alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FORM 10-Q AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>             277,977
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>            119,538
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                          0
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>               62,527
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    182,065
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>         485,151
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>               485,151
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                         0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>          (87,084)
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>               5,157
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>               4,456
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>               0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                 0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>         (158,439)
<NET-ASSETS>                     (303,086)
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                       0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                       0
<OTHER-INCOME>                          0
<EXPENSES-NET>                   (216,292)
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>          (216,292)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                0
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>        (225,648)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>            (441,940)
<EQUALIZATION>                          0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                   0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>               701
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>             0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                     0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>             18,588
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>              0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>              10,539
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                  (216,292)
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>             (312,380)
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>               28.95
<PER-SHARE-NII>                    (39.55)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                     0
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                     69.24

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10090 (Summary Calendar)

MARK S. VELLA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

IRVING TOOL & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

(3:95-CV-0304-T)

September 20, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

This is an appeal from the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Irvi ng Tool and

Manufacturing Company (Irving) on Plaintiff-Appellant Mark S.

Vella’ s Title VII retaliation claim. Vella asserts that thedistrict court erred in deter m ining that insufficient summary

judgment evidence exists to create a genuine issue of material fact

as to whether Irving’s proffered business reason for firing Vella

was a pretext for discrimination. In conducting our d e novo

review, we carefully evaluated the record on appeal, the arguments

of counsel for both par ties as set forth in their briefs to this

court, and the applicable law, and we have come to the same

conclusions as did the district court in its well-reasoned and

thoughtful opinion. We therefore affirm in all respects the

district court’s grant o f summary judgment for the same reasons

expressed therein by the district court.

AFFIRMED.
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1624

To suspend temporarily the duty on piperonyl butoxide.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 11, 1998

Mr. ROTH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on piperonyl butoxide.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.99 5-[[2-(2-

butoxyethoxy)ethoxy]m ethyl]-

6-propyl-1,3-benzodioxole

(piperonyl butoxide) (CAS

No. 51–03–6) (provided for

in subheading 2932.99.60) .... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2000 ’’.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

9 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with-
2

•S 1624 IS

1 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the

2 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### H&H Custom Homes, Inc., Respondent, v Mitchell H. Kossoff et al., Appellants.

[946 NYS2d 131]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered on or about February 18, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendants in the principal amounts due under a promissory note and an amended letter of investment to plaintiffs president, and denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny plaintiff’s motion insofar as it sought to hold defendant Kossoff personally liable for the principal amount due under the amended letter, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in the principal sum of $200,000 as against defendant Farmview by submitting the promissory note and the amended letter, as well as evidence of Farmview’s default under those documents *(see Grand Pac. Fin. Corp. v 97-111 HALE, LLC,*90 AD3d 534 [2011]; *IRB-Brasil Resseguros S.A. v Portobello Intl. Ltd.,*84 AD3d 637 [2011]). In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

However, as against defendant Kossoff, plaintiff only established its entitlement to recover the principal sum of $180,000 pursuant to Kossoff s personal guaranty. Plaintiff failed to make *446a prima facie showing that Kossoff personally guaranteed Farmview’s obligation, set forth in the amended letter, to return plaintiffs $20,000 investment at plaintiffs option, or that Kossoff agreed to add his personal liability to Farmview’s *(see Salzman Sign Co. v Beck,*10 NY2d 63 [1961]; *cf. Paribas Props. v Benson,*146 AD2d 522, 525 [1989]). Indeed, Kossoffs personal guaranty is expressly limited to the $180,000 promised in the note *(see Wesselman v Engel Co.,*309 NY 27, 30-31 [1955]; *665-75 Eleventh Ave. Realty Corp. v Schlanger,*265 AD2d 270, 271 [1999]), and his initials on the amended letter on his firm’s letterhead does not constitute “clear and explicit evidence” of his intent to be personally bound by the handwritten promise on the letter *(Salzman,*10 NY2d at 67).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions, including their arguments regarding their counterclaim, and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Roman, JJ.
(18 Misc. Rep. 576.)

#### LANDSBURG v. SANSONE.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

November 30, 1896.)

Promissory Note—Diversion by Trustee—Enforceable by Innocent Purchaser.

Where a note is given to a person to discount, and is by Mm sold under the representation that it is business paper, the purchaser is entitled to recover from the maker the face of the note, though he paid a less sum for it.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by Elizabeth Landsburg against Francisco Sansone on a promissory note. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before CONLAN, SCHUCHMAN, and O’DWYER, JJ.

P. N. Brown, for appellant.

Lippman & Ruck, for respondent.

CONLAN, J.

Appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The action was brought to recover on a note made by the defendant, dated November 30, 1895, to the order of J. B. Hart & Co., for $891.62, payable four months after date. The evidence shows that this note was delivered to one Berthould, who brought thé same to J. B. Hart & Co., the payees named therein, and delivered it to them for the purpose of having the same discounted. It appears that prior to the making of the note in suit the plaintiff was the owner of a note made by Elliott & Cougle for the sum of $650, and that she had given the same to Hart, of J. B. Hart & Co., for the purpose of having the same discounted, and the proceeds turned over to her. Also that at the time of the receipt of the note in suit by Hart he had procured the Elliott &'Cougle note to be discounted, and held $650 as the proceeds in his possession. It also appears that shortly after the receipt of the note in suit by Hart one Sellig representing Hart offered same to the plaintiff in lieu of the money ($650) belonging to the plaintiff,' and which was then in the possession of Hart; that the plaintiff requested Sellig to get Hart’s indorsement on the note, which request led to an interview between Hart and the plaintiff, in which Hart represented the note to be business paper, and given for spirits. The plaintiff thereupon accepted the note in lieu of the money then in the possession of Hart, and to that extent was a bona fide holder for value. No claim is made that the plaintiff had any knowledge of the diversion of the note by Hart. The case was fairly submitted under a careful charge as to the law, and, the jury having disposed of the disputed facts, we think the verdict ought not to be disturbed.

The judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs. All concur.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Genetics and Animal Breeding: Clay Center, NE
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    USMARC Home
                    USMARC Research Units
                        Meat Safety & Quality
                                    Livestock Bio-Systems
                                    Nutrition, Growth and Physiology
                                    Animal Health GenomicsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Clay Center, Nebraska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Genetics and Animal Breeding People & Locations







Robert  Lee
                        Genetics and Animal Breeding

                        




                        
                        Biologist
                        Phone: (402) 762-4195
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1926

For the relief of Regine Beatie Edwards.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 2, 1998

Mr. GRASSLEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Regine Beatie Edwards.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CLASSIFICATION AS A CHILD UNDER THE IMMI4 GRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the administration of the Im6 migration and Nationality Act, Regine Beatie Edwards

7 shall be classified as a child within the meaning of section

8 101(b)(1)(E) of such Act, upon approval of a petition filed

9 on her behalf by Stan Edwards, a citizen of the United

10 States, pursuant to section 204 of such Act.

11 (b) LIMITATION.—No natural parent, brother, or sis12 ter, if any, of Regine Beatie Edwards shall, by virtue of
2

•S 1926 IS

1 such relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or sta2 tus under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America v. James Hilton AYODEJI, Appellant.

No. 04-4695.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Jan. 17, 2007.

June 20, 2007.

Daryl F. Bloom, Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for United States of America.

John F. Pyfer, Jr., Pyfer & Reese, Lancaster, PA, for James Hilton Ayodeji.

PRESENT: McKEE, AMBRO, and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The forgoing Motion is granted. The not precedential opinion issue on January 26, 2007 is hereby retracted. A redacted opinion will be issued as the opinion previously issued contained certain personal data identifiers. The Clerk is directed to contact the publishers of the legal reporters and the University of Villanova School of Law regarding the retraction of this opinion. The retraction and issuance of a redacted opinion does not modify the judgment issued by the Court.

*151
      *REDACTED OPINION OF THE COURT*

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, James Hilton Ayodeji, is the subject of a final order of removal. A jury found him guilty of hindering his removal from the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)(C) and of making a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the government of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). These charges arose out of Ayodeji’s refusal to provide information necessary to the execution of the order of removal and his continued insistence that he is another individual named Ernest E. Grayson.

Appellant’s counsel has filed an *Anders*brief. *See Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

We have reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel for the government and the appellant that there are no non-frivolous issues presented by this appeal. The government presented ample evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Ayodeji is not Ernest E. Grayson and that he had hindered his removal by refusing to supply information and fingerprints necessary to secure valid travel documents. We perceive no trial or sentencing errors.

