alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Archibald N. McBean, Appellant, *v.*William McCallum, Respondent.

*Damages for breach of a contract to exchange real property*— *when a decision of the trial court will not be inteifered with.*

In an action brought to recover damages lor the breach of a contract for the exchange of real property, where the facts are peculiar and there is no fixed legal rule of damages which would apply specially to the case, and where it cannot be gathered from the testimony that the plaintiff sustained damages beyond the amount which he was awarded, and no specific rule of law in relation to the damages has been violated, the decision of the trial court will not be interfered with upon appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in his favor.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Archibald N. McBean, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the’plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the l'Tth day of August, 1894, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Kings County Special Term, as orders, adjudges and decrees that the plaintiff herein recover of the defendant the sum of $200 as damages, and limits said damages to said sum of $200.

*Alexander S. Bacon,*for the appellant.

*Ralph E.*Prime, for the respondent.

Dykman, J.:

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in his favor. An action was brought to recover damages against the defendant for a breach of contract for the exchange of real property between them. The action was tried before a judge without a jury, and he decided in favor of the plaintiff, and fixed the damage at $200.

The appeal is upon the ground that the court erred as to the *96measure of damages, which the plaintiff insists should have been much larger. The facts are that the plaintiff was the owner of a house and some land in the city of Brooklyn, and the defendant was the owner of land in the city of Yonkers. A written contract for the exchange of property between them was made and signed by the parties, and when they met to close the transaction the land of the plaintiff was found to be incumbered beyond the knowledge of the defendant, and he refused to carry the contract into execution.

The sole question involved in the appeal is one of damages.

In this case the facts seem to be peculiar, and there is no fixed legal rule of damages which would apply to this case specially.

It cannot be gathered from the testimony that the plaintiff sustained damages beyond the amount which was awarded to him by the trial judge, and as no specific rule of law in relation to the damages has been violated, we see no reason for interference with the decision upon that sole ground. The finding of the trial judge in respect to the damages should be treated the same as the verdict of a jury, and if this action had been tried before a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $200, the appellate court would not feel at liberty to interfere with the verdict. As the same rule should apply to this case, we think the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Brown, P. J., concurred; Pratt, J., not sitting.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 2, 2018

No. 04-17-00317-CV

LLoyd Hurt KELLNER, Trent C. Kellner, Linda Cunningham, Independent Administrator of 

The Estate of William Smith Nelson, Jr., Billie Alleen Kuhnel, Michael James Dworaczyk, 

Evelyn Hartman, Katherine Zaiontz, Otto Leo Henke, Jr., Patricia Ann Henke et al,

Appellants

v.

XTO ENERGY, INC., Newfield Exploration Company, Imperial Oil Company, Momentum Oil 

& Gas, LLC and Modelo Energy, LLC,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-09-0864-CVA

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

We have granted three previous extensions of time to file appellees’ brief in this appeal. 

On January 31, 2018, appellees filed an unopposed motion to abate this appeal and to extend the 

time to file their brief. In the motion, appellees explain that they are seeking an abatement and 

extension to allow the parties additional time to obtain approval of a settlement agreement from

the probate court. 

Appellees’ motion to abate this appeal and extend the time to file their brief is 

GRANTED, and this appeal is ABATED. However, the parties are ORDERED to advise this 

Court, in writing, of the status of the probate court’s review of the settlement agreement

on or before March 16, 2018.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of February, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	USS Freedom Completes Trilateral Exercise With El Salvador, Guatemala
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4619" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/DOD2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/7/Images/SOUTHCOM_logo_thumb.jpg?ver=SIvIeRRofyrg5ZHPpvvh6Q%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">USS Freedom Completes Trilateral Exercise With El Salvador, Guatemala</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div> <span class="date">/ Published Jan. 22, 2021</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p>(EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN) The Freedom-class littoral combat ship USS Freedom (LCS 1) executed a passing exercise (PASSEX) with its naval counterparts from El Salvador and Guatemala, Jan. 21. </p>

