alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BOSWORTH *v.*CARR, RYDER & ENGLER COMPANY.

certiorari to the circuit court of appeals for the seventh CIRCUIT.

No. 14.

Argued October 24, 25, 1899.

Decided December 17, 1900.

This case having been argued with No. 12, *ante,*415, at the same time, and by the same counsel, the decision of the court in that case is followed in this.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

*Mr. Bbford Wilson*for Bosworth.

*Mr. Burton Harrison*for thé Carr, Ryder *&*Engler Company.

Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

The claim presented on this record was for the value of a quantity of. manufactured doors,'sash, blinds and moldings, shipped from Dubuque, Iowa, on October 20, 1894, and consigned to the May *&*Thomas Hardware Companjq Birmingham, Alabama, by way of East St. Louis. The car containing *445the merchandise in question was received by the Peoria Company from the connecting earner, and, at about three o’clock on the afternoon of October 28, 1894, was deposited in its portion of the yard of the Terminal Association at East St. Louis set apart for the use of the Peoria Company, under the agreement referred to in the opinion just delivered in *Huntting Elevator Company*v. *Bosworth,*No. 12 of this term. On the night of the date last mentioned the car and contents were destroyed by the same fire which consumed or damaged the property of the I-luntting Elevator Company. Both of the courts below decreed the liability of the Peoria Company, the Court of Appeals declaring that “ though in the physical possession, under its agreement with the receiver, of the car in which the goods were being transported, the Terminal Association had not become responsible as a carrier therefor, because it had not been put in possession of a way bill or other form of information on which it could proceed with the carriage.” It necessarily results from the views expressed by us in the *Hantting Elevator Company*case that the courts below did not err in the decrees rendered by them upon this claim.

The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming that of the Circuit Court, is accordingly

*Affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6540 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6540

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract for the KC-
X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to consider any unfair competitive 
                 advantage that an offeror may possess.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defense Level Playing Field Act''.

SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN EVALUATION OF 
              OFFERS FOR KC-X AERIAL REFUELING AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.

    (a) Requirement To Consider Unfair Competitive Advantage.--In 
awarding a contract for the KC-X aerial refueling aircraft program (or 
any successor to that program), the Secretary of Defense shall, in 
evaluating any offers submitted to the Department of Defense in 
response to a solicitation for offers for such program, consider any 
unfair competitive advantage that an offeror may possess.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after submission of offers in 
response to any such solicitation, the Secretary of Defense shall 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on any unfair 
competitive advantage that any offeror may possess.
    (c) Requirement To Take Findings Into Account in Award of 
Contract.--In awarding a contract for the KC-X aerial refueling 
aircraft program (or any successor to that program), the Secretary of 
Defense shall take into account the findings of the report submitted 
under subsection (b).
    (d) Unfair Competitive Advantage.--In this section, the term 
``unfair competitive advantage'', with respect to an offer for a 
contract, means a situation in which the cost of development, 
production, or manufacturing is not fully borne by the offeror for such 
contract.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 21, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6540

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract for the KC-
X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to consider any unfair competitive 
                 advantage that an offeror may possess.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          17,889
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,847
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,424)
<INVENTORY>                                     82,467
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               217,164
<PP&E>                                         221,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                 136,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          189,270
<BONDS>                                         29,784
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,633
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,518
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   343,744
<SALES>                                        707,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               707,556
<CGS>                                          584,560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  699,874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (192)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,107)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (442)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (665)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (665)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**
**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**
     In connection with the Annual Report of enherent Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the Report), I, James C. Minerly, Senior Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:
     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/ James C. Minerly  James C. Minerly Senior Financial Officer May 12, 2005
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been providedto enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent, Corp. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 21909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10875]



[[Page 21909]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment; Ashley, 
Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-La Sal, Uinta, and Wasatch-Cache National 
Forest's; Utah Counties: Beaver, Box Elder, Cache, Carbon, Daggett, 
Davis, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Juab, Kane, Millard, 
Morgan, Piute, Rich, Salt Lake, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Summit, 
Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch, Washington, Wayne, and Weber; Wyoming 
Counties: Sweetwater and Uinta; Colorado Counties: Mesa and Montrose

AGENCY: USDA Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of availability of an environmental assessment.

