alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WORLD TIME CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PANDAIR INTERNATIONAL AIRFREIGHT and Continental Airlines, Defendants.

No. 89-1239-CIV.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division.

Oct. 10, 1990.

*691Robert Lamar Bell, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff.

Lawrence D. Smith, Miami, Fla., for defendant Continental.

Richard J. Me Alpin, Miami, Fla., for defendant Pandair.

ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

MORENO, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on each party’s motion for summary judgment. This action seeks to recover damages for an alleged loss during an international air shipment of watches from the Netherlands to Miami, Florida.

It is undisputed that an agreement existed between plaintiff World Time Corporation and defendant Pandair International Airfreight for the transportation of three cases of watches from Rotterdam, Netherlands to Miami, Florida. Pandair submitted an air waybill to World Time for the watches. An air waybill was also submitted to World Time by Pandair, acting as agent of co-defendant Continental Airlines, to transport the watches. The goods were to travel as follows: from Rotterdam, Netherlands to Amsterdam, Netherlands, then to London, England and finally, from England to Miami, Florida. The goods were accounted for by Continental Airlines in London as demonstrated by the air waybill. As of this date, the goods whereabouts are unknown. All parties agree that the Warsaw Convention Act, which governs international transportation of goods, may apply to these facts.

The disputed facts include the adequacy of the information provided on the air waybill, the location of the goods when they disappeared, and whether either Pandair or Continental’s conduct rises to the level of “willful misconduct”. A finding as to any one of these would destroy a defendant’s ability to avail itself of the liability limitation provision under the Warsaw Convention Act. *See*49 U.S.C.App. (1982 Ed.) § 1502 note.

Applying the standard for summary judgment found in *Celotex Corp. v. Catrett*477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) and *Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.*477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), this case would properly be resolved by such judgment were there no genuine issues of material facts in dispute. Summary judgment cannot be granted where resolution of disputes over the facts would affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.

In this case, the sufficiency of the contents of the air waybill would trigger the Warsaw Convention limits upon plaintiff’s recovery. If the air waybill is not in conformity, then the plaintiff may be entitled to demonstrate damages which are alleged to amount in excess of $58,000 rather than $1,428. However, a review of Continental Airlines representative Bruce Fiedler’s sworn testimony and his affidavit present disputed questions of fact as to the air waybill, the location of the goods and willful misconduct.

WHEREFORE the plaintiff’s and defendants’ motions for summary judgment are denied.

DONE and ORDERED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS
AND ACCOMPANYING NOTES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,566
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  136,062
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,034
<INVENTORY>                                    178,517
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               369,813
<PP&E>                                         318,186
<DEPRECIATION>                                 142,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 714,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          295,345
<BONDS>                                        121,199
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,184
<OTHER-SE>                                     241,795
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   714,742
<SALES>                                      1,157,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,157,524
<CGS>                                          989,462
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  989,462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (76)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,624
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,569
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,916
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,653
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (19,560)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,907)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.53)


</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Las Vegas, NV, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0722

Issued: October 30, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Eymi Leon, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On April 20, 2023 Eymi Leon filed a timely appeal in this matter from a February 16, 2023

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 23-0722. Appellant did not sign the appeal.

By letter dated April 26, 2023, the Clerk of the Appellate Boards informed Ms. Leon that 

the Board required an appeal form signed by appellant. The letter requested that a signed appeal 

form be submitted to the Board within 30 days of the date of the letter. By letter dated June 8, 

2023, the Clerk of the Appellate Boards informed appellant that the Board required that she sign 

the appeal form. The letter requested that her signed appeal form be submitted to the Board within 

30 days of the date of the letter. 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

The Board notes that Section 501.3(c)(6) requires that an appellant must sign the notice of 

appeal.2 If appellant does not sign the notice of appeal, there is no valid appeal before the Board.

Neither appellant nor her representative filed an appeal form signed by appellant within the 

time allotted for submission of a proper appeal.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that, as appellant has not filed a 

properly signed appeal form in this case, there is no valid appeal before the Board. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal assigned Docket No. 23-0722 is 

dismissed.3

Issued: October 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(c)(6).

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id. at

§ 501.6(d).
#### STATE v. PERRY

No. 46.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 156.

Appeal dismissed ex mero motu for lack of substantial constitutional question 4 February 1977.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, Philadelphia, PA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1042

Issued: July 27, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On June 29, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a December 29, 2020 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-1042.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

The 180th day following the December 29, 2020 decision was June 27, 2021. As this fell 

on a Sunday, appellant had until Monday, June 28, 2021 to file the appeal.3 Appellant did not file 

an appeal with the Board until June 29, 2021, more than 180 days after the December 29, 2020

OWCP decision. The Board thus finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-1042 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1042 is dismissed.

