alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7001]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 031095D]


Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Receipt of application for a public display permit (P585).

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Mr. Emil Popescu, 1829 La Vante 
Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89109, has applied in due form for a public 
display permit.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for 
review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910, (301/713-2289); and

    Director, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 
4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 (310/980-4015).

    Written data or views, or requests for a public hearing on this 
application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits Division, F/PR1, 
Office of Protected Resources, 1335 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 
MD 20910, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Those 
individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons 
why a hearing on this particular application would be appropriate.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register, copies of this application are being forwarded to the Marine 
Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested to import 
three captive Patagonian sea lions (Otaria byronia), under the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the 
Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 
CFR part 216).

    The animals are to be held by Mr. Popescu (Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service License No. 88-C-112) at the Bonnie Springs Ranch 
Zoo, Old Nevada, NV 89004 (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
License No. 88-C-013). The Bonnie Springs Ranch Zoo is open to the 
public on a regularly scheduled basis without admission charge. Mr. 
Popescu will offer an educational program that is based on the 
standards of both the American Zoo and Aquarium Association and the 
Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums. The display program for 
the animals will be conducted primarily at the Bonnie Springs Ranch 
Zoo, but a display will also take place in the Riviera Hotel.

    Dated: March 16, 1995.

Art Jeffers,

Acting Chief, Division of Permits & Documentation, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 95-7001 Filed 3-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-10449

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cv-80633-RKA

MARGARET SCHULTZ, 

individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 9, 2021)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Margaret Schultz appeals the summary judgment in favor of American 

Airlines, Inc. Schultz sued American for breach of contract for failing to complete 

USCA11 Case: 20-10449 Date Filed: 08/09/2021 Page: 1 of 2
2

an online transaction for an airline ticket significantly cheaper than the ticket she 

bought. We affirm.

Schultz argues that the district court erred in ruling that the record 

contradicted her story and that no contract existed, but we need not address those 

arguments because we can affirm on the third alternative ground stated by the 

district court. Before we will reverse a “judgment that is based on multiple, 

independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated ground for 

the judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 

F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). If the “appellant fails to challenge properly on 

appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, he is 

deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground . . . .” Id. The district 

court ruled that any contract that American created with Schultz due to a 

malfunction on the airline website would be set aside under the doctrine of 

unilateral mistake. See Deprince v. Starboard Cruise Servs., 271 So. 3d 11, 20 

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018). Because Schultz failed to challenge that alternative 

ruling in her initial brief, “it follows that the [summary judgment in favor of 

American Airlines] is due to be affirmed.” Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-10449 Date Filed: 08/09/2021 Page: 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                          Earnings Per Share Statement

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Primary & Fully Diluted
                                                     -----------------------
<S>                                                        <C>         
Net income                                                 $    40,000 
                                                                       
Preferred dividends                                           (149,000)
                                                           ----------- 
                                                                       
Net (loss) attributable to common                                      
       shareholders                                        $  (109,000)
                                                           =========== 
                                                                       
Weighted average shares outstanding                          2,460,258 
                                                                       
Dilutive effect of common stock                                        
       equivalents                                                 --  
                                                                       
Contingent share issuances                                     412,000 
                                                           ----------- 
                                                                       
Total weighted shares outstanding                            2,872,258 
                                                           =========== 
                                                                       
Earnings (loss) per share                                  $      (.04)
                                                           =========== 
</TABLE>
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2



April 1, 2010




Travelport, LP

Travelport Global Distribution System B.V.

300 Galleria Parkway, N.W.

Atlanta, GA 30339




	 	 	 

	Re:

	 	Seventh Amendment to Subscriber Services Agreement, dated as of July 23, 2007 (“Agreement”)
between Travelport, LP, (f/k/a Travelport International, L.L.C., hereinafter “Travelport”),
Travelport Global Distribution System B.V. (f/k/a Galileo Nederland B.V., hereinafter “TGDS”
and, together with Travelport, collectively, “Galileo”) and Orbitz Worldwide, LLC
(“Subscriber”)






Ladies and Gentlemen:



This letter constitutes a Seventh Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Agreement referenced above.
Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined shall be used as defined in the
Agreement.



Effective as April 1, 2010, (“Amendment Effective Date”), Galileo and Subscriber hereby agree as
follows:



1. Custom Terms and Conditions Revision. The Custom Terms and Conditions Attachment
(Galileo Services) – North America to the Agreement is amended as set forth in Exhibit A.



2. General. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and be
enforceable by the Parties hereto or their successors in interest, except as expressly provided in
the Agreement. Each Party to this Amendment agrees that, other than as expressly set out in this
Amendment, nothing in this Amendment is intended to alter the rights, duties and obligations of the
Parties under the Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect as amended hereby. In the
event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Amendment and the terms and conditions
of the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall govern. This Amendment may be
executed by the Parties in separate counterparts and each counterpart shall be deemed to be an
original, but all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument.







1









 







The Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by the signatures of their respective
authorized representatives.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	Orbitz Worldwide, LLC	 	Travelport, LP
	 	 	 	 	 	 	By: WS Holdings LLC as General Partner
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Signature:

	 	/s/ Stephen C. Praven
	 	 
	 	Signature:
	 	/s/ Travis Christ
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name: Stephen C. Praven
	 	 	 	 	 	Name: Travis Christ	 	 
	 

	 	Title: VP, Business Development
	 	 	 	 	 	Title: President, GDS Americas	 	 
	 

	 	Date: 3/30/10
	 	 	 	 	 	Date: 4/1/10	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Travelport Global Distribution System B.V.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	Signature:
	 	/s/ Marco van Ieperen	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Name: Marco van Ieperen	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Title: Director	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Date: 08-04-2010	 	 







2
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4018

Enerpac:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8246]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army


Army Science Board; Closed Meeting

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee Meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).

    Date of Meeting: 25-27 April 1995.

    Time of Meeting: 0800-1700, 25 & 26 April 1995; 0800-1730, 27 
April 1995.

    Place: Arlington, VA.

    Agenda: The Army Science Board's Logistics and Sustainability 
Subgroup will meet for discussions focused on current doctrine, 
missions, functions, force structures and modules, and technologies 
reference Army Logistical Support to Military Operations Other Than 
War. Briefings will be provided covering logistics perspectives in 
UN policies, NGOs, PVOs, medical logistics, MOOTW and Reserve and 
National Guard elements and lessons learned from Haiti. These 
meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with Section 
552b(c) of Title 5, U.S.C., specifically subparagraph (1) thereof, 
and Title 5, U.S.C., Appendix 2, subsection 10(d). The classified 
and unclassified matters to be discussed are so inextricably 
intertwined so as to preclude opening any portion of these meetings. 
The ASB Administrative Officer, Sally Warner, may be contacted for 
further information at (703) 695-0781.

Sally A. Warner,

Administrative Officer, Army Science Board.

[FR Doc. 95-8246 Filed 4-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                             709
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      981
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    197,451
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               199,141
<PP&E>                                          55,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,781
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 305,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          689,905
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,528
<OTHER-SE>                                    (400,313)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   305,120
<SALES>                                         79,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,383
<CGS>                                           11,459
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (117,018)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (117,018)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (117,018)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)



</TABLE>
#### Margaret A. R. Foley, as Executrix of Dermot G. Foley, Deceased, Respondent, v Leo Kaplan et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about September 27, 1989, which denied defendants’ CPLR 3211 (a) (5); (c) motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Order of said court and Justice, entered on or about January 8, 1990, which denied defendants’ motion for a protective order seeking to impose confidentiality restrictions upon discovery and to strike certain interrogatories of plaintiff, and *156granted in part plaintiff’s cross motion for a protective order as against defendants’ notice to produce documents, is unanimously modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of granting defendants’ motion for a protective order as proposed in the record on appeal on pages 176-178, with the following addition to paragraph 4 thereof as to those to whom confidential information can be disclosed and those who can use such information: "f. experts retained by the parties for purposes of this litigation”, all subject to the continuing control and order of the court, and denying plaintiff’s cross motion for a protective order as to items numbers 2 and 3 of defendants’ notice to produce documents dated October 13, 1989, and the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The single cause of action in the complaint seeks, *inter alia,*dissolution of defendant partnership and an accounting of the decedent’s partnership interest. Since defendants admit that the decedent was a partner at the time of his death, the complaint is factually and legally sufficient (Partnership Law §62; *Dreier v Linden, 70*AD2d 820). The discovery in this action will involve defendant law firm’s financial statements, tax returns and contingency fee arrangements. In light of the parties’ conduct to date, we believe confidentiality restrictions upon the products of discovery in this action, in the above form, are appropriate. As plaintiff is entitled to broad discovery, we see no basis to strike defendants’ document demands concerning the decedent’s partnership share, compensation agreements or fee arrangements. We have examined defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ross, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



                            CERTIFICATION 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 of Deep Field Technologies, Inc. ("the
Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mark Meller, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, 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.


                                             Date: November 14, 2006


                                             By /s/ Mark Meller
                                             ---------------------
                                             Mark Meller
                                             President, Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Principal Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40291 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE CAZARES-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-02-CR-138-3

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Cazares-Alvarado appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. He argues that the district court erred when it denied a reduction in his total offense level based on his mitigating role in the offense and that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 860 are facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Cazares-Alvarado concedes that his second argument is foreclosed but nevertheless raises the issue to preserve it for possible further review. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 22, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-40291 -2- Cazares-Alvarado’s construction of a hidden compartment in which to conceal the large amount of cocaine involved in his offense was not “peripheral to the advancement of the illicit activity.” See United States v. Thomas , 932 F.2d 1085, 1092 (5th Cir. 1991). The district court therefore did not clearly err in determining that Cazares-Alvarado was not entitled to a mitigating role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. See United States v. Zuniga , 18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th Cir. 1994). Cazares-Alvarado’s argument regarding the constitutionality of the statutes of conviction, raised for the first time on appeal, is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). Cazares-Alvarado has failed to demonstrate error, plain or otherwise, regarding Apprendi

. See id. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6308

PEER Bearing Company:

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 failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

d0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138286

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138286 COA: 289519 Wayne CC: 05-012119-FC CARL WINFRED BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 2, 2009 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).