<p>PASSEXs are a series of advanced close proximity maneuvering exercises designed to improve interoperability and advance the partner nation’s ability to communicate, navigate and operate together at sea.</p>

<p>"This tri-lateral PASSEX, strengthens our tactical readiness and practices operational command and control while signaling strategic commitments to our partners throughout the region," said Cmdr. Larry Repass, commanding officer of Freedom.</p>

<p>Throughout the exercise the forces were able to practice tactics in realistic training scenarios and develop greater trust, understanding and respect for each other’s capabilities.</p>

<p>Freedom is deployed to the U.S. 4th Fleet area of operations to support Joint Interagency Task Force South’s mission, which includes counter illicit drug trafficking in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.</p>

<p>U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command/U.S. 4th Fleet supports U.S. Southern Command’s joint and combined military operations by employing maritime forces in cooperative maritime security operations to maintain access, enhance interoperability, and build enduring partnerships in order to enhance regional security and promote peace, stability and prosperity in the Caribbean, Central and South American region.</p>

<p>For more information on USS Freedom visit: https://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lcs1/Pages/default.aspx</p>
<br />
</div>

    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

**FORM 10-Q**

 

(Mark One)
| ( | **QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934** |
|---|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006

**OR**
| o | **TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934** |
|---|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

For the transition period from _______ to _______

 

Commission file number 333-1173

 

 
| **GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY**    |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
| (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) |

 
| **COLORADO**                                                   |   | **84-0467907**                          |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |   | (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number) |

 
| **8515 EAST ORCHARD ROAD, GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111**   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| (Address of principal executive offices)                  |
|                                                      |
| **(303) 737-3000**                                        |
| (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) |

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
| Yes [X ] | No o |
|----------|------|

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act.
| Large accelerated filer o | Accelerated filer o | Non-accelerated filer x |
|---------------------------|---------------------|-------------------------|

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act.
| Yes o | No [X ] |
|-------|---------|

 

 

As of May 1, 2006, 7,032,000 shares of the registrant’s common stock were outstanding, all of which were owned by the registrant’s parent company.

 

 
| NOTE: | This Form 10-Q is filed by the registrant only as a consequence of the sale by the registrant of a market value adjusted annuity product. |
|-------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

1

 

----
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 

MARCH 2024 

Board of Regents

Secretary

Chief of Staff

General Counsel

Office of the Regents

Inspector General

Assistant Secretary

Communications and 

External Affairs

and

Chief Marketing Officer

Assistant Secretary

Advancement

Director, Equal Emp. 

& Supplier Diversity

Contracting & Pers. Prop. Mgmt.

Facilities Management

Finance & Accounting

Human Resources

Information Technology

Investments

Planning, Design, & Construction

Planning, Mgmt. & Budget

Protection Services

Safety, Health, & Env. Mgmt.

Sponsored Projects

Deputy Secretary

and

Chief Operating Officer

Under Secretary

for

Finance and

Administration/Chief

Financial Officer

Anacostia Community Museum

Archives of American Art

Arts and Industries Building

Asian Pacific American Center

Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage

Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum

Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden

National Museum of African American History and Culture

National Museum of African Art

National Museum of American History

National Museum of Asian Art

National Museum of the American Indian

National Museum of the American Latino

National Portrait Gallery

National Postal Museum

Smithsonian American Art Museum

Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum

Smithsonian Exhibits

Museum Conservation Institute

National Air and Space Museum

National Museum of Natural History

National Zoological Park/Smithsonian 

Conservation Biology Institute

Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

Smithsonian Environmental Research 

Center

Smithsonian Libraries and Archives

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute

Educational Technology

Smithsonian Associates

Smithsonian Traveling Exhibition 

Service and Smithsonian Affiliations

Smithsonian Science Education 

Center

Under Secretary 

for 

Education

Under Secretary 

for

Museums and Culture

Under Secretary

for

Science and Research

President

Smithsonian Enterprises

Head of Digital

Transformation Head of Diversity
ContiMortgage
                            500 Enterprise Road
                             Horsham, Pa. 19044
                               (215) 957-3700