Issued: July 27, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

In computing the date of filing, the 180-day time period for filing an appeal begins to run on the day following 

the date of OWCP’s decision. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday 

or Federal holiday, in which event the period runs to the close of the next business day. 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(3).

4

Id. at § 501.6(d).
----

----

----

----

| (i)   | The      definition of the term “Availability Block” as set forth in Section 1.01      of the Credit Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as      follows: |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (ii)   | Section      3 of the Amendment No. 3 to Consent to Supplemental Loan Under Loan and      Security Agreement is hereby deleted in its  entirety. |
|------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

| Lender                                   | Revolving      Commitment |    |
|------------------------------------------|---------------------------|---------|
| The      CIT Group/Business Credit, Inc. | $13,636,364               |    |
| Bank      of America, N.A.               | $11,363,636               |    |
| Total                                    | $25,000,000               | ” |

----

----

----

----

----

|   | Read      and Agreed to: |
|--------|--------------------------|

|   | JACO      ELECTRONICS, INC. |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | INTERFACE      ELECTRONICS CORP. |
|--------|----------------------------------|

|   | BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,      as a Lender |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|

----

----

| Issuer/Letter of Credit    Number |  Beneficiary              |  Undrawn      Principal Amount |  Expiry Date |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------|
| TTS313571                         | Samsung      Semicondutor Inc. | $2,250,000                          | 4/30/09           |
| TTS316288                         | Kingbright      Corporation    | $150,000                            | 3/31/09           |
# C_2007085EN.01001201.xml

| 19.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4570 — AREVA/Repower)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 85/04)

On 2 March 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4570. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4570. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
**EXHIBIT 21****SUBSIDIARIES OF INTER-TEL, INCORPORATED**     Listed below are all the subsidiaries of Inter-Tel, Incorporated, as well as the jurisdictionunder the laws of which each was organized, and the percentage of the outstanding voting stock ofeach owned by Inter-Tel, Incorporated as of December 31, 2005.       **Percentage** **State or**  **of Voting** **Jurisdiction****Name** **Stock Owned** **of Organization**Inter-Tel Integrated Systems, Inc. 100% ArizonaInter-Tel Technologies, Inc. 100% ArizonaInter-Tel Leasing, Inc. 100% ArizonaInter-Tel Software and Services, Inc. 100% ArizonaInter-Tel Midwest, Inc. 100% DelawareInter-Tel Incorporated-New Jersey 100% DelawareInter-Tel NetSolutions, Inc. 100% TexasInter-Tel DataCom, Inc. 100% CaliforniaSouthwest Telephone Systems, Inc. 100% New MexicoAmerican Telcom Corp. of Georgia, Inc. 100% GeorgiaAccess West, Inc. 100% DelawareInter-Tel Europe, Limited 100% United KingdomSwan Solutions Limited 100% United KingdomCallview Limited 100% United KingdomInter-Tel Lake Limited 100% IrelandInter-Tel Japan, Inc. 100% JapanTri-Com Communications, Inc. 100% North CarolinaFlorida Telephone Systems, Inc. 100% FloridaNTL Corporation dba ComNet of Ohio 100% OhioIntegrated Telecom Services Corporation 100% KentuckyTelephone Corporation of America, Inc. (Telcoa) 100% MarylandTDI Services Corporation, Technology Dynamics for the 21st Century 100% VirginiaInter-Tel Business Information Systems, Inc. 100% ArizonaLinktivity, Inc. 100% DelawareLake Communications Limited 100% IrelandLake Datacomms Limited 100% IrelandLake Electronics Technologies Limited 100% IrelandFernway Limited 100% IrelandWinbay Pty Limited 100% AustraliaInter-Tel Canada, Inc. 100% Canada
Exhibit
10.10


 


AMENDMENT
No. 1 


TO


COLLABORATION
AGREEMENT 


BETWEEN


TUFTS
MEDICAL CENTER, INC 


AND


OKYO
PHARMA LIMITED


 






 


THIS
AMENDMENT is entered into as of the date of last signature below by and between Tufts Medical Center, Inc., a not-for-profit tax-exempt
corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its principal place of business at 800 Washington Street,
Boston, MA 02111 (“Tufts MC”), and Okyo Pharma Limited, a limited liability company incorporated and registered in Guernsey
whose registered office and principal place of business is at Martello Court, Admiral Park, St. Peter Port, Guernsey GYI 3HB (“OKYO”).


