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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 96-20219

_______________________

BETTER ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, INC.,

Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellant,

versus

QUANTUM CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Et Al,

Defendants,

QUANTUM CHEMICAL CORPORATION,

Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-94-1121)

_________________________________________________________________

April 10, 1997

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This court has considered appellant’s position in light

of the fine arguments of counsel, briefs, and pertinent portions of

the record. Having done so, we conclude, as did the district

court, that there was no meeting of the minds by the parties on the
2

sale price of the ASP sufficient to form a contract. The issue was

appropriately treated as one of law because the parties’

negotiations occurred in writing. Gilbert v. Pettiette, 838 S.W.2d

890, 893 (Tex. App. -- Hou. [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ). Better’s

“acquiescence” in a sale price of $850,000 lasted less than two

weeks until Better itself sought to change the price allegedly

based on omission of certain equipment from the sale. After that

point, the parties’ negotiations failed to produce an agreed sales

price, much less a signed contract with the required 50% down

payment.

The district court also correctly rejected Better’s DTPA,

negligent misrepresentation and fraud claims. The DTPA claims boil

down to allegations of breach of contract, which are not actionable

under the DTPA. Crawford v. Ace Sign, 917 S.W.2d 12 (Tex. 1996).

We are unpersuaded that Better produced evidence of fraudulent or

negligent misrepresentations by Quantum of the exact equipment

available or of Quantum’s intent to sell to Better.

The trial court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law is

therefore AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7163]



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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 2181]


United States International Telecommunications Advisory Committee 
Radiocommunication Sector Joint Ad Hoc Working Party 7B and 9D; Meeting 
Notice

    The Department of State announces that the United States 
International Telecommunications Advisory Committee (ITAC), 
Radiocommunication Sector Joint Ad Hoc Working Party 7B and 9D will 
meet on 13 April 1995 at 1:30 to 4:30 p.m., in the conference room at 
the facilities of Stanford Telecom, Inc., 7501 Forbes Blvd., Suite 105, 
Seabrook, MD.
    Joint Ad Hoc Working Party 7B and 9D has been established to 
develop recommendations that lead to a stable, long term sharing 
environment for the fixed service and the space research, space 
operation and Earth exploration-satellite services in the 2025-2110 MHz 
and 2200-2290 MHz bands; and also to develop a recommendation on the 
e.i.r.p. spectral density of fixed service emissions in the 25.25-27.5 
GHz band that are directed towards the geostationary orbit.
    This April Meeting will review the results of the Joint Ad Hoc WP 
7B and 9D meeting, 3-4 November 1994 and begin preparations for the 21-
24 July international meeting.
    Members of the General Public may attend the meetings and join in 
the discussions, subject to the instructions of the Chairman, John E. 
Miller. Those persons who wish to attend, please call (301) 464-8900 or 
fax (301) 262-2642 and leave your name, address, phone and fax numbers.

    Dated: March 13, 1995.
Warren G. Richards,
Chairman, U.S. ITAC for ITU-Radiocommunication Sector.
[FR Doc. 95-7163 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-45-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-718]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service
[T.D. 95-7]


Customs Approval of International Marine Consultant, Inc., as a 
Commercial Gauger

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of approval of International Marine Consultants, Inc., 
Houston, Texas facility as a commercial gauger.

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

SUMMARY: International Marine Consultants, Inc., of Mineola, New York 
has recently applied to U.S. Customs for approval to gauge imported 
petroleum, petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable and 
animal oils under Part 151.13 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 
151.13) in their Houston, Texas facility. Customs has determined that 
the Houston, Texas office meets all of the requirements for approval as 
a commercial gauger.
    Therefore, in accordance with Part 151.13(f) of the Customs 
Regulations, International Marine Consultants, Inc., Houston, Texas 
facility is approved to gauge the products named above in all Customs 
districts.

Location

    International Marine Consultants' approved site is located at 3506 
Audubon Place, Houston, Texas 77006.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December, 28, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ira S. Reese, Chief, Technical Branch, 
Office of Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs Service, 
1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20229 at (202) 927-1060.

    Dated: January 4, 1995.
A.W. Tennant,
Director Office of Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 95-718 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Horizon Group Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary J. Skoien, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the bestof my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| Dated:    November 14, 2003 |   | /s/ Gary J.  Skoien      |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                                       |   | Gary J. Skoien           |
|                                       |   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

1

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003(the “Form 10-QSB”) of Cardinal Financial Corporation (the “Company”), I, BernardH. Clineburg, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(a)           the Form 10-QSB fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(b)           the information contained in the Form10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financialcondition and results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of,and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.

