alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### REINSCHMIDT et al. v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.

July 16, 1936.

Coe & McLane, of Pensacola, for plaintiffs in error.

Carter & Yonge, of Pensacola, for defendant in error.

*492PER CURIAM.

For a full statement of the facts from which this litigation arises, see Reinschmidt v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 112 Fla. *267,*150 So. 266, and Reinschmidt v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 118 Fla. 237, 160 So. 69. Other questions were also settled in these cases, but it is not necessary to restate them here.

The action was originally brought to recover an undercharge for freight on “stave bolts'and heading” from which barrels are manufactured. Defendant in error contends that the plaintiff in error paid only a portion of the freight charges legally due on the tariffs prescribed by the Railroad Commission for transporting such commodities. The court granted a riiotion for an instructed verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $311.85 with interest from date of institution of the suit. A motion for a new trial was denied, and the present writ of error was prosecuted to that judgment.

The question presented for solution is one of the application of rates for transporting the commodity in question. It is shown that the Railroad Commission has prescribed a rate known as “class P” applicable to “logs” except cedar logs. It has also prescribed another rate applicable to “wood for fuel” which is one-tenth of class P rate. We are importuned to answer the question, whether “stave bolts and headings” from which barrels are manufactured should have been transported and the charge therefor paid at the “log” rate or the ■“wood for fuel” rate. In directing a verdict for the plaintiff, the trial court held that the “log” rate applied.

Plaintiff in error contends that from the facts in this case it is not clear whether “stave bolts and heading” should have been freighted at the class P, “log” rate, or the “wood for fuel” rate, that they were billed and shipped for years at the “wood for fuel” rate, and that in view of the doubt thus prevailing as to their classification the court invaded the province of the jury in resolving that question in favor of the “log” rate.

This question is rfesolyed contrary to the contention of plaintiff in error in Reinschmidt v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., supra, wherein we held that class P or “log” rate as promulgated by the Railroad Commission was applicable to all shipments of short pieces of wood or logs, including those described as “stave bolts and headings.” We further held that ths determination of this question was one of law for the court to decide.

In this view of the case the interpretation given to class P or “log” rate in the last-entitled cause concludes the question raised, so it follows that the judgment below must be and is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

ELLIS, P. J., and TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and BROWN and DAVIS, JJ., concur in the opinion and judgment.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto GALVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-50868.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Counsel appointed to represent Roberto Galvez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Galvez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7525

BOBBY A. WALTERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

REBECCA S. LOVELACE, Magistrate District No. 1,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-2028-2-6AJ)

Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby A. Walters, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Walters appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Walters v. Lovelace, No. CA-98-2028-2-6AJ (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 1998).

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.

AFFIRMED
----

| Date:  May 6, 2010 | /s/ Mary Agnes Wilderotter           |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                         | Mary Agnes Wilderotter               |
|                         | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|                         |                                 |
EXHIBIT 99

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of the
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railroad (the Trust) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), We,
Herbert E. Jones, III, President of the Trust,
and Robert R. McCoy, Vice President, Secretary
and Treasurer, certify, to the best of our
knowledge, 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 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 Trust.


/s/ Herbert E. Jones, III
Herbert E. Jones, III
President and Trustee

Date:  August 11, 2010



/s/ Robert R. McCoy
Robert R. McCoy
Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer

Date:  August 11, 2010
Summary of Compensation Arrangement btw Agilent and Chris van Ingen



 Exhibit 10.50 
  
 Summary of Compensation Arrangement between Agilent and Chris van Ingen 
  
 Chris van Ingen is Senior Vice President of Agilent Technologies, Inc. and
President of the Life Science and Chemical Analysis Group. For the fiscal year 2005, his compensation arrangement is: (1) an annual base salary of $400,000; (2) a short-term target bonus of 70 percent of base salary; and (3) 47,000 shares available
under the long-term performance program and a stock option grant for 73,500 shares. As an executive officer of Agilent, Mr. van Ingen is required to attain an investment level in Agilent’s stock equal to three times annual salary, including
direct ownership of at least 10,000 shares of Agilent common stock. This stock ownership level must be attained by the later of five years from election or the end of fiscal year 2007. Mr. van Ingen’s employment is at-will.
#### Charles COLBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cal TERHUNE, Director of Corrections; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-15691. D.C. No. CV-99-02473-DFL/PAN.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 28, 2003.

