alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The Historical Publishing Company, Appellant, v. The Adams Express Company, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

April 7, 1891.

Common Carriers: limitation of liability. Notwithstanding the statute (R. S. 1889, see. 944) a common carrier may agree to carry goods to the terminus of its own route only, and stipulate for a cessation of its liability as a common carrier beyond that point.

*Appeal from the St. Louis Gity Circuit Court.*— Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge.

*422Affirmed.

*Augustus JL Abbott*and *Lee W*Grant, for appellant.

LaugMin, *Kern &*Tansey, for respondent.

Rombauer, P. J.

The plaintiff delivered to the defendant, in the city of St. Louis, a package, marked, Jas. E. Riddle, Ashton, Louisiana. The package was safely carried to Cairo, Illinois, which is admitted to be the terminus of the defendant’s route, and was there delivered to a connecting carrier for further transportation. The plaintiff paid to the defendant charges to final destination. The package was not delivered at Ashton, nor was any explanation made of cause of non-delivery. The shipment was made under a written contract, designated as a domestic bill of lading, which recited: “It is mutually agreed that it (the package) is to be forwarded to our agency, nearest or most convenient to destination only, and there delivered to other parties to complete the transportation, ’ ’ and also recites: “ It is part of the consideration of this contract, and it is agreed, that the said express company are forwarders only, and are not to be held liable or responsible for any loss or damage to said property, while being conveyed by the carriers to whom the same may be by said express company intrusted.” Upon this evidence the trial court found for the defendant, and the plaintiff, appealing, contends that the finding was erroneous, because, under the provisions of section 944 of the Revised Statutes of 1889, and the conceded facts, the defendant was liable for the negligence of a connecting carrier, it having received the package for transportation to a point beyond its route.

The case in many of its features is identical with that of *F.*A. *Drew Glass Co. v.*Railroad, *ante,*p. 416. *423We held in that case on the authority of *Dimmitt v.*Railroad, 103 Mo. 533, recently decided by the supreme court, that a common carrier in this state may, notwithstanding the statute, agree to carry goods to the terminus of its own route only, and stipulate for a cessation of its liability as a common carrier beyond that point. The ruling of the trial court was in conformity with that view, and its judgment must be affirmed. So ordered.

All the judges concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-168494) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 2006 Equity Incentive Plan, 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, 2010 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, and 2010 Employee StockPurchase Plan of Trius Therapeutics, Inc. of our report dated March 24, 2011, with respect to the financial statements of Trius Therapeutics, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

San Diego, California 

March 24, 2011
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CARMONA

- ROJAS,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 20

- 70270

Agency No. A098

- 761

- 930

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 28, 2023 * *
Seattle, Washington

Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and GUTIERREZ, ** * Chief District Judge.

Juan Carmona

- Ro

j as, a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for review of

a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, Chief United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 30 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

reconsider, reopen, terminate, or remand. 1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3 d 785,

791 (9th Cir. 2005); Dominguez v. Barr , 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020), we

deny the petition for review.

1. Carmona argues that the BIA should have reconsidered his case and

terminated proceedings against him because his notice to appear, which lacked the

date and time for his initial hearing, deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction.

Intervening caselaw forecloses this argument. See United States v. Bastide

Hernandez , 39 F.4th 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[T]he failure of an NTA to

incl ude time and date information does not deprive the immigration court of

subject matter jurisdiction.”).

2. Carmona contends that the BIA erred in rejecting his motion to reopen

for failure to attach a new application for cancellation of removal. We need not

address this argument because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the

motion on the alternative ground that Carmona did not make a prima facie showing

that his qualifying relatives would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship from his removal. The motion to reopen did not proffer new facts

regarding hardship, nor was it accompanied by affidavits or other evidentiary

material demonstrating har dship t o Carmona’s children

. See 8 U.S.C.

1 Carmona does not seek review of the BIA’s denial of stay of removal

.3

§ 1229a(c)(7) (B)

. Indeed, neither Carmona’s original cancellation application nor

his motion to reopen identify any specific hardship his U.S.

- citizen children would

face upon his return to Mexico.

3. Carmona challenges the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte

power to reopen

. We lack jurisdiction over this challenge because Carmona

identifies no legal or constitutional error underlying the BIA’s denial of sua sponte

reopening

. See Lona v. Barr , 958 F.3d 1225, 1237

– 38 (9th Cir. 2020).

PETITION DENIED

.
SCWC-29440 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

KAUAI SPRINGS, INC., Petitioner/Appellant-Appellee,

vs. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA # I,

Respondent/Appellee-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 29440; CIV. NO. 07-1-0042)

ORDER OF CORRECTION (By: Pollack, J.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Opinion of the Court, filed on February 28, 2014, is corrected as follows:

1. On page 98, line 10: Delete the phrase “While ‘encouraging’ review,” and capitalize the letter “t” in the word “the.”

2. On page 98, footnote 44, line 2: Insert the phrase “as set forth in this opinion” after the word “Commission.” Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-29440 07-MAR-2014 08:02 AMThe Clerk of the Court is directed to take all

necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of these changes. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, March 7, 2014. /s/ Richard W. Pollack Associate Justice

-2-
* Judge Pickering was a member of the original panel but

retired from the Court on December 8, 2004 and, therefore did not participate in this decision. This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

** 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 January 30, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51047

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v. OSCAR GOMEZ-TRUJILLO

Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before KING and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. *
PER CURIAM: ** IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff-Appellee’s motion to reinstate prior affirmance of Defendant-Appellant’s conviction in lieu of filing supplemental Booker brief is GRANTED. Defendant-Appellant Oscar Gomez-Trujillo raised a Booker issue for the first time in his petition for certiorari. Thus, as he recognizes, we will notNo. 03-51047 -2- consider his challenge absent extraordinary circumstances. Because Gomez-Trujillo cannot meet the plain-error test, he necessarily fails to meet the much more demanding standard for “extraordinary circumstances.” United States v. RodriguezGutierrez , 428 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2005). Gomez-Trujillo’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff-Appellee’s alternative motion to extend time to file Plaintiff-Appellee’s supplemental brief until 14 days after denial of motion to reinstate prior affirmance is DENIED as moot.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Annual Report of Hirsch International Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Beverly Eichel, Vice President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Beverly Eichel
                                        ------------------
                                        Beverly Eichel, Vice President, Finance,
                                        Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

April 29, 2005

         This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any
other purpose.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.22





DANAHER CORPORATION
DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTORS
Following is a description of the Company’s non-management director compensation structure as of January 1, 2020:
	
				
	Compensation structure for non-management directors

	Annual cash retainer
	$
	125,000
	


	Annual equity award target award value
	$
	185,000
	


	Committee chair annual cash retainer (Compensation, Nominating and Governance, Science and Technology)
	$
	20,000
	


	Committee chair annual cash retainer (Audit)
	$
	25,000
	


	Lead Independent Director annual cash retainer
	$
	40,000
	


	Per meeting cash fee for each Board/committee meeting a director attends in excess of twenty during a calendar year
	$
	2,000
	





Director cash retainers are paid quarterly in arrears.  Director annual equity awards are divided equally (based on target award value) between options and restricted stock units (RSUs). The options are fully vested as of the grant date. The RSUs vest upon the earlier of (1) the first anniversary of the grant date, or (2) the date of, and immediately prior to, the next annual meeting of Danaher’s shareholders following the grant date, but the underlying shares are not issued until the earlier of the director’s death or the first day of the seventh month following the director’s retirement from the Board.  Danaher also reimburses directors for Danaher-related out-of-pocket expenses, including travel expenses.
EX-4.48



 Exhibit 4.48 

SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT 

TO THE EXCLUSIVE TECHNICAL CONSULTING AND SERVICE AGREEMENT 

This Supplementary Agreement (“Supplementary Agreement”) is made and entered into on December 5, 2013 (“Effective
date”) in Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China, by and between: 
 Party A: Shanghai Zhengtu Information Technology Co., Ltd. 

Address: 2/FL, Building No.29, 396 Guilin Road, Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China 

Party B: Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Old Name: Shanghai Zhengtu Network Technology Co., Ltd.) 

Address: Room 708, Building No.29, 396 Guilin Road, Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China 

 

	WHEREAS,	

  

	1.	Party A and Party B entered into the Exclusive Technical Consulting and Service Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) on September 7, 2006 in Shanghai. According to the Original Agreement, Party B
agrees that, unless with prior written approval from Party A, Party B shall not hire any third party to provide to Party B any technical support listed in Attachment I of the Original Agreement or any similar technical support; 


 

	2.	Party B has reached an agreement with Shanghai Juja Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Jujia Network”) that Jujia Network will provide Party B with technical support, market consulting and development in
relation to Party B’s business 

 NOW, THEREFORE, adhering to the principles of equality and mutual benefit, and after friendly
negotiations, the Parties confirm as follows: 
  

	1.	Party A agrees Party B to hire Jujia Network to provide Party B with technical support in relation to Party B’s business as well as market consulting and development as listed in Attachment I of the Original
Agreement or other similar technical support. Party B shall sign the relevant Technical Consulting and Service Agreement with Jujia Network. 

  

	2.	Party B guarantees and promises that Party A shall have the right to request Party B and Jujia Network at any time to terminate the Technical Consulting and Service Agreement and any other relevant agreements, without
incurring any legal liability 

  

	3.	This Supplementary Agreement shall become effective immediately upon sealed by the Parties. 

  

			
	 Party A: Shanghai Jujia Network

Technology Co., Ltd.
	  	 Party B: Shanghai Giant Network

Technology Co., Ltd.
Exhibit 15




August 10, 1998



Orion Capital Corporation
9 Farm Springs Road
Farmington, CT 06032

We have made a review, in accordance with standards  established by the American
Institute of Certified Public  Accountants,  of the unaudited  interim financial
information of Orion Capital  Corporation and subsidiaries for the periods ended
June 30, 1998 and 1997, as indicated in our report dated July 29, 1998;  because
we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware  that our  report  referred  to above,  which is  included  in your
Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ended  June  30,  1998,  is
incorporated  by  reference  in  Registration  Statements  No.  2-80636  and No.
333-58941 on Form S-8 relating to the Orion Capital  Corporation  1982 Long-Term
Performance  Incentive Plan, No. 333-58905 on Form S-8 relating to Orion Capital
Corporation  Equity  Incentive  Plan, No. 2-63344 and No.  333-58889 on Form S-8
relating to the Orion Capital 401(K) and Profit  Sharing Plan, No.  33-59847 and
No.  333-58939 on Form S-8 relating to the Orion Capital  Corporation 1994 Stock
Option Plan for  Non-Employee  Directors,  No. 333-44901 on Form S-8 relating to
the Wm. H. McGee & Co., Inc.  401(K) and Profit Sharing Plan, and No.  333-55671
on Form S-8 relating to Orion  Capital  Corporation  Employees'  Stock  Purchase
Plan.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report,  pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the  Securities  Act, is not  considered  a part of the  Registration  Statement
prepared or certified by an accountant  or a report  prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



Hartford, Connecticut
#### In the Matter of the Application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, etc., Relative to Acquiring Title Wherever the Same Has *900Not Been Heretofore Acquired for the Lands, Tenements and Hereditaments Required for the Purpose of Opening West Farms Road from Southern Boulevard and Westchester Avenue to the Boston Road, etc., in the Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth Wards, City of New York. Henry L. Bridges and Wellesley W. Gage, Two of the Commissioners Herein, Appellants; The City of New York, Respondent.

Order Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 10, 2014

h1203

Order 

Clerk

December 10, 2014

149919

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 149919

COA: 314665

Livingston CC: 11-020253-FH

SCOTT A. DONNER,

Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 26, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6188 

To authorize additional district judgeships for the district of Colorado, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2021 

Mr. NEGUSE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize additional district judgeships for the district 

of Colorado, 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 ‘‘Colorado Judgeship 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS FOR THE DIS7 TRICT OF COLORADO. 

8 (a) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS.—The Presi9 dent shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6188 IH

1 of the Senate, 3 additional district judges for the district 

2 of Colorado. 

3 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

4 The table in section 133(a) of title 28, United States 

5 Code, is amended by striking the item relating to Colorado 

6 and inserting the following: 

‘‘Colorado ........................................................................................ 10’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This financial data schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the consolidated financial statements included in P & F Industries, Inc.'s
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,078,554
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,222,037
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 14,472,991
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,391,337
<PP&E>                                      11,200,122
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,438,210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,096,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,861,052
<BONDS>                                      3,716,382
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,204,345
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,870,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,096,570
<SALES>                                     12,529,183
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,541,124
<CGS>                                        7,757,233
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,757,233
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             115,809
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,252,869
<INCOME-TAX>                                   472,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            780,869
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   780,869
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
#### Kenneth A. HINTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-6944.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 22, 2003.

Kenneth A. Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*993PER CURIAM.

Kenneth A. Hinton, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Hinton v. United States Parole Comm’n,*No. CA-02-574-5HO (E.D.N.C. May 29, 2008). We further deny Hinton’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18578]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,729]


Manugraph DGM, Inc., Millersburg, PA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on July 23, 2008 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Manugraph DGM, 
Inc., Millersburg, Pennsylvania. The workers at the subject facility 
produce web offset printing presses.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 1st day of August 2008.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-18578 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P