                                  March 24, 1997




ContiSecurities Asset Funding Corporation
277 Park Avenue
New York, NY  10172


RE:  CMC Home Equity Loan Trust 1996-1


Dear Sirs:

In  accordance  with  Section 8.16 of the Pooling and  Servicing  Agreement,
ContiMortgage  Corporation,  as Servicer,  confirms  that as of December 31,
1996:

      (i)  we  have  completed  a  review  of  the  activities  of the
           Servicer  during the year ended  December 31, 1996,  and of
           performance  under the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement has
           been made under my supervision;

      (ii) to the  best of my  knowledge,  based on such  review,  the
           Servicer  has  fulfilled  all  its  obligations  under  the
           Pooling  and   Servicing   Agreement  for  the  year  ended
           December 31, 1996.


                                  Sincerely yours,



                                  /s/ Margaret M. Curry               
                                  Margaret M. Curry
                                  Sr. Vice President - Servicing
#### Mary E. Miller v. Gordon D. Miller and Others.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
ACTIONS OF THE JULY 14, 2021, SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021, the Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents convened in 

executive session to consider a proposed $200 million gift and the naming of a facility. 

Chancellor John G. Roberts, Jr., presided over the special meeting, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 44-

45, and called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. Also participating were Regents: Senator 

Patrick J. Leahy; Senator Catherine Cortez Masto; Representative Doris Matsui; Representative 

Lucille Roybal-Allard; Ambassador Barbara M. Barrett; Mr. Steve Case, Chair; Mr. John Fahey; 

Mr. Roger W. Ferguson, Jr.; Mr. Michael Govan; Mr. Michael Lynton; Ms. Denise M. O’Leary; 

Mr. Franklin D. Raines; and Mr. Dennis Keller, Smithsonian National Board Chair. Vice President 

Kamala D. Harris, Senator John Boozman, Representative Adrian Smith, and Dr. Risa J. LavizzoMourey were unable to participate. 

The Board also approved the following motion:

VOTED that the Board of Regents recognizes the generosity of Mr. Jeffrey P. Bezos to the 

National Air and Space Museum and accepts the gift and names the Bezos Learning Center for 

50 years from date the facility opens to the public, or until the next major renovation, 

whichever is later. [2021.07.01]
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00190

- CR

SEAN RODRIGUEZ OSBORN

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 216th District Court of Kerr County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. A1921

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this c ause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
October 28, 2021
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2123 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:08:23 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2123 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:08:23 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2123 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:08:23 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2123 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:08:23 Page 4 of

4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 22-1803C

(Filed: January 23, 2023)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

***************************************

JULIA CARLIN, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

***************************************

ORDER 

Ms. Julia Carlin, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against the United 

States of America. To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either 

pay $402.00 in fees—a $350.00 filing fee plus a $52.00 administrative fee—or request 

authorization to proceed without prepayment of fees by submitting a signed 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. 

Ms. Carlin submitted her complaint without the filing fees or a completed IFP 

application. In an order dated December 14, 2022, this Court ordered Ms. Carlin to 

either pay the $402.00 in required fees or submit an IFP application within thirty 

days. See Order (ECF 6). To date, Ms. Carlin has failed to comply with this Court’s 

previous order. 

This Court may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute when the plaintiff “fails 

... to comply with these rules or a court order.” RCFC 41(b). Here, Plaintiff’s failure 

to comply with an order directing her to pay the filing fee or establish grounds for 

proceeding in forma pauperis justifies dismissal. See, e.g., Bryant v. United States, 

618 F. App’x 683, 686 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“If a party fails to pay the requisite filing fee, 

despite adequate notice and ample opportunity to do so, the Claims Court acts within 

its discretion when it dismisses the action.”). As a result, this action is dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41 of the Rules of the United 

States Court of Federal Claims. 
- 2 -

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Stephen S. Schwartz

STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ

Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4722 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4722

   To clarify that for purposes of all Federal laws governing marine 
 fisheries management, the landward boundary of the exclusive economic 
zone between areas south of Montauk, New York, and Point Judith, Rhode 
                    Island, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2014

    Mr. Bishop of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To clarify that for purposes of all Federal laws governing marine 
 fisheries management, the landward boundary of the exclusive economic 
zone between areas south of Montauk, New York, and Point Judith, Rhode 
                    Island, and for other purposes.

    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 ``EEZ Clarification Act''.

SEC. 2. LANDWARD BOUNDARY OF EEZ NEAR BLOCK ISLAND FOR PURPOSES OF 
              FEDERAL MARINE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT.

    For purposes of all Federal laws governing marine fisheries 
management--
            (1) the landward boundary of the exclusive economic zone 
        between the area south of Montauk, New York, and the area south 
        of Point Judith, Rhode Island, shall be considered to be a 
        continuous line running--
                    (A) from a point 3 miles south of the southernmost 
                point of Montauk to a point 3 miles south of the 
                southernmost point of Block Island, Rhode Island, and
                    (B) from such point 3 miles south of the 
                southernmost point of Block Island, Rhode Island, to a 
                point 3 miles south of the southern most point of Point 
                Judith; and
            (2) the authority to manage such fisheries in waters 
        landward of such line is vested in States and interstate marine 
        fisheries management commissions, as applicable, that otherwise 
        have jurisdiction over such waters.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON IMPACT OF MODIFYING LANDWARD BOUNDARY OF EEZ FOR ALL 
              FEDERAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT.

    Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Commerce shall report to the Congress on the impact of 
section 2.
                                 <all>
```
#### Richard A. Springs and Others v. Hanover National Bank.

Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs. See memorandum per curiam.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4898 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to provide hospital care and medical services in non-Department 

facilities for veterans waiting longer than 14 days for an appointment 

in a Department facility, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2014 

Ms. SINEMA (for herself and Mr. SALMON) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide hospital care and 

medical services in non-Department facilities for veterans 

waiting longer than 14 days for an appointment in a 

Department facility, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Access to Veteran-Cen5 tered Community Care Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4898 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PROVISION 

2 OF HOSPITAL CARE AND MEDICAL SERVICES 

3 IN NON-DEPARTMENT FACILITIES FOR VET4 ERANS WAITING 14 DAYS OR LONGER FOR AN 

5 APPOINTMENT. 

6 Section 1703 of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following new sub8 section: 

9 ‘‘(e)(1) In carrying out this section, the Secretary of 

10 Veterans Affairs shall determine that if any veteran has 

11 been waiting for 14 days or longer for an appointment 

12 to receive hospital care or medical services, including pri13 mary care, in a Department facility that the Department 

14 facility is not capable of furnishing the care or services 

15 required. The Secretary shall ensure that such care or 

16 services are provided to such a veteran at a non-Depart17 ment facility under a contract under this section. 

18 ‘‘(2) If, in the course of receiving hospital care or 

19 medical services in a non-Department facility, a veteran 

20 is referred to another non-Department facility for spe21 cialty care, such referral shall be submitted to the Sec22 retary who may reject such referral during the 72-hour 

23 period following such submittal. If the Secretary does not 

24 reject the referral during such period, the Secretary shall 

25 ensure that such specialty care is provided to the veteran 


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4898 IH

1 at a non-Department facility under a contract under this 

2 section.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
May 31 , 2012



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JUAN MIRANDA

- CANALES , Appellant

NO. 14

- 10

- 01253

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED , and that this decision be certified below for

observa nce.