Before LEAYY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Charles Colbert, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s *675summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging that prison grooming regulations, including limitations on hair length, violate his Rastafarian religious beliefs, in violation of the First Amendment. We review de novo, *Frost v. Symington,*197 F.3d 348, 353 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Colbert failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the grooming regulations were not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. *See Friedman v. Arizona,*912 F.2d 328, 331-32 (9th Cir.1990).

Colbert’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jean Baptiste Luczer, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered June 8, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

The defendant is not currently incarcerated or under parole supervision. All efforts by assigned counsel to locate the defendant have been unsuccessful. Accordingly, it appears that the appeal is abandoned *(see, People v Jinks,*140 AD2d 371; *People v Southerland,*136 AD2d 662). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                            Exhibit 11.1


                             PITT-DES MOINES, INC.

                       Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                  (Unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                                        For the three months ended
                                                                                 March 31,
                                                                        -------------------------
                                                                             1997         1996
                                                                          ----------  ----------
<S>                                                                    <C>            <C>
Primary
 Average shares outstanding                                                3,482,966   3,483,142
 Dilutive stock options based on treasury stock
  method using average market price                                           39,217      41,830
                                                                          ----------  ----------
                                                                           3,522,183   3,524,972
                                                                          ==========  ==========
 
 Net income                                                               $2,101,522  $3,174,330
                                                                          ==========  ==========
 Per common share:
   Net income per common share                                            $      .60  $      .90
                                                                          ==========  ==========
 
Fully Diluted
 Average shares outstanding                                                3,482,966   3,483,142
 Dilutive stock options based on treasury stock method
  using greater of period-end or average market price                         48,611      49,972
                                                                          ----------  ----------
                                                                           3,531,577   3,533,114
                                                                          ==========  ==========
 
 Net income                                                               $2,101,522  $3,174,330
                                                                          ==========  ==========
 Per common share:
  Net income per common share                                             $      .60  $      .90
                                                                          ==========  ==========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) FORM
10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000           
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,196
<SECURITIES>                                       255
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,626
<ALLOWANCES>                                       602
<INVENTORY>                                      5,034
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,252
<PP&E>                                          40,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,965
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,900
<BONDS>                                         32,469
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,875
<COMMON>                                         3,208
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,872
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,206
<SALES>                                        100,946
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,946
<CGS>                                           79,117
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,739
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,929
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,946
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,042
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,866
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,866
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
        

</TABLE>
#### Roseanne Sanchez, Respondent, v Jesse Sanchez, Appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burchell, J.), dated January 3, 1989, as awarded the plaintiff wife maintenance of $150 per week, awarded her arrears of pendente lite maintenance of $52,580, awarded the plaintiff’s attorney counsel fees of $10,000, and directed the release to the plaintiff of $2,000 from the sale of certain real property.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding the plaintiff wife pendente lite maintenance of $200 per week. The Supreme Court duly considered the plaintiff’s needs as well as the defendant’s financial ability to provide for those needs *(see, Chachkes v Chachkes,*107 AD2d 786; *see also, Frankel v Frankel,*150 AD2d 520). Therefore, the award of $52,580, in arrears of pendente lite maintenance was proper. Nor did the court err in determining the final award of maintenance in the amount of $150 per week and counsel fees of $10,000 *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; *Jones v Jones,*133 AD2d 217).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### FERNANDEZ v. HANNAGRIFF.

No. 1014.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 3, 1932.

Chas. E. Fernandez, of Franklin, and C. A. Blanchard, of Morgan City, for appellant.

Brumby *&*Bauer, of Franklin, for appel-lee.

LE BLANC, J.

The cause of action in this .case arose out of an alleged slander, by the defendant Numa Hannagriff.

Damages to plaintiff’s good name, fame, credit, and reputation by reason thereof are sought by plaintiff in the sum of $10,000.

From a judgment in the district court dismissing his suit, he obtained an order for, an'd has taken, an appeal to this court. Defendant moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the court is not vested with jurisdiction in cases of this character where the amount exceeds $2,000.