 


WHEREAS,
the parties entered into a Collaboration Agreement effective August 6, 2019 (hereinafter, the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS,
the parties now wish to amend the Agreement, to extend the planned end date of the Research Plan, and revise the Term of the Agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows


 


	 	1.
    	In
    Article I of the Agreement, the definition of “Term” is revised and replaced in its entirety with the following: “Term”
    has the meaning given to it in Section 8.1.” 
	 	 	 
	 	2.
    	Section
    8.1 of the Agreement is revised and replaced in its entirety with the following: “This Agreement shall come into effect on
    the Effective Date and shall continue until completion of the Parties’ substantive obligations under the Agreement in the performance
    of the Research Plan, unless extended or sooner terminated as provided herein (“Term”). 
	 	 	 
	 	3.
    	The
    first sentence of Schedule I of the Agreement shall be revised and replaced in its entirety with the following: “The proposed
    Research Plan that follows will be completed by April 5, 2021, for a budget of $203,315.” 
	 	 	 
	 	4.
    	This
    Amendment sets forth the entire amendment and modification to the Agreement intended by the parties. Further, this Amendment and
    the Agreement constitute the entire agreement and understanding of the parties relating to the subject matter contained therein.
    The amendments and modifications to the Agreement are specifically limited to the terms and conditions discussed herein. The remainder
    of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as agreed to by the parties, remains in full force and effect. 


 


SIGNATURE
PAGE TO FOLLOW


 




    	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this amendment to be executed as of the date last                .





 


	TUFTS
    MEDICAL CENTER, INC.	 	OKYO
    PHARMA LIMITED.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Nicholas
    Fleming, JD	 	 	/s/
    Willy Simon
	Name:	Nicholas
    Fleming, JD	 	Name:	W.
    Simon
	Title:	Manager,
    Grants & Contracts	 	Title:	Chairman
	Date:	November
    10, 2020	 	Date:	November
    9, 2020


 


REAL
AND ACKNOWLEDGED


 


	/s/ Pedram Hamrah, MD	 
	Name:	Pedram Hamrah, MD
	 
	Date:	11/10/2020
EXHIBIT 23.0--CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


         We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference to page 29 of this Form
10-K of our report dated March 20, 1996 of Inter-Tel, Incorporated.

         Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Inter-Tel,
Incorporated  listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the  responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based upon our
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered  in  relation  to the basic  financial  statements  taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

         We also  consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  Registration
Statement  (Form  S-3  No.  33-58161),  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-3  No.
33-61437),  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-3  No.  333-01735),   Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 2-94805),  in the  Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-40353),  and in the  Registration  Statement  (Form S-8 No.  33-73620) of our
report  dated  March  20,  1996,  with  respect  to the  consolidated  financial
statements  incorporated  herein by  reference  and our report  included  in the
preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in
this Form 10-K of Inter-Tel, Incorporated.



Phoenix, Arizona                            /S/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                            
March 27, 1996
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0190. ERMA JEAN WILLIAMS et al. v. AMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT

PROPERTIES EIGHT LLC.

In this dispossessory action, American Homes 4 Rent Properties Eight, LLC

filed a motion to compel payment of rent into the registry of the court, which the trial

court granted on November 30, 2015. On December 15, 2015, the applicantsfiled this

application for discretionary appeal, arguing that the superior court erred when it

granted a writ of possession and compelled the payment of rent. We lack jurisdiction. 

The only order submitted in the application materials is the order granting

American Homes 4 Rent’s motion to compel payment of rent and providing that a

writ of possession would be entered instanter should the defendants fail to comply.

As to that order, the application is untimely. Generally, an application for

discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order sought to be

appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). But the underlying subject matter of an appeal

controls over the relief sought in determining the proper appellate procedure. Rebich

v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 467-468 (448 SE2d 192) (1994). OCGA § 44-7-56 provides

that an appeal from any dispossessory judgment must be filed within seven days of

the date the judgment was entered. See Ray M. Wright, Inc. v. Jones, 239 Ga. App.

521 (521 SE2d 456) (1999). Here, the application was not filed until 15 days after

entry of this order. Accordingly, this application is untimely, and it is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/07/2016

January 07, 2016
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22055]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: :National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 
1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 19, 2005 the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of permit 
applications received. A permit was issued on October 31, 2005 to: 
Mahlon C. Kennicutt, II; Permit No. 2006-021.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-22055 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M