alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Francis Chui, Doing Business as Cherry Fashions, Plaintiff, *v.*Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Trial Term, New York County,

May 10, 1973.

*155
      *Samuel M. Sprafhin*for plaintiff. *Haight, Gardner, Poor S Havens (Stephen C. Pascal*of counsel), for defendants.

Hortense W. Gabel, J.

This matter is before me for assessment of damages.

Plaintiff who was in the mail order clothing business had ordered 100,000 catalogues from a printing firm in Hong Kong for which he paid $2,896 together with ocean freight charges of $164.59. The catalogues were shipped by the defendant Barber Stéamship Lines, Inc., to New York, via ocean freight in the spring of 1971 and were scheduled for distribution by September 15, 1971 in order to reach the Christmas trade.

They arrived in New York on August 19, 1971 and plaintiff was notified on August 27, 1971. When plaintiff examined the cartons containing the catalogues he found them totally saturated with oil, and useless and valueless.

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The motion was granted as to liability and referred to me for damage assessment.

The sole issue to be determined is the measure of damages. Plaintiff argues that replacement costs in New York which were in excess of $10,000 should be the standard. Defendant argues that Hong Kong costs together with the. freight charges should be the measure of recovery.

It is true that the general measure of recovery is the value of the material at the point of delivery *(St. Johns Corp.*v. *Companhia Geral,*263 U. S. 119, 125 [1923]; see, also, Longley, Common Carriage of Cargo [1st ed., 1967], § 18.01, p. 207), but such a standard can only be applicable when an objective value can be ascertained. (See *Illinois Cent. R. R. Co.*v. *Crail,*281 U. S. 57, 63 [1930]; *United States*v. *Palmer and Parker Co.,*61 F. 2d 455, 459 [C. A., 1st Cir., 1932].)

Examination of the catalogues, a copy of which is in evidence, indicates that only the plaintiff could have had any use for them. Because of the seasonal nature of the items described, the catalogues were solely a tool with which the plaintiff could solicit business during the 1971 Christmas season. Hence, no market value was proved and resort must therefore be had to the pecuniary loss suffered.

Plaintiff testified he has not replaced the catalogues and any effort to do so at any time after September 15, 1971 would have been a waste of time since the catalogues would then be worthless. Had they been replaced in New York between August 27 and September 15 plaintiff might well have been entitled to recovery of the larger sum. Having failed to do this his recovery must be limited to $3,060.59, with interest from August 19, 1971. Judgment accordingly.
EX PARTE Eric WILLIAMS

CR-16-0627

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 12, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 137681 Marilyn Kelly
 

Maura D. Corrigan
 

Robert P. Young, Jr.
 

In re TRE’VONN CALVIN BARNES Stephen J. Markman,
 Justices and AARON LASHAE’ GLASPIE, Minors. 

_________________________________________/ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 137681 

 COA: 284630 

Wayne CC Family Division:

SONYA M. BARNES, 07-473968-NA 

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2008 

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. 

d1209 

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. 

December 12, 2008 

Clerk
D.E. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160450

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Joe WILLIAMS III, Intervenor v. Steven TATE and Tracy Tate

2160554

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 11.1

                                 CHRONIMED INC.

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Three Months Ended
                                                               Sept. 26,   Sept. 27,
                                                                 1997        1996
                                                                -------    -------
<S>                                                             <C>        <C>   
Primary
  Average shares outstanding ...............................     11,915     12,462
  Net effect of dilutive stock options
     and warrants -- based on the treasury
     stock method using average market price ...............        250        750
                                                                -------    -------

         Total .............................................     12,165     13,212
                                                                =======    =======

Net income .................................................    $ 1,596    $ 1,247
                                                                =======    =======

Net income per share .......................................    $   .13    $   .09
                                                                =======    =======



Fully Diluted
  Average shares outstanding ...............................     11,915     12,462
  Net effect of dilutive stock options
     and warrants -- based on the treasury
     stock method using the higher of average
     or ending market price ................................        436        750
                                                                -------    -------

         Total .............................................     12,351     13,212
                                                                =======    =======

Net income .................................................    $ 1,596    $ 1,247
                                                                =======    =======

     Net income per share ..................................    $   .13    $   .09
                                                                =======    =======
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE 

WITH FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS BY 

THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS 

(RESPONDENT) 

Docket No. 16-15-10 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced 

Notice of Investigation initiated in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16 (Rules of Practice). Pursuant to the Rules of 

Practice, § 16.ll(a), the date by which the Director, FAA Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis will issue a Director's Determination in this matter is hereby extended to on 

or before January 10, 20 17. 

Kevin 

Direct r, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 14, 2016, I placed in the United States mail (first class, 

postage paid), a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time addressed to: 

Respondent 

W. Eric Pilsk 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

Counsel to the Respondent 

100 I Connecticut A venue 

Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

Mark Duebner 

Director of Aviation 

City of Dallas 

8008 Herb Kelleher Way, LB 16 

Dallas, TX 75235 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

~~ Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 on Form 10-K of NaviSite, Inc. (the
"Company") for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, John
J. Gavin, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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: October 28, 2005                  By: /s/ John J. Gavin, Jr.
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            John J. Gavin, Jr.
                                            Chief Financial Officer
Jeremy M. CARTER, Appellant, v. OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC., Appellee.

No. 3D17-645

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 13, 2018

Jeremy M. Carter, in proper person.

Markowitz, Ringel, Trusty & Hartog, P.A., Alan Rosenberg and Adrian Delancy, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and FERNANDEZ, and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.7.5





BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.


NO:        BOARD 2019 - 12


DATE:        February 15, 2019


Approval of Amendment to the
Marriott International, Inc. Stock and Cash Incentive Plan


WHEREAS, Marriott International, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Marriott International, Inc. Stock and Cash Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”);


WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 17.1 of the Plan, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) may amend the Plan at any time;


WHEREAS, Article 10.4 of the Plan provides that no individual shall be eligible to receive a payment with respect to cash performance-based awards in excess of $4 million in any calendar year (the “Individual Cash Award Limit”);


WHEREAS, the Compensation Policy Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board has recommended that the Board approve an amendment to the Plan to increase the Individual Cash Award Limit from $4 million to $7.5 million per calendar year; and


WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the Committee’s recommendation and believes it is reasonable and appropriate.


NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, effective for performance periods beginning on or after January 1, 2019, Article 10.4 of the Plan shall be amended to increase the Individual Cash Award Limit from $4 million to $7.5 million per calendar year; and


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and any Vice President of the Company, or their designees, are authorized in the name of, and on behalf of, the Company to take any and all such actions and to expend such funds as shall be necessary or appropriate, in their judgment, to carry out the intent and purposes of this Resolution.


By the Board of Directors


/s/ Bancroft S. Gordon  


Bancroft S. Gordon
Corporate Secretary




1689030_3
Thomas James GRIDER v. STATE

CR-16-0304

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reversed and remanded.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. SER GIO JIM ENEZ-PALM A, a .k.a . Jua n Kam arillo-R osa s, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. Nos. 13-10181

13-10183 D.C . Nos. 4:12-c r-02273-DC B

4:07-c r-01850-DC B M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na David C . B ury , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Se rgio Jim e ne z -Pa lm a

a ppe a ls from

the distric t

c ourt’ s judgm e nt a

n d c ha lle nge s the 42-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for re e ntry a fte r de porta

tion, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326; a nd the 18-m onth 

# FIL ED JAN 03 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c onse c utive se nte nc e im p ose d upon re voc at ion of supe rvise d re le a se . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . Jim e ne z -Pa lm a

c onte n ds tha

t the distric t c ourt proc e dura lly e rre d by fa iling to e xpla in the re voc ation se nte nc e and by using his prior ille ga l re e ntry se nte nc e , whic h re sulte d from

a Guide line s-c a lc ulation e rror, a s a be nc hm ark in fa shioning the i nsta nt se nte n c e s. W e re v ie w for pla in e rror, se eUnite d State s v . Vale nc iaBarragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd find none . The distric t c ourt a de quate ly

e xpla ine d the a ggre g ate se nte n c e and use d the Guide line s ra

nge a s the sta rting point a

nd initial be nc hm ark be fore de te rm ining tha t a n upwa rd va rianc e wa s a ppropria te . Jim e ne z -Pa lm a

furthe r c onte nds tha

t the a lle ge d proc e dura l e rrors re n de re d his se nte n c e s substa

ntive ly unre a sona

b le . The distric t c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion in im

posing Jime ne z -Pa lm a ’ s se nte n c e s. Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The

se nt e nc e s a

re substa ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s and 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) se nte n c ing fa c tors, inc luding his fa ilure to be de te rre d a nd bre a c h of the c ourt’ s trust. Se eid ; Unite d State s v . Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th C ir. 2007). AFFIRM E D.

13 - 1 01 8 1 & 1 3 - 1 0 1 8 3 2
#### Jose Luis Rodriguez VELAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70794

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 4, 2017

Stephen John Coghlan, Esquire, Omar Nakib, Law Office of Stephen Coghlan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Brett F. Kinney, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Rodriguez Velazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Velazquez failed to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected ground. *See Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (desire to be free from harassment or random violence has no nexus to a protected ground).

We lack jurisdiction to review any social group that Velazquez articulates for the first time on appeal. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

NO. 97-20461

Summary Calendar

ASHOK K. CHAUHAN, AMITA CHAUHAN,

ATUL CHAUHAN, and ARUN CHAUHAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

VERSUS

FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION, USA,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-1239) 

March 9, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Ashok Chauhan appeals from the district court’s summary

judgment against him on his claims against Formosa Plastics for

breach of contract and detrimental reliance, fraudulent

misrepresentation, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing,

and loss of reputation. Ashok, Amita, Atul and Arun Chauhan (all

plaintiffs) appeal from the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) dismissal of their claims for abuse of process, loss of

reputation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The

plaintiffs also appeal from the district court’s summary judgment

against them on their claims for defamation on the basis of

qualified privilege.

Having examined the record, pleadings and summary judgment

evidence, we find no error by the district court. The claims

unique to Ashok Chauhan were properly dismissed on summary

judgment, because they are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

The claims of all plaintiffs for abuse of process, loss of

reputation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were

properly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. Likewise, the claims of all plaintiffs for

defamation were properly dismissed by summary judgment on the basis

of qualified privilege, as plaintiffs produced no evidence of

malice on the part of Formosa Plastics. Finding no error in the

district court’s disposition of this matter, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
Jack

& Juli e Carmichae l 51 9 Sout h Roger

s Stree t Mason , M l 4885 4 Februar y10 , 201 2 -••'TT- ' 

### '/Oi ? FE B 

### 1 5 P 3 - \

M

Docke t Managemen t Facility U . S . Departmen t o fTransportatio n Facility Sirs:^__^ ^

__- _. ^.^.

__ Pleas e continu e t o gran t Washington , D.C . landin g right s a tReaga n Nationa l Airpor tt o Su n Country Airlines . W e us e thi s rout e t o visi t ou rdaughte rwh o i s workin g i n th e Washington , D.C . are a an d w e reall y appreciat e th e non-stop , direc t access . /"^cy ^ /6-A ^ l/fc ^ I'fl ^ yl'i* ^ ^ ) Sincerel yyours ,
Sergey Yury KOLESOV, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-322

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 31, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1051

ROBIN AUGUSTO GARCIA

- MARTINEZ , Petitioner ,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR , Attorney General , Respondent

.

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

.

Submitted : July 20, 2020 Decided: October 20, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON , and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Donald L. Schlemmer, Washington, D.C. , for Petitioner. Joseph H . Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Sheri R. Glaser , Office of Immigration Litigation , Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robin Augusto Garcia

- Martinez , a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration j udge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of the merits hearing and all supporting
evidence. We conclude t hat the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2018), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, see INS v. Elias

- Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (statin g standard of review for denial of asylum); Dankam v. Gonzales , 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating standard of review for denial of CAT protection). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
In re Garcia

- Ma rtinez , (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 2019). 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
Jose VELEZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2486

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 28, 2017

Following review of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

SALTER, EMAS and LOGUE, JJ., concur.
#### Curtis L. KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Official MCPHERSON, Lee Corr Inst; Sgt Boatwright, Lee Corr Inst; Capt Pack, Turbeville Corr Inst; Lt Shannon, Turbeville Corr Inst; Officer McElveen, Turbeville Corr Inst; Officer Barnes, Turbeville Corr Inst; Lt Seibels; Captain Washington, Broad River Corr Inst, individual & official capacity et al. known & unknown; Sgt Carlton Ashe; Sgt Debra McFadden, Defendants-Appellees, and DHO Patterson, Lee Corr Inst; Warden Reynolds, Lee Corr Inst; Shake Down Team, at Lee Corr Inst/Turbeville; DHO Brown, Turbeville Corr Inst; W Christopher Swett, appointed counsel, Defendants.

No. 17-6320

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Curtis L. King, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Albert Kinney, Jr., Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY LAW FIRM, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

*124Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Curtis L. King appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. *King v. McPherson,*No. 0:15-cv-02358-RBH (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 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.

*AFFIRMED*