This court has jurisdiction as an appellate court in excess of $2,000 only “in suits for damages for physical injuries to, or for the death of a person, or for other damages sustained by such person or his heirs or legal representatives, arising out of the same circumstances,” etc. Const. 1921, art. 7, § 10, par. 2.

Slander of one’s good name is not a physical injury, nor does it give rise to damages by reason of physical injury. It is obvious, therefore, that this court must decline jurisdiction.

It is therefore ordered that, in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 19 of 1912, the appeal in this case be transferred to the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of the filing hereof, May 3, 1932.
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003


In connection with this quarterly report of Possis Medical, Inc. on Form 10Q for
the period ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Eapen Chacko, Chief Financial
Officer of Possis Medical, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Possis Medical, Inc.




Date: June 14, 2004                                 /s/Eapen Chacko
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Eapen Chacko
                                                    Chief Financial Officer




                                       27
Summary of Non-Employee Directors' Cash Compensation



 Exhibit 10.4(C) 
  
 SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ CASH COMPENSATION 
  
 March 1, 2005 
  
 The following is a summary of the cash compensation currently paid to
non-employee directors serving on the Board of Directors of Unocal Corporation. Directors’ compensation is subject to change from time to time. The Board Governance Committee has the responsibility for recommending to the Board the form and
amount of compensation for non-employee directors. Directors’ compensation includes cash and stock-based incentives. Unocal does not have a retirement plan for non-employee directors. Employee directors are not paid additional compensation for
their services as directors. 
  
 Non-employee directors currently
receive the following fees for their services on the Board and reimbursement of expenses: 
  

	 	(1)	annual cash retainers: 


	 	•	 	$48,000 for serving as a director 

  

	 	•	 	$100,000 additional for serving as Vice Chairman of the Board (this retainer was raised from $48,000 to $100,000 effective January 1, 2005) 

  

	 	•	 	$6,000 additional for chairing a committee, other than the Audit Committee 

  

	 	•	 	$15,000 additional for chairing the Audit Committee 

  

	 	(2)	meeting attendance fees: 

  

	 	•	 	$2,000 for each Board or committee meeting attended in person 

  

	 	•	 	$1,000 for each Board or committee meeting attended by telephone 

  

	 	(3)	reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses related to meetings and other Unocal business 

  
 Non-employee directors may also receive additional fees from time to time for site visits or for attending business meetings
to which a director is invited as a representative of Unocal. Any such additional fees will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
#### Florencio P. SAUCEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DEL RIO, by and through its City Council; Dora Alcala, Mayor, in their individual capacities; Randy Pohler, in their individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-51336.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 12, 2003.

Before EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and VANCE,* District Judge.

*

 District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

*357PER CURIAM.**

Florencio P. Sauceda appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of his claims against the City of Del Rio, Texas (“the City”) and various individual defendants. This dispute arises out of the City’s termination of Sauceda’s employment as city manager. On appeal, Sauceda contends that he is entitled to severance benefits because the City failed to comply with the good cause provision of his employment contract. Sauceda argues that his rejection of the City’s offer of a good cause hearing did not waive his rights under that provision. Sauceda also contends that the City Council’s actions in terminating his employment violated the Texas Open Meetings Act, Tex. Gov’t Code § 551.001 *et seq.*

We have read the briefs, heard the arguments of counsel, and consulted the pertinent portions of the record. On the basis of the applicable law and the record, we affirm the dismissal of Sauceda’s claims for essentially the same reasons as those given by the district court. In particular, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Sauceda waived any right to a good cause determination by rejecting the City’s offer to hold a hearing on good cause.

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
EXHIBIT 99

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of the
Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railroad (the Trust) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), We,
Herbert E. Jones, III, President and Chairman of the
of the Board of Trustees and Robert R. McCoy, Vice
President, Secretary and Treasurer, certify, to the
best of our knowledge, 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 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 Trust.


/s/ Herbert E. Jones, III
Herbert E. Jones, III
President and Chairman of the Board of Trustees

Date:  November 3, 2010



/s/ Robert R. McCoy
Robert R. McCoy
Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer

Date:  November 3, 2010