 

 
| Date:     August 13, 2003 | By:                                               | /s/   Bernard H. Clineburg |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------|
|                                          | Bernard H.  Clineburg                             |
|                                          | Chairman,  President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Emmett F. DUNN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 42001.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 19, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 30, 1990.

Larry C. Pace, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., M. Melissa Manda, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before MANFORD, P.J., and SHANGLER and CLARK, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentia-ry hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4900 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of 

higher education participating in Federal student assistance programs 

from giving preferential treatment in the admissions process to legacy 

students or donors. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2023 

Mr. BOWMAN (for himself, Ms. BUSH, Mr. CARTER of Louisiana, Mr. CASAR, 

Ms. CHU, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. CLEAVER, Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. EVANS, Mr. FROST, Mr. GARCI ́A of Illinois, 

Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. NORTON, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, 

Ms. JACKSON LEE, Ms. JACOBS, Ms. JAYAPAL, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, 

Mr. KHANNA, Mr. KIM of New Jersey, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. LEE

of Pennsylvania, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. MENG, Mr. MFUME, Mr. NADLER, 

Mr. NORCROSS, Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ, Mr. POCAN, Ms. PRESSLEY, Ms. 

SA ́NCHEZ, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. TAKANO, Ms. TLAIB, Ms. 

TOKUDA, Mr. TORRES of New York, and Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit 

institutions of higher education participating in Federal 

student assistance programs from giving preferential 

treatment in the admissions process to legacy students 

or donors. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4900 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair College Admis3 sions for Students Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. BAN ON LEGACY OR DONOR PREFERENCES IN AD5 MISSIONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 487(a) of the Higher 

7 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended 

8 by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(30) The institution will not provide any man10 ner of preferential treatment in the admission proc11 ess to applicants on the basis of their relationships 

12 to— 

13 ‘‘(A) donors to the institution; or 

14 ‘‘(B) alumni of the institution.’’. 

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

16 subsection (a) shall take effect on the first day of the sec17 ond award year (as defined in section 481(a) of the Higher 

18 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1088(a)) that begins 

19 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 14762 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:05

- cr - 00044

- SCB

- JSS

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus TONY L. FORD, a.k.a. BoBo, a.k.a. Bo, a.k.a. Big Head,
Defendant

- Appellant, DAVID GEE, Sheriff of Hillsborough County,
Movant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

______________________ __ (February 14, 2017) Case: 15-14762 Date Filed: 02/14/2017 Page: 1 of 32 Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM , and EDMONDSON , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tony Ford, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his
pro se motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). Ford also appeals the dist rict court’s denial of his two motions for reconsideration of the denial of Rule 60(d)(3) relief. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm. We review for abuse of discretion both the denial of a Rule 60(d)(3) motion and the denial of a motion for re consideration. Cox Nuclear Pharm., Inc. v. CTI,
Inc ., 478 F.3d 1303, 1314 (11th Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(d)(3)); Arthur v. King , 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (motion for reconsideration). After a jury trial, Ford was convicted of multiple drug

- traff icking offenses ; he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Ford’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Ford later filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied as untimely. Ford then sought

-- via a Rule 60(d)(3) mo tion

-- to have his criminal judgment set aside based on alleged fraud on the court. Because Rule 60 applies only to civil cases, however, Ford may not use a Rule 60 motion to challenge his criminal conviction or sentence. See United States v. Fair , 326 F.3d 1317, 1318

Case: 15-14762 Date Filed: 02/14/2017 Page: 2 of 33 (11th Cir. 2003); see also Felker v. Turpin , 101 F.3d 657, 661 (11th Cir. 1996) (“Rule 60(b) cannot be used to circumvent restraints on successive habeas petitions.”). The district court abused no discretion in denying Ford’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion. In his motions for reconsideration, Ford reargued the merits of his Rule 60(d)(3) motion, presented evidence that could have been raised before entry of judgment, and demonstrated no manifest error of law or fact. Given this situation , the dis trict court denied properly Ford’s motions. See Arthur , 500 F.3d at 1343 (“The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly

- discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” (alteration omitted)).
AFFIRMED. Case: 15-14762 Date Filed: 02/14/2017 Page: 3 of 3
Exhibit 10.4   Execution Copy
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 THIS
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Agreement  A-MARK PRECIOUS METALS, INC., Company THOR
C. GJERDRUM, Mr. Gjerdrum
 Existing
Agreement
  NOW, THEREFORE, Company and Mr. Gjerdrum hereby agree as follows:
 Employment;
Term Initial Term Term
 Duties
   Compensation Base Salary




---



##### 



Signing Payment th Vesting Date Percentage Compensation
   Stock
Appreciation Rights Exhibit A
 Benefits




---



##### 



Termination
  Totally Disabled
 Cause
   nolo contendere




---



##### 



6(c)(5)
   Compensation
Following Termination Prior to the End of the Term




---



##### 



Proprietary Information.




---



##### 



proprietary information







---



##### 



Surrender of Records
 Intellectual Property
 Confidentiality
 Enforcement
 Notices




---



##### 



With a copy to
 
 and with a copy to
 
 If
to MR. GJERDRUM, to
 THOR GJERDRUMWith a copy to:Attention:




---



##### 



Assignability; Binding Effect
 Complete Understanding
 Amendments; Waivers
 Severability
 Survivability
 Governing Law
 Binding
Arbitration




---



##### 



[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]




---



##### 



Company
A-MARK PRECIOUS METALS, INC.
A New York CorporationBy:
    /s/ Greg RobertName:
    GREG ROBERTTitle:
    CEOMr. Gjerdrum/s/ Thor Gjerdrum

THOR GJERDRUM, individually
Exhibit 4.1




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.1






TEN COM
    
    as tenants in common
    UNIF GIFT MIN ACT- CustodianTEN ENT
    
    as tenants by the entireties
    
    
    (Cust)
    
    
    
    (Minor)JT TEN
    
    as joint tenants with right
    
    
    under Uniform Gifts to Minorsof survivorship and not as tenants
    
    
    Actin common
    
    
    
    
    (State)UNIF TRF MIN ACT- Custodian (until age     )under Uniform Transfers(Minor)to Minors Act(State)







PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER 
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE




















NOTICE:
    
    THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME
AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY
PARTICULAR. WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE
WHATEVER.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                      CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS (MASSACHUSETTS), INC.
                   STATEMENTS REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                           (in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                               Years Ended December 31,
                                                                       -----------------------------------
                                                                            1996          1995        1994
                                                                       -----------------------------------
<S>                                                                    <C>         <C>           <C>
Net income                                                             $   21,100    $   13,348  $    7,922
                                                                       ==========    ==========  ==========
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                       47,118        45,055      43,879
Dilutive effect of common equivalent shares of stock options
   and warrants                                                             7,519         6,807       4,248
                                                                       ----------    ----------  ----------
Weighted average number of common and common equivalent
   shares outstanding                                                      54,637        51,862      48,127
                                                                       ==========    ==========  ==========
   Net income per share (1)                                            $      .39    $      .25  $      .16
                                                                       ==========    ==========  ==========

</TABLE>

-----------------------
(1) Primary and Fully-diluted income per share are the same for all periods
    presented.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-4640

ECM Industries LLC:

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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BETTY TOLBERT and GARY TOLBERT
, Appellant s ,

v.

PEOPLES TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 2285

[ July 13, 2022 ]

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Carlos A. Rodriguez , Judge; L.T. Case

No. CACE20

- 7236

.

Samuel Alexander of Alexander Appellate Law, P.A., Deland, for appellants.

Patrick M. Chidnese and Frieda C. Lindroth of B ickford & Chidnese, LLP, Tampa, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. People's Trust Insurance Company v. Chen , 333 So. 3d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

G ROSS

, M AY
, and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5034 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2119 Market Square in Christiansted, St. 

Croix, United States Virgin Islands, as the ‘‘Lieutenant 

General Samuel E. Ebbesen Post Office’’. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5034 RFS

1 SECTION 1. LIEUTENANT GENERAL SAMUEL E. EBBESEN 

2 POST OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 2119 Market Square in Chris5 tiansted, St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands, shall be 

6 known and designated as the ‘‘Lieutenant General Samuel 

7 E. Ebbesen Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lieutenant General 

12 Samuel E. Ebbesen Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB