alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.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. 95-60438

TWILA J. VASSAR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Mississippi

(4:93CV97-B-O)

February 14, 1996

Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM * :

Plaintiff-Appellant Twila J. Vassar appeals the district

court's grant of summary judgment in favor of D efendant-Appellee

Baxter Healthcare Corp. (Baxter) based on a determination that,

inter alia

, Vassar had no employment contract with Baxter, and thus

she was an at-will employee. We have reviewed de novo the facts of

this case in light of the legal arguments proffered in the briefs2

by able counsel for the parties. Additionally, we have considered

the exhaustive study of Missi ssippi's at-will employment law set

forth in the district court's opinion to gether with its wellreasoned legal analysis and conclusions, and are satisfied from our

review that the district court's grant of summa ry judgment

dismissing Vassar's action should be, and therefore, in every

respect, is

AFFIRMED.
#### Linda Balfour, Respondent, v Skyline Car Service of Manhattan, Inc., Appellant, and Wilfredo Albay et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1 [a].) Beneita A. Whitaker et al., Respondents, v Tempo Taxi Company, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Skyline Credit Ride, Inc., Appellant. (Action No. 1 [b].) Barry Rohrssen, Respondent, v Emir Medina et al., Respondents, and Skyline Car Service of Manhattan, Inc., Appellant. (Action No. 2.) Marion B. Polsky, as Administratrix of the Estate of Ruth Polsky, Deceased, Respondent, v Skyline Car Service of Manhattan, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Wilfredo Albay et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered November 9, 1989, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs Linda Balfour, Valerie Bickford, Beneita Whitaker, Barry Rohrssen and decedent Ruth Polsky suffered varying degrees of injury when on September 7, 1986 two motor vehicles collided at the intersection of Sixth Avenue and Twenty-First Street in New York County causing one of the vehicles to mount a sidewalk. One vehicle was a taxicab owned by defendant Tempo Taxi Company, Inc. and operated by defendant Emir Medina. The second vehicle was a radio livery car jointly owned by defendants Tuan-Anh Nguyen and *401Wilfredo Albay, and driven by Nguyen. This vehicle obtained passengers exclusively through a radio dispatch service operated by defendants Skyline Credit Ride, Inc. (Skyline).

In these consolidated actions Skyline moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaints and all cross claims against it on the grounds that it could not be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of Nguyen. Skyline maintained that it is a not-for-profit membership corporation composed of independent owner-operators of radio-car service vehicles and that it exercised little if any control over its members.

Summary judgment was properly denied. Triable issues of fact were raised as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship between Skyline, Nguyen and Albay. It is for the trier of fact to determine whether the nature and extent of Skyline’s control over its member operators created an employer-employee relationship. *(Matter of Westchester Express v State Ins. Fund,*151 AD2d 357 [1st Dept 1989]; *see also, Matter of Wittenstein v Fugazy Cont. Corp.,*59 AD2d 249 [3d Dept 1977], *Iv denied*43 NY2d 648 [1978]; *Matter of Ziegler v Fillmore Car Serv.,*83 AD2d 692 [3d Dept 1981], *Iv denied*54 NY2d 609 [1981].) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5616]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Docket No. AB-12 (Sub-No. 166X)]


Southern Pacific Transportation Company--Abandonment Exemption--
in Fort Bend and Wharton Counties, TX

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10505, exempts Southern 
Pacific Transportation Company (SPT) from the prior approval 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903-10904 to permit SPT to abandon two 
connecting branch lines, the Wharton Segment and the Palacios Segment, 
that meet in a ``Y'' shape at Wharton Jct., TX, and extend a total of 
36.8 miles, in Fort Bend and Wharton Counties, TX. The exemption will 
be subject to standard employee protective conditions, environmental 
conditions, an historic condition, and a 90-day public use condition.

DATES: Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of 
financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be 
effective on April 7, 1995. Formal expressions of intent to file an OFA 
under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)<SUP>1 must be filed by March 17, 1995, 
petitions to stay must be filed by March 23, 1995, requests for a 
public use condition conforming to 49 CFR 1152.28(a)(2) must be filed 
by March 28, 1995, and petitions to reopen must be filed by April 3, 
1995.

    \1\See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment--Offers of Finan. Assist, 4 
I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings, referring to Docket No. AB-12 (Sub-No. 166X) 
to: (1) Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, Interstate 
Commerce Commission, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 
20423; and (2) Petitioner's representatives: John MacDonald Smith and 
Gary Laasko, Suite 800, Southern Pacific Building, One Market Plaza, 
San Francisco, CA 94105; and Karl Morell and Louis E. Gitomer, Suite 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1035, 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 927-5610. [TDD for 
the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Commission's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write 
to, call, or pick up in person from: Dynamic Concepts, Inc., Room 2229, 
Interstate Commerce Commission Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, D.C. 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-4357/4359. [Assistance for 
the hearing impaired is available through TDD services at (202) 927-
5721.]

    Decided: February 22, 1995.

    By the Commission, Chairman McDonald, Vice Chairman Morgan, and 
Commissioners Simmons and Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5616 Filed 3-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40399 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VICTOR MANUEL FLORES-ZAMUDIO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-2111-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Victor Manuel Flores-Zamudio appeals from his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Flores-Zamudio argues for the first time on appeal that his Texas state conviction for burglary of a habitation did not constitute a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). He correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Garcia-Mendez , 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1398No. 05-40399 -2- (2006), but he raises the argument to preserve it for further review. He also argues that Garcia-Mendez was incorrectly decided. We do not disturb our holding in Garcia-Mendez
. See United States v. Taylor , 933 F.2d 307, 313 (5th Cir. 1991) (one panel of this court may not overrule another panel). Flores-Zamudio also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Flores-Zamudio contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding.
See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Flores-Zamudio properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6927]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5175-5]


Common Sense Initiative Council, Computers and Electronics Sector 
Subcommittee; Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Common Sense Initiative Council, Computer and Electronics 
Sector Subcommittee, notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency established the Common 
Sense Initiative Council (CSIC) on October 17, 1994, to provide 
independent advice and counsel to EPA on environmental issues 
associated with the electronics and computer industry and other 
industrial sectors. The charter was authorized through October 17, 
1996, under regulations established by the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (FACA). The Computer and Electronics Subcommittee (CSIC-CES) 
operates as a subcommittee of the CSIC.

OPEN MEETING NOTICE: Notice is hereby given that the CSIC-CES 
Subcommittee will hold an open meeting on Wednesday, April 12, from 
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Thursday, April 13, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 
p.m., at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City, Regency Ballroom, 2799 
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. Seating will be available 
on a first-come, first-serve basis.
    The meeting will include review and discussion of subcommittee 
operating principles, discussion of subcommittee information needs, 
review and approval of proposed workplan items, formation of workgroups 
for accepted workplan items, and presentations on ongoing related 
Agency activities. Opportunity for public comment on major issues under 
discussion will be provided at intervals throughout the meeting.

INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS: Documents relating to the above 
noted topics will be publicly available at the meeting. Thereafter, 
these documents, together with the CSIC-CES meeting minutes, will be 
available for public inspection in room 2417M of EPA Headquarters, 401 
M Street SW., Washington, DC, phone (202) 260-7417.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning this meeting of the CSIC-
CES, please contact Gina Bushong, US EPA (202) 260-3797, FAX (202) 260-
1096, or by mail at US EPA (7405), 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 
20460; Mark Mahoney, Region 1, US EPA, (617) 565-1155; or Dave Jones, 
Region 9, U.S. EPA, (415) 744-2266.

    Dated: March 15, 1995.
Gina Bushong,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-6927 Filed 3-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. T.C. Memo. 1996-140

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

OLIN E. GIBSON AND ZORA M. GIBSON, Petitioners v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 17826-94. Filed March 20, 1996. Olin E. Gibson, pro se. John W. Duncan , for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION DEAN, Special Trial Judge : This case was assigned pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and 182. 1 Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' 1991 Federal income tax in the amount of $2,502.- 2 -

The sole issue for decision is whether benefits received from the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (USRRB) during the year at issue constitute gross income to petitioners. Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time the petition in this case was filed, petitioners resided in Washington, Illinois. References to petitioner are to Olin Gibson. Petitioner was employed as a railroad worker until his retirement on June 16, 1989. For the taxable year 1991, petitioner and his wife received $13,384 of "Total Gross Taxable" benefits from the USRRB. Although these amounts were identified as "Social security benefits" on line 21a of petitioners' 1991 Federal income tax return, Form 1040, they were not entered as taxable amounts on the adjacent line 21b. Respondent determined in the notice of deficiency that this omission was not proper. Petitioners argue that benefits received from the USRRB are not taxable. This, however, is simply not the case. Since 1983, railroad retirees have been taxed on two categories of benefits. "Tier 1 benefits", which are treated in the same manner as Social Security benefits, are taxed under the provisions of section 86. "Tier 2 benefits", which are in the nature of pension benefits, are taxed under the provisions of section 72(r). See Ernzen v. United States , 875 F.2d 228 (9th Cir. 1989); Wallers v. United- 3 -

2 Respondent has acknowledged that tier 1 and tier 2 benefits receive different tax treatment under the provisions of secs. 86 and 72(r). This difference was not reflected in the notice of deficiency and necessitates a Rule 155 computation in this matter. States , 847 F.2d 1279 (7th Cir. 1988); Bradley v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 1991-578. Based on the sparse record in this case, we find that petitioners received tier 1 and tier 2 benefits during 1991 in the respective amounts of $4,122 and $9,262 which they failed to report as taxable income on their Federal income tax return. Respondent's determination of deficiency is sustained. 2 Decision will be entered under Rule 155
.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                          GLOBAL ELECTION SYSTEMS INC.
                         Computation of Per-Share Income
                              Treasury Stock Method

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Period Ended         Period Ended 
                                                December 31, 1998    December 31, 1997  
                                                                                         
                                                   Six Months           Six Months      
                                                                                         
<S>                                              <C>                   <C>               
Weighted average number of share outstanding       18,483,264           15,519,577       
                                                                                         
Total common and common equivalent shares          20,123,699           16,864,440       
                                                                                         
Net Income (Loss) for the period                 $   (954,353)        $  1,555.878       
                                                                                         
Weighted average number of share outstanding       18,482,440           15,519,577       
                                                                                         
Earnings per share - basic                       $      (0.05)        $       0.10       
                                                                                         
Net Income (Loss) for the period                 $   (954,353)        $  1,555,878       
                                                                                         
Total common and common equivalent shares          20,124,107           17,969,577       
                                                                                         
Earnings per share - fully diluted               $        N/A         $       0.09       
                                                                                         
Earnings per share:                                                   
</TABLE>

Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing the net income for the period
by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period.

Fully diluted earnings per share is computed by dividing the net income for the
period by the common and common equivalent shares outstanding for the period.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BlackRock, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Laurence D. Fink, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven E. Buller, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Laurence D. Fink
|Name:                |  | Laurence D. Fink       
|Title:               |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                |  | November 4, 2005       
|                    
|/s/ Steven E. Buller
|Name:                |  | Steven E. Buller       
|Title:               |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                |  | November 4, 2005
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statement  on Form  S-8 (No.  333-60114)  relating  to the 2000  Stock
Option and Incentive Plan of Shoe Carnival, Inc., and the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.  33-74050 and 333-44047)  relating to the
1993 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of Shoe  Carnival,  Inc., and the
Registration  Statement  on Form S-8 (No.  33-80979)  relating  to the
Employee  Stock  Purchase  Plan  of  Shoe  Carnival,   Inc.,  and  the
Registration  Statement  on Form S-8 (No.  333-82819)  relating to the
Outside  Directors  Stock  Option Plan of Shoe  Carnival,  Inc. of our
report dated March 7, 2003 (March 12, 2003 as to Note 5), appearing in
this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K  of  Shoe   Carnival,   Inc.  and
subsidiaries for the year ended February 1, 2003.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

San Francisco, California
May 1, 2003
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20609

Conference Calendar

 

LAWRENCE HIGGINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TROY BENNETT, JR., Clerk, Court of Criminal Appeals,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CV-2497

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lawrence Higgins, Texas prisoner # 1060189, proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), appeals the dismissal pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) of his civil rights complaint

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. Higgins argues that Troy

Bennett, Jr., Clerk of Court for the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals, deprived him of his constitutional right of access to

the federal courts by failing to notify him in a timely manner
No. 04-20609

-2-

that the state court had dismissed his state habeas application,

thereby delaying the filing of his federal habeas petition.

Higgins has not established that he was unable to proceed in

a court case or that his federal habeas petition has been

dismissed or is likely to be dismissed as untimely because of the

clerk of court’s allegedly late notice. Higgins thus has not

established prejudice or an actual injury from the clerk’s

alleged failure to give timely notice and therefore has not

established that he has standing to bring his claim or that his

right of access to the courts has been violated. See Lewis v.

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51 (1996).

Consequently, the district court’s dismissal of Higgins’s

complaint is AFFIRMED. Higgins’s motion to supplement the record

on appeal is DENIED.

The district court’s dismissal of Higgins’s lawsuit

constitutes one strike for purposes of the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

bar. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). 

We caution Higgins that once he accumulates three strikes, he may

not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). 

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; MOTION DENIED.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4194

Tianhai Electric North America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel