alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 107.

#### James T. Tucker and another, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Alfred Shorter, *et al.*defendants.

[1.] Public officers or agents contracting for the State, are not individually liable for obligations assumed in that character.

Covenant, in Floyd Superior Court. Decision by Judge Trippe.

The declaration in this case alleged, that in 1851, the Legisature passed an Act appropriating the sum of Five Thousand *621Dollars for the improvement of the Coosa river, and appointed the defendants commissioners for its disbursement, the same to be appropriated by them when they should receive a like sum, by voluntary subscription, from private citizens. The defendants accordingly entered into a certain contract with the plaintiffs to do certain work upon the river for the improvement of the navigation, minutely stipulating the kind and quantity of work to be done, for which they covenanted to pay the plaintiffs Thirty-five Hundred Dollars. The defendants designated themselves in such contract as commissioners.

The declaration charged, that plaintiffs had performed their contract, but that defendants had failed to pay the sum agreed on. The action was brought against the defendants individu•ally, as joint obligors; but it was alleged that they contracted *as*commissioners, *¿■c.*

The defendants demurred to this declaration, on the ground that no action at Law could be maintained under such a state ■of facts; and the Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed. the case.

And this decision is assigned as error.

Wright & Shropshire, for plaintiff in error.

Under avood, for defendant in error.

*By the Court.*

Starnes, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] It is conceded by the Counsel for the plaintiff in error, that if this contract were made with the defendants in error, as agents of the State, the latter are not personally liable. But it is insisted that they did not contract in this character, though holding themselves forth in the contract as commissioners for the improvement of the navigation of the Coosa river, by the Legislature appointed, because they represented also a fund raised by voluntary subscription of private citizens, and entrusted to them for the purpose of being applied to the im-' provement of the navigation of Coosa river. And as to this *622fund it is urged, they had the right to bind themselves personally.

All this may be true; but it is not properly set forth in this petition. It is there alleged, that “as commissioners,” &c. they contracted and covenanted, &c. This was their character as public agents, and they are not, by the declaration, charged as being liable, because having in possession a private fund, for the appropriation of which they are responsible. If ••the case had been so framed, and it had been alleged, that in consideration of this they had bound themselves personally, ■and the charge were sustained by proof, then a recovery against them individually, perhaps, might be put upon this .ground. But the declaration does not show this, and the Court below was right in dismissing it.
#### CAROLINA TOBACCO COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (formerly known as United States Customs Service), Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-1493.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Aug. 21, 2003.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. RApp. P. 42(b).
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 annual report on Form 10-K of Huntsman International Holdings LLC (the "Company") for the year ended December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|/s/PETER. R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive
OfficerMarch 30, 2004 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

QuickLinks
* 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. 98-40063 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE HOMERO CAVAZOS-ORTIZ, also known as Juan Jose Cavazos, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-97-CR-306-1

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1998 Before DAVIS, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Homero Cavazos-Ortiz pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien who had been previously arrested and deported and who, without the consent of the Attorney General, was found to be in the United States unlawfully, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He was sentenced to 51 months’ imprisonment. Cavazos-Ortiz appeals his sentence, arguing that district court erred in including his 1993 guilty-plea conviction for making false statements in computing his criminal history score because theNo. 98-40063 -2- conviction was obtained in violation of his fundamental right to counsel. We have reviewed the record and the briefs on appeal and conclude that the district court did not plainly err in including Cavazos-Ortiz’s 1993 guilty-plea conviction in the computation of Cavazos-Ortiz’s criminal history score. United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc); United States v. Haymer , 995 F.2d 550, 552 (5th Cir. 1993). CavazosOrtiz’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1777

___________________________

Charles A. Foster

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Department of Army

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

 ____________

 Submitted: February 4, 2020

Filed: February 12, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Foster appeals after the district court1 dismissed his employment

discrimination action for failure to prosecute. Having carefully reviewed the record

1The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.
and the arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Burgs v. Sissel, 745

F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (reviewing sua sponte dismissal for lack

of prosecution for abuse of discretion); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly,

we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
NASA 

National Aeronautics and 

Facts

Space Administration 

Dryden Flight Research Center 

P.O. Box 273

Edwards, California 93523 

Voice 661-276-3449 

FAX 661-276-3566 

pao@dfrc.nasa.gov FS-2005-08-088 DFRC 

Test Range Support for Space Shuttle

The Western Aeronautical Test Range (WATR) at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center re-sides on the Edward 

Air Force Base complex and supports all segments of the Space Shuttle program, including launch, on-orbit, and 

landing phases of each mission. 

The WATR Aeronautical Tracking Facility (ATF) provides telemetry, radar, voice communication, and video 

support of Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) activities to NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). 

The radar systems track every Shuttle orbit above five degrees in our airspace from launch to landing, relaying timespace positioning information. The radar systems also track the ISS from the day prior to the launch and throughout 

the Shuttle mission to provide critical docking and un-docking information. 

The WATR telemetry systems provide downlinked orbiter health and status information to JSC and, when available, 

the pilot’s point of view (PPOV) video that is sent to the NASA network via satellite. When required, the telemetry 

systems also have the capability to provide uplinked com-mand data to the orbiter. 

The WATR communications facility provides voice communication circuits between the various NASA centers and 

DOD facilities throughout each mission. While the NASA Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) 

provides the orbiter’s primary voice communication link, the WATR facility provides backup support for TDRSS 

should a failure occur during the Shuttle mis-sion. In addition, the WATR communications facility becomes the 

primary means of communica-tion support should the Shuttle be diverted to Edwards for a landing. 

Additional WATR support provided during an Edwards landing include long-range optical cam-eras and video vans 

for video coverage and the Mission Control Center (MCC) that offers key support personnel a location in which to 

coordinate and monitor landing activities. All crucial WATR areas have incorporated uninterrupted power systems 

(UPS) as well as backup generator services should Dryden experience a commercial power failure during Shuttle 

activities. In addi-tion, contractor maintenance personnel are on sight to monitor the backup power systems and 

provide any emergency services required during critical shuttle operations. 

1
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 99(C)

The following has been excerpted from a Letter Agreement, dated May 20, 1996,
and entered into between OSI and Philip N. Cardman ("Letter Agreement").  This
exceprt sets forth the relevant provisions of the Letter Agreement relating to
the obligations of OSI in the event Mr. Cardman's employment is terminated.



                                    * * * *

SEVERANCE:  OSI will provide salary continuation for a period of two years if at
any time you are involuntarily terminated, other than for cause.  In addition,
if your employment with OSI is voluntarily terminated at any time during the
first 24 months of your employment due to a change in OSI's Chief Executive
Officer from J.T. Ambrozy, OSI will provide you with the following salary
continuation:

 - Within the first six months, you will receive 24 months salary continuation;
   and

 - After six months, but less than 12 months, you will receive 18 months salary
   continuation; and

 - After 12 months, but less than 18 months, you will receive 12 months salary
   continuation; and

 - After 18 months, but less than 24 months, you will receive 6 months salary
   continuation; and

 - Thereafter, no salary continuation will apply.


To be eligible for severance upon a change in the CEO, your voluntary
termination must occur within three months after the resignation or termination
of Mr. Ambrozy. In either of the above events, stock option vesting will cease
on the date of your termination.

                                    * * * *
Exhibit 32.1 

 

**Certification of Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)         the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act        of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)         the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: December 8, 2009

 

| /s/ Clyde B. Anderson                           |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| Clyde B. Anderson                               |
| Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

NASA Education Implementation Plan Update 

Beverly Girten, Ph.D. 

Senior Advisor to Associate Administrator for Education 

NAC Ad Hoc Task Force on STEM Education 

Sept. 22, 2015 

9/22/2015 www.nasa.gov 
All Three Plan Related Products Are Complete 

• NASA EducaAon Brochure

• NASA EducaAon ImplementaAon Plan (Printed Version)

• NASA EducaAon ImplementaAon Plan (E3 Version)

– E3 is: Electronically Enhanced EdiAon

– Completed end of August	
  

– Presented to Agency leadership on Sept. 8

– NASA EducaAon was added to NASA main webpage Sept. 9

– E3 added to the NASA EducaAon main webpage on Sept. 10.

– About	
  30 videos added and over 300 hyperlinks included

– Will have contest	
  for pictures and videos quarterly

• Plans to update both versions of plan twice a year

2
 
3
 

E3 Plan Demonstration 

•	 Can start	
  at either NASA main website (nasa.gov)	
  or

NASA EducaAon website (nasa.gov/educaAon)

•	 Select	
  product, in this case, E3 version of plan

• Table of Content	
  is hyperlinked, so can jump to locaAon

• Click on any hyperlink and it	
  will take you to that	
  

specific website, back arrow to return to plan.

• Click on any video and it	
  will take you to that	
  video; stop

at any point	
  and hit	
  back arrow and will return to plan

• By having links outside the heavy PDF, the heavy PDF

can be emailed, but	
  sAll link to enhanced content	
  
Thank	
  you!

We appreciate your earlier input and look	
  

forward to your	
  con2nued input.	
  

Ques2ons?

Thank	
  you again!

4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior District Judge for the Eastern

 **

District of New York, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE FELIX,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

BAXTER HEALTHCARE

CORPORATION,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-56287

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-06459-JHN-CW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Jacqueline H. Nguyen, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 11, 2012

Pasadena, California

Before: FERNANDEZ and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, Senior

District Judge.** 

Jose Felix appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in

favor of his employer, Baxter Healthcare Corporation. Felix sued Baxter for

FILED

APR 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
religious discrimination, failure to accommodate, and unlawful retaliation under

the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. 

Felix argues that Baxter failed to accommodate his religion by requiring him

to work a Sunday shift, that the failure to accommodate was religious

discrimination, and that Baxter retaliated against him after he filed complaints with

the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. We disagree. 

It is undisputed that Baxter offered Felix a non-Sunday position in a

different group that was equal in pay and title. As a matter of law, the offer to

transfer was a reasonable accommodation. See Cook v. Lindsay Olive Growers,

911 F.2d 233, 241 (9th Cir. 1990). The allegation that Baxter failed to engage in

the interactive process is not supported by the facts. The district court correctly

granted summary judgment on Felix’s failure to accommodate and religious

discrimination claims.

