussed ---.As requested ~----'-~-----

---Comments a,.'1.d ---,--------- return --- ------- Informa ti 011 and file --- --,.,.----- Info rm a ti on and forixardi r.g; --- ~--- I 11 f o rm.~tior. and return 

---Recorri.rnendation · -----

---See note on reverse -,,---- Signature if ~pproved 

---Your action ------

SIS-SC Form No. 96 (Rev) 

23 .August 1944 
,-:---.... .:.:.-. - - , 

' 

a ':'<.... ( ··- ill. 2 --_--r- ... 4f 4 U,..J. __ @,.£ .. _ • : • I 

REF ID :A67244-. 

........ ,.... .. -.... - • ..J 

4 December 1944 

UllOlWO>UM ~or Cha11'11&D1 Per•oimel Control Com1tt• - L - I - • • 

a11bJect I hoaedur• tor Bett.r Vtlll•tiOD ot Per•onnel. 

1. In order that an intelligent am compreh9u1w plan •7 be followed 

tor the aurn7 of util11&1;ion ot personnel on the Poat, it 1• recome:nded 

that t.he toliow1ng plan be adopted• 

·a. All Branche• be nqueated. to prepare tor the P;irsonnel Control 

Comaii;tee a tl.ow chart ot tbe1J:t operationa. 

b. !bat thi• tlow char\ be oompo•d ot a paphia 4eacr1pt1on, 

ah.owing the work ot the Branch trca the receipt ot that work to th• t1D11bed 

produot. 

Oe That theH tlow chart• m !'8T1ewed b.T the Per•onnel Control. 

ec.m1ttee with a yiew to enablina the cOllJlittee to motte eaail7 deterailMt 

how util1u.t1on ot peraonnel will be ha!Jdled in the aeveral Branch••• 

2. Upon review ot all the f'.l.ow cbart1, the Pereonnel Control Committee 

will eet up aub•ooaitteea coapoaed of one Branch aeaber, one repre•ntAtift 

ot the Peraoxmel C\>ntrol Comait.tee and aa UD7 additional 11abere aa wlll be 

nec:••ll&17 tor a coapl.ete rniew ot the Bftnoh•• ariirlti••• 

3. It 1• felt that b;r 11tud7 ot the now ohart• prior to actual 1n-

•peotion d utlliat1on ot pereonnel, the aub-ocm1lttee prepar1na to do 

the audit 11111 be better illtomed and able to 4o the job aore quickl.7, 

ettioi•ntl.7 and with 'better Ullderatandinc. 

Philip ling, Jr. 

Sajor, Signal Corpa 

. l ·-

-_ ....... .q,,
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7725

CLAUDE CARPENTER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

C.T. WOODY, Sheriff; BURNETT, Lt. Col.; ROBINSON, Capt., 

Medical Dept.; DR. FURMAN; RICHMOND SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior 

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00143-RLW) 

Submitted: March 31, 2009 Decided: April 14, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Claude Carpenter, Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Dybing, Thomas 

Douglas Lane, THOMPSON MCMULLAN, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Claude Carpenter appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Carpenter v. Woody, No. 3:08-cv-00143-

RLW (E.D. Va. Aug. 14, 2008). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SITO MOBILE R&D IP, LLC, SITO MOBILE, LTD.,

Appellants

v.

HULU, LLC,

Appellee

______________________

2022-1926, 2022-1927, 2022-1977, 2022-1989, 2022-2262

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-

00158, IPR2021-00206, IPR2021-00219, IPR2021-00265, 

IPR2021-00308.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

STEPHEN TERRY SCHREINER, Carmichael Ip, Tysons, 

VA, argued for appellants. Also represented by JAMES 

CARMICHAEL, MINGHUI YANG; JASON SCOTT CHARKOW,

RONALD M. DAIGNAULT, CHANDRAN IYER, RICHARD JUANG,

KEVIN SPRENGER, Daignault Iyer LLP, Vienna, VA. 

 AMY LIANG, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, 

CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by BRADLEY M.

BERG, CAMERON WILLIAM WESTIN, BRETT JOHNSTON 

Case: 22-1926 Document: 83 Page: 1 Filed: 04/05/2024
WILLIAMSON, Newport Beach, CA NATHANIEL LEGUM, Los 

Angeles, CA.

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (DYK, BRYSON, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 5, 2024

Date

Case: 22-1926 Document: 83 Page: 2 Filed: 04/05/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                         320,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,352,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,959,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,037,000
<PP&E>                                       3,660,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,109,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,660,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       238,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,107,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,109,000
<SALES>                                     17,092,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,092,000
<CGS>                                       12,733,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,733,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,976,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             257,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,874,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,874,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,874,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**385 CA 10-01142**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

DEWEY R. BARROW AND LISA M. BARROW, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V ORDER
D.L. GORDON DUBOIS AND PAUL D. DUBOIS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

HORIGAN, HORIGAN & LOMBARDO, P.C., AMSTERDAM (JAMES A. LOMBARDO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
CALLI, CALLI & CULLY, UTICA (HERBERT J. CULLY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Anthony F. Shaheen, J.), entered March 11, 2010 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of defendants to set aside the jury verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a).
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens , 155 AD2d 435; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          39,654                  39,654
<SECURITIES>                                    63,924                  63,924
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,033                   9,033
<ALLOWANCES>                                       261                     261
<INVENTORY>                                      4,255                   4,255
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               118,364                 118,364
<PP&E>                                          15,138                  15,138
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,750                   8,750
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,220                 126,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,745                   7,455
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            17                      17
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,458                 119,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,220                 126,220
<SALES>                                         16,119                  30,580
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,119                  30,580
<CGS>                                            5,633                  10,855
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,829                  13,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,878                   8,162
<INCOME-TAX>                                       237                     397
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,641                   7,765
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,641                   7,765
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.18                    0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17                    0.29


</TABLE>
### I . s OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS ; AUSTIN a- G WINN *Tre”amvaamnAb



# “‘&a,

io&&awiqg

ardsr use pees& by the Uourt, tollrritr

### ---.Ii