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

SUMMARY: The Utah Fire Amendment Project was initiated October 13, 1998 
with the published public notification of proposed Forest Plan 
amendments in the newspaper of general circulation for each National 
Forest. The responsible officials are the Forest Supervisors for the 
Ashley, Dixie, Fishlake, Manti-La Sal, Uinta, and Wasatch-Cache 
National Forest's. In accordance with planning regulations issued 
November 9, 2000 at 36 CFR Sec. 219.35 the responsible official's have 
decided to proceed under the 1982 regulations in effect prior to 
November 9, 2000. In addition, the responsible official's have decided 
to proceed under the administrative appeal and review procedures of 36 
CFR Sec. 217 in effect prior to November 9, 2000.

DATES: Effective as of May 2, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hatfield, Manti-La Sal National 
Forest, 599 West Price River Drive, Price, UT 84501, (435) 637-2817.

    Dated: April 19, 2001.
Pam Gardiner,
Forest Supervisor, Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
[FR Doc. 01-10875 Filed 5-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,468
<SECURITIES>                                        76
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,309
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,330
<INVENTORY>                                     50,451
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,700
<PP&E>                                         220,489
<DEPRECIATION>                                  96,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,969
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,346
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,551
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,557
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,969
<SALES>                                        279,827
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               280,487
<CGS>                                          213,007
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  228,040
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (236)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 540
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,403
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,302
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,101
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,101
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.24
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 63 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05710-RJH Document 63 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-1999 
<PERIOD-START>                                              JAN-01-1999 
<PERIOD-END>                                                MAR-31-1998 
<CASH>                                                           21,297 
<SECURITIES>                                                          0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0 
<INVENTORY>                                                           0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 21,297 
<PP&E>                                                                0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               21,401,137 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         2,552,123 
<BONDS>                                                      15,166,177 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         4,192,211 
<PREFERRED>                                                           0 
<COMMON>                                                            355 
<OTHER-SE>                                                     (196,794)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 21,401,137 
<SALES>                                                               0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      0 
<CGS>                                                                 0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 42,954 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               22,133 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (64,619)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     14,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (50,619)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0 
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (50,619)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe Annual Report of Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx Express”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Cathy D. Ross,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of FedEx Express.
| Date: July 14, 2006                          |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/  CATHY D. ROSS                           |   |
| Cathy D. Ross                                     |   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Case 7:07-cv-05739-KMK Document 27 Filed 07/25/2007 Page 1 of 1
# C_2009224EN.01000401.xml

| 17.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/4

---

Communication of the Commission on the quantity of certain products in the milk and milk products sector available for the first half of 2010 under certain quotas opened by the Community

2009/C 224/06

When import licences were allocated for the second half of 2009 for certain quotas referred to in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 (1), applications for licences referred to quantities less than those available for the products concerned. As a result, the quantity available for each quota for the period 1 January to 30 June 2010 should be calculated, taking account of the unallocated quantities resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 536/2009 of 19 June 2009 determining the extent to which the applications for import licences submitted in June 2009 for certain dairy products under certain tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 can be accepted (2).

1

2

The quantities available for the period 1 January to 30 June 2010 for the second half of the year of importation for certain quotas referred to in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 are indicated hereunder.

---

(1)  OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 29.

1

(2)  OJ L 159, 20.6.2009, p. 3.

2

---

ANNEX

Annex I.A

| Quota number | Quantity
  (kilograms) |
| --- | --- |
| 09.4590 | 68 537 000 |
| 09.4599 | 11 060 832 |
| 09.4591 | 5 360 000 |
| 09.4592 | 18 438 000 |
| 09.4593 | 5 413 000 |
| 09.4594 | 20 007 000 |
| 09.4595 | 7 502 504 |
| 09.4596 | 19 417 360 |

Quota number

Quantity

(kilograms)

09.4590

68 537 000

09.4599

11 060 832

09.4591

5 360 000

09.4592

18 438 000

09.4593

5 413 000

09.4594

20 007 000

09.4595

7 502 504

09.4596

19 417 360

Annex I.F

| Products originating in Switzerland |
| --- |
| Quota number | Quantity
  (kilograms) |
| 09.4155 | 1 000 000 |

Products originating in Switzerland

Quota number

Quantity

(kilograms)

