alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
191 La. 186

#### FOURNET & SIERRA, Inc., et al. v. GROSJEAN, Collector of Revenue, et al.

No. 34647.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 31, 1938.

Eugene Stanley, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., Lessley P. Gardiner, 2d Asst. Atty. Gen., and George M. Wallace, Joseph A. Loret, Justin C. Daspit, Fred A. Blanche, and E. Leland Richardson, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs brought this suit to enjoin the Attorney General and the Collector of Revenue from proceeding against the plaintiffs under Act No. 75 of 1936, known as the Luxury Tax Law. The plaintiffs averred that the statute was unconstitutional, for several reasons set forth in their petition. The judge of the district court issued a rule on the defendants to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted; but, after hearing the defendants’ pleas and answers to the rule to show cause, the judge dismissed the rule. The plaintiffs appealed from the decision. Thereafter the Legislature enacted Act No. 2 of 1938, known as the Public Welfare Revenue Act, levying a sales tax, and' repealing, specifically, Act No. 75 of 1936. Hence the appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the suit has become a moot case.

The appellants oppose the motion to dismiss the 'appeal, and in support of their opposition cite the concluding clause in the title of Act No. 2 of 1938, viz.: “and providing for the trial and prosecution of all suits arising out of or instituted under Act 75 of the Regular Session of 1936, notwithstanding this repeal.” That clause in the title of the act of 1938 follows immediately the reference to ’ the repealing clause. If this saving clause, reserving to the State the right to prosecute suits under Act No. 75 of 1936, were a part of the act itself; of 1938, as well as a part of the title of the act, the present suit would not be abated-by the repealing clause (in Section 20) of Act No. 2 of 1938. But in fact there is no saving clause in Act No. 2 of 1938, notwithstanding it is mentioned’ in the title of the act. We infer from" the reference to the saving clause, in the title of the act of 1938, that it was intended originally to embody such a saving clause in the act. But, as there is no saving clause in the act itself, the reference to such'a clause in the title of the act has no effect. The consequence is that no proceeding can be brought against the appel*720lants hereafter to enforce the provisions of the act of 1936, and hence the appellants are not now concerned with the question whether the act was constitutional or unconstitutional.

The appeal is dismissed at appellants’ ■

FOURNET, J., recused.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

CARMEN C. LEE COCKLIN,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

STATE OF NEBRASKA, HUD, Housing 

Urban Development; SIENA FRANCIS 

HOUSE, Homeless Shelter; LYDIA 

HOUSE, Homeless Shelter; and 

SALVATION ARMY,

Defendants.

8:23CV203

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On June 13, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to update her address with the 

Court within 30 days or face dismissal of this action. Filing No. 8. To date, Plaintiff has 

not updated her address or taken any other action in this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: This matter is dismissed without prejudice 

because Plaintiff failed to prosecute it diligently and failed to comply with this Court’s 

orders. The Court will enter judgment by a separate document.

Dated this 24th day of July, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00203-JFB-PRSE Doc # 11 Filed: 07/24/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 66
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-131-01-PB

Nicole Saindon

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the October 4, 2005

trial in the above case. Defendant cites the need for additional

time to finalize plea negotiations. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to finalize plea negotiations or properly prepare for trial, the

court will continue the trial from October 4, 2005 to November 1,

2005. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds

pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated

reasons, the ends of justice served in granting a continuance

outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00131-PB Document 10 Filed 09/19/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The September 19, 2005 final pretrial conference is

continued until October 20, 2005 at 4:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 19, 2005

cc: James Dennehy, Esq.

Mark Irish, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00131-PB Document 10 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,323
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,299
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,381
<INVENTORY>                                     10,330
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,261
<PP&E>                                         468,253
<DEPRECIATION>                                 257,851
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 284,890
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,111
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                   (241,286)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   284,890
<SALES>                                          8,623
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,206
<CGS>                                            4,998
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (60)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (11,627)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,548)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (557)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,105)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,105)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.01)



</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 23

- 00520

- CV

Ramiro ALCAZAR

, Appellant

v.