We are satisfied that Ayodeji’s counsel has adequately fulfilled the requirements of Rule 109.2, and his motion to withdraw will be granted. The issues presented in this appeal lack legal merit and thus do not require the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Ames, Iowa
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Annette  Davis
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Administrative Assistant
                        Phone: (515) 337-7092
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
(18 Misc. Rep. 596.)

#### BIGGERT v. NICHOLS.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

December 12, 1896.)

1. Pleading—Order Sustaining Demurrer—Appeal.

An order sustaining a demurrer to an answer, with leave to amend, is not appealable.

2. Same—Appeal erom Order—Amending to Appeal prom Judgment.

Leave to amend a notice of appeal, so as to make it an appeal from a judgment instead of an order, will not be allowed after the time in which to appeal from the judgment has expired.

3. Undertakings—Leave to Amend—Consent op Sureties.

Leave to amend an undertaking on appeal will not be granted, without the consent of the sureties, as the liability of the sureties might thereby be increased.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Joseph M. Biggert against Edwin Nichols. From an order sustaining a demurrer to an answer, with leave to amend, defendant appeals.

Dismissed.

Argued before VAN WYCK, C. J., and FITZSIMONS and O’DWYER, JJ.

Walter I. Taylor, for appellant.

Edgar J. Nathan, for respondent.

O’DWYER, J.

It has been well-settled that an appeal will not lie from an order sustaining a demurrer to an answer, with leave to amend. The appeal in this case was taken from an order to this 'effect; and, under many authorities, it is well settled that such an appeal must be dismissed. Ludwig v. Gove, 14 Misc. Rep. 233, 35 N. Y. Supp. 714; Stokes v. Stokes, 76 Hun, 314, 28 N. Y. Supp, 165; Bank v. Lynch, 76 N. Y. 514.

On the hearing of this appeal, the appellant applied for leave to amend the notice of appeal and undertaking on appeal, so as to make the appeal. from the judgment instead of the order. The application should be denied, upon the ground that the' time in *473which to appeal from the judgment expired on the 22d day of October, 1896. The Code requires that an appeal from an interlocutory judgment to the general term of this court shall be taken-within 10 days after the service of a copy of the judgment and notice of entry. The judgment was served October 12, 1896.

No power rests in the court to amend an undertaking on appeal without the consent of the sureties, for by so doing the liability of the sureties might be increased.

The appeal should be dismissed, with costs. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1670 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1670

   To amend the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act to provide for 
       selection of lands by certain veterans of the Vietnam era.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 1998

 Mr. Murkowski (for himself and Mr. Stevens) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act to provide for 
       selection of lands by certain veterans of the Vietnam era.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. VIETNAM VETERANS ALLOTMENT.

    The Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1600, et seq.) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:

     Open Season for Certain Native Alaskan Veterans for Allotments

    ``Sec. 41. (a) In General.--(1) During the one-year period 
beginning on the date of enactment of this section, an individual 
described in subsection (b) is eligible for an allotment of not more 
than 160 acres of land under the Act of May 17, 1906 (chapter 2469; 34 
Stat. 197), as such Act was in effect before December 18, 1971.
    ``(2) Allotments selected under this section shall not be from 
existing native or non-native campsites.
    ``(3) Only Federal lands are eligible for selection and conveyance 
under this Act.
    ``(4) All conveyances are subject to valid rights.
    ``(5) All state selected lands that have not yet been conveyed are 
ineligible for selection under this Act.
    ``(6) The Secretary shall prescribe, after consultation with Alaska 
Natives groups, such rules as may be necessary to carry out this 
section.
    ``(b) Eligible Individuals.--(1) An individual is eligible under 
subsection (a) if the individual would have been eligible under the Act 
of May 17, 1906 (chapter 2469; 34 Stat. 197), as such Act was in effect 
before December 18, 1971, and the individual is a veteran of the 
Vietnam era.
    ``(2) For purposes of this section, in the case of an individual 
described in paragraph (1) who is deceased, the heirs of the individual 
shall be treated as the individual described in paragraph (1).
    ``(c) Conveyance Deadline.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
complete land conveyances pursuant to this section not later than one 
year after the end of the period referred to in subsection (a).
    ``(d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the terms 
`veteran' and `Vietnam era' have the meaning given such terms by 
paragraphs (2) and (29), respectively, of section 101 of title 38, 
United States Code.''.
                                 <all>
```