09.4155

1 000 000

Annex I.H

| Products originating in Norway |
| --- |
| Quota number | Quantity
  (kilograms) |
| 09.4179 | 2 950 103 |

Products originating in Norway

Quota number

Quantity

(kilograms)

09.4179

2 950 103

Annex I.I

| Products originating in Iceland |
| --- |
| Quota number | Quantity
  (kilograms) |
| 09.4205 | 175 000 |
| 09.4206 | 380 000 |

Products originating in Iceland

Quota number

Quantity

(kilograms)

09.4205

175 000

09.4206

380 000

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41283 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ERASMO HERNANDEZ-MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-01-CR-261-ALL

-------------------- January 28, 2003 Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Erasmo Hernandez-Mendez appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for one count of transporting illegal aliens, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. He first argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. This argument is unavailing. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Hernandez-Mendez had committed all of the elements of the offense charged. See United States v. Romero-Cruz , 201 F.3dNo. 01-41283 -2- 374, 378 (5th Cir. 2000). He thus has not shown that a manifest miscarriage of justice will result if his conviction is allowed to stand. See United States v. McIntosh , 280 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir. 2002). He next argues that the district court’s jury instructions constructively amended the indictment. Even if the instructions did constructively amend the indictment, then Hernandez-Mendez still is not entitled to relief, for he fails to carry his burden of demonstrating that this alleged error affected his substantial rights. He thus has not shown plain error in connection with the district court’s jury instructions. See United States v. Reyes , 102 F.3d 1361, 1364-66 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Hernandez-Mendez’s argument that the prosecutor’s comments on his silence constitute reversible error likewise does not merit relief. The evidence against Hernandez-Mendez was substantial, and his defense was weak. Accordingly, even if the remarks were improper, then there still is no plain error. See United States v. Rivera , 295 F.3d 461, 469 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Knezek , 964 F.2d 394, 400 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Theodore W. Neumann, Jr., Doing Business as Falkirk Hospital, et al., Appellants, v Metropolitan Medical Group, P. C., et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring the rights and obligations of the parties under a contract dated May 17, 1982, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter, J.), dated February 9, 1988, which granted the defendants’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining them from unilaterally terminating the contract.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Subsequent to obtaining a judicial declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were not entitled to terminate the subject contract *(see, Neumann v Metropolitan Med. Group,*153 AD2d 885 [decided herewith]), the plaintiff Dr. Neumann nevertheless attempted to do just that. On December 17, 1987, Dr. Neu*889mann advised physicians employed by Metropolitan Medical Group, P. C. (hereinafter MMG) at Falkirk Hospital that their services were no longer required and that the contract was terminated. The contract was purportedly terminated because of Falkirk Hospital’s precarious financial position, allegedly caused by MMG’s mismanagement, and because of Dr. Neumann’s lack of control over the hospital which was allegedly jeopardizing its recertification by the State. The defendants obtained a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo, pending a full determination of the merits.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the court did not abuse its discretion by enjoining their unilateral termination of the contract. It warrants repeating that this was the very relief sought by the plaintiffs in their verified complaint. "It is a well-settled principle of law in this State that a party who assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position. (See *Matter of Martin v C.A. Prods. Co.,*8 NY2d 226, 231; *Houghton v Thomas,*220 App Div 415, 423, affd 248 NY 523.) Invocation of the doctrine of estoppel is required in such circumstances lest a mockery be made of the search for truth.” *(Karasik v Bird,*104 AD2d 758). Indeed, having charted their own course, the plaintiffs cannot now be heard to complain of the result *(cf., Orens v Secofsky,*60 AD2d 866, 867).

In any event, we discern no error in the granting of the defendants’ motion for a preliminary injunction as they have sufficiently demonstrated the likelihood of their success on the merits, irreparable injury *(see, Board of Higher Educ. v Marcus,*63 Misc 2d 268, 272; *see also, Anthony F. Wasilkowski, M.D., P. C. v Amsterdam Mem. Hosp.,*92 AD2d 1016, 1017), and a balancing of the equities in their favor *(see, Matter of Brenner v Hart Sys.,*114 AD2d 363, 366). Accordingly, vacatur of the injunction is not warranted. Lawrence, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.