STARR COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT , Starr County Appraisal Board, Rosalva Guerra,

in her official capacity as Starr County Chief Appraiser, and Abraham G. Gonzalez, III, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Starr County Appraisal Board, Appellees

From the 381st Judicial District Court

, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 20

- 307

Honorable Jose Luis Garza , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JU STICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against Appellant Ramiro Alcazar. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.4.

SIGNED May 15, 2024.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
#### Lee W. CLAYTON, Jr., Appellant, v. Eva Mae CLAYTON, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Feb. 23, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven Pelletier

v. Civil No. 05-fp-417

N.H. State Prison, Warden

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee. 

This case has been assigned number 05-cv-417-SM. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge 

Date: November 28, 2005

cc: Steven Pelletier, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00417-SM Document 4 Filed 11/28/05 Page 1 of 1
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 10556 c/w 13

- 10562 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JAIME FRAIRE , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:13

- CR

- 23

- 1 USDC No. 6:13

- CR

- 1

- 1

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Jamie Fraire pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court sentenced Fraire within the guidelines range to 16 months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. The court a lso revoked Fraire’s supervised release on a

* 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 March 10, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10556 Document: 00512556027 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2014No. 13

- 10556 c/w 13

- 10562
prior conviction and imposed a consecutive sentence of 10 months of imprisonment. Fraire now appeals. For the first time on appeal, Fraire argues that the district court erred in imposing a term of supervised release in a case involving a deportable alien without providing fact

- specific reasons for its decision to deviate from U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c)’s recommendation that supervised release not be imposed in such circumstances. We review this argument for plain er ror. See United States v. Dominguez

- Alvarado , 695 F.3d 324, 327

- 28 (5th Cir. 2012). The district court retains the discretion to impose supervised release in “uncommon cases [involving a deportable alien] where added deterrence and protection are needed. ” Id . at 329. In sentencing Fraire, the district court specifically stated that supervised release was imposed as an additional potential sanction should Fraire attempt to return illegally . Consequently, Fraire has shown no plain error on the part of t he district court in imposing a term of supervi sed release. See id . at 329

- 30; see also United States v. Becerril

- Pena , 714 F.3d 347, 349

- 51 (5th Cir. 2013) (finding no error in imposition of supervised release where district court noted that the sentence adequately addressed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors ). Fraire raises no claims of error with respect to the revocation proceeding or the revocation sentence. Thus, he has abandoned any issues on appeal regarding the revocation judgment . See Yohey v. C ollins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 13-10556 Document: 00512556027 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2014
**
Exhibit 31.1 

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function 

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

**CERTIFICATION**

I, KevinJ. Cullum, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Receivables 2018-B Owner Trust(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. I amresponsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association 

Date: June 27, 2022 

 
By: 
/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofNissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
 
8 

**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner

v. DARRYL GREGORY STEWART, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 298 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 19th day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.26





July 29, 2019
Hans Geiselhöringer
c/o Nobel Biocare Services AG (the “Company”)
Dear Hans, 
As you know, Danaher Corporation (“Danaher”) has announced that its Dental business will become a publicly traded company by way of an initial public offering (the “Dental IPO”), and it is anticipated the Dental IPO will be completed in late 2019 (the “Closing”).   Upon the Closing, the Company, along with other Danaher Dental operating companies, will be organized as one business, Envista Holdings Corporation (“Envista”).
Subject to the Closing, we intend to recommend you for two separate grants of stock options and restricted stock units (“RSUs”) under Envista’s equity compensation program: a one-time special equity grant (the “Special Grant”) and an annual grant for the year 2020 (the “Annual Grant”).
The recommendation for the Special Grant will be made to the Compensation Committee of Envista’s Board of Directors (the “Committee”) at the first regularly scheduled meeting at which equity awards are considered following the Closing.  The target award value of this Special Grant would be U.S.$200,000.  
At the time annual equity compensation awards are considered by the Committee in 2020, a recommendation will be made to the Committee to grant you the Annual Grant as part of Envista’s annual equity compensation program for 2020.  The target award value of this Annual Grant would be U.S.$700,000.  You will be eligible annually for an equity award under Envista’s equity compensation program.
As a precondition to being recommended for such equity grants, Envista requires confirmation that you have signed the enclosed Amendment Agreement and Protection of Proprietary Rights Agreement (“PPRA”). Your signed Amendment Agreement and PPRA must be returned to Curt Bludworth, Human Resources (        ), no later than July 31, 2019.
The target award value of any grant(s) will be split evenly between stock options and RSUs. Any equity awards would vest 20% on each of the first five anniversaries of the grant date, and will be solely governed by the terms and conditions set forth in Envista’s applicable stock plan and in the particular form of award agreement required to be signed with respect to each award.   
Please note that any equity awards granted to you by the Committee will be evidenced by the applicable award agreements that you will be required to sign, and this letter does not evidence the grant of any equity awards to you or otherwise create any right to future participation in Envista’s equity compensation program, continued employment or other entitlement or rights.  The grant of stock options and RSUs will also be subject to any governmental, regulatory or other approvals that may be required.  In addition, Envista cannot guarantee that any equity granted to you will ultimately have any particular value or any value at all.   
We look forward to your continued success as part of the Envista team! 
Regards.
	
					
	/s/ Amir Aghdaei
	 
	 
	 
	/s/ Hans Geiselhöringer

	Amir Aghdaei
	 
	 
	 
	Hans Geiselhöringer

	Group Executive, Dental Platform
	 
	 
	 
	President Nobel Biocare Systems

	 
	



	 
	 
	31. July 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,983
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,065
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,609
<PP&E>                                           1,825
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,446
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,913
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,057
<SALES>                                         37,290
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           33,421
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    692
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       692
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06


</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1285

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce and simplify the

estate tax.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 2001

Mr. MOORE (for himself and Mr. HOLDEN) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce

and simplify the estate tax.

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 ‘‘Estate Tax Reduction

5 and Simplification Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1285 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN UNIFIED CREDIT AGAINST ESTATE

2 AND GIFT TAXES TO EXCLUSION EQUIVALENT

3 OF $3,000,000 WHILE PRESERVING STEPUP IN

4 BASIS; INFLATION ADJUSTMENT OF CREDIT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The table in section 2010(c) of

6 the Internal Revenue Code (relating to applicable credit

7 amount) is amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘2000 and 2001’’ and inserting

9 ‘‘2000 or thereafter’’,

10 (2) by striking ‘‘$675,000’’ and inserting

11 ‘‘$3,000,000’’, and

12 (3) by striking all matter beginning with the

13 item relating to 2002 and 2003 through the end of

14 the table.

15 (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 2010 of such Code

17 is amended by redesignating subsection (d) as sub18 section (e) and by inserting after subsection (c) the

19 following new subsection:

20 ‘‘(d) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the case of any

21 decedent dying, and gift made, in a calendar year after

22 2001, the $3,000,000 amount set forth in subsection (c)

23 shall be increased by an amount equal to—

24 ‘‘(1) $3,000,000, multiplied by

25 ‘‘(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined

26 under section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by sub-
3

•HR 1285 IH

1 stituting ‘calendar year 2000’ for ‘calendar year

2 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.

3 If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence

4 is not a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be round5 ed to the nearest multiple of $10,000.’’.

6 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 6018(a)(1)

7 of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘section 2010(c)’’

8 and inserting ‘‘section 2010’’.

9 SEC. 3. SIMPLICATION OF ESTATE TAX EXCLUSION FOR

10 FAMILY-OWNED BUSINESSES AND FARMS.

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2057 of the Internal Rev12 enue Code of 1986 (relating to family-owned business in13 terests) is hereby repealed.

14 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

15 (1) Paragraph (10) of section 2031(c) of such

16 Code is amended by inserting ‘‘(as in effect on the

17 day before the date of the enactment of the Estate

18 Tax Relief Act of 2001)’’ before the period.

19 (2) The table of sections for part IV of sub20 chapter A of chapter 11 of such Code is amended by

21 striking the item relating to section 2057.
4

•HR 1285 IH

1 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendments made by this Act shall apply to the

3 estates of decedents dying, and gifts made, after Decem4 ber 31, 2001.

Æ