Felix also failed to provide substantial evidence that Baxter’s performance

reviews were pretextual or based on retaliatory animus. Temporal proximity is

insufficient to satisfy the substantial evidence standard for retaliation claims after

the defendant has come forward with evidence of a legitimate, nonretaliatory

reason for the adverse action. See Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Int’l., 60 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 45, 54 (Ct. App. 2007). The district court therefore did not err in granting

summary judgment on Felix’s retaliation claim.

Plaintiff argues that the district court failed to address his evidentiary

objections “individually and with due consideration.” We find no fault with the

form or substance of the district court’s evidentiary rulings.

AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00521-CR

Patricia Sue Leverett, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 42780, HONORABLE C. W. DUNCAN, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Patricia Sue Leverett pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation and was placed on 

deferred adjudication community supervision. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 30.02 (West 2003). After 

appellant pleaded true to allegations in the State=s motion to adjudicate, the district court revoked 

supervision, adjudicated her guilty, and imposed a sentence of five years in prison.

Appellant=s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and 

without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be 

advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d

553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of 
2

counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of her right to examine the appellate 

record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and 

without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel=s motion to 

withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: April 10, 2003

Do Not Publish
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 44 

Expressing support for designation of February 12, 2017, as ‘‘Darwin Day’’ 

and recognizing the importance of science in the betterment of humanity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2017 

Mr. HIMES (for himself, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. FOSTER, Mr. 

POCAN, Ms. SPEIER, Ms. NORTON, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. 

DELAURO, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. KILMER, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, 

and Mr. MCGOVERN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of February 12, 2017, 

as ‘‘Darwin Day’’ and recognizing the importance of 

science in the betterment of humanity. 

Whereas Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection, together with the monumental 

amount of scientific evidence he compiled to support it, 

provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth; 

Whereas the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is further strongly supported by the modern understanding of the science of genetics; 

Whereas it has been the human curiosity and ingenuity exemplified by Darwin that has promoted new scientific disVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:46 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR44.IH HR44

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 44 IH 

coveries that have helped humanity solve many problems 

and improve living conditions; 

Whereas the advancement of science must be protected from 

those unconcerned with the adverse impacts of global 

warming and climate change; 

Whereas the teaching of creationism in some public schools 

compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the 

United States education systems; 

Whereas Charles Darwin is a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build 

a global celebration of science and humanity intended to 

promote a common bond among all of Earth’s peoples; 

and 

Whereas February 12, 2017, is the anniversary of the birth 

of Charles Darwin in 1809 and would be an appropriate 

date to designate as ‘‘Darwin Day’’: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘Darwin Day’’; 

3 and 

4 (2) recognizes Charles Darwin as a worthy sym5 bol on which to celebrate the achievements of reason, 

6 science, and the advancement of human knowledge. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Samuel Wharton *v.*McFerrin, Menifee et al.

Wills — Construction of — Property over.

A testator is deemed to have died intestate as to particular property not specifically alluded to by will, a *reversionary interest*of which had not been disposed of by any other clause of the will.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

December 6, 1865.

Opinion

by the Court :

Marshall Halbert died possessed of a large separate real estate in the city of Louisville, consisting of houses and lots in various streets and an insignificant joint real estate consisting of one lot on College street belonging to Marshall Halbert, etc.

By his last will he devised his dwelling to his wife in fee and gave her the rents and profits of certain other real estate during life, and devised the reversionary interest of this real estate to certain devisees, in fee, defeasible.

By the second clause of his will he devised the rents and profits of all the rest of his real estate to his mother, Mrs. Manzey, *326during her life, and specifically devises the reversion of specified real estate to certain devisees, in fee, defeasible, “ In the event that any of the persons named above, my wife excepted, should die without children or before they arrive at the age of twenty-one years then *I give the pivperty so conveyed to them to the children of Isaac M. Halbert and Grace T. Halbert.”*

Whilst it is evident that the testator intended to dispose of his whole estate it is equally apparent that this single lot of joint estate of small value on College street was overlooked, as no allusion by any kind of description is made to it; therefore, unless it passes by some general clause he must be' deemed to have died intestate as to it, but it is contended that it passed for life to his mother under the second clause of the will, and then to the children of Isaac and George Halbert under the last clause. It is evident, however, that the last clause in the will conveys to the children of Isaac and George Halbert a *contingent remainder*depending on a *defeasible fee*to take effect upon the first devisee *dying without children or before arrival at twenty-one years of age.*Such á devise cannot convey an unconditional *reversionary interest,*which the testator had in all the real estate, the rents and profits of which he had devised for life to his mother, and, therefore, cannot operate as a conveyance of this College street lot, the *reversionary interest of which has not been disposed of by aivy other clause of the will.*

It results, therefore, that the testator’s reversionary interest in said lot descended to his heir-at-law, and it being agreed that his mother was his sole heir her deed conveys the title.

This being the only defect set up in the title of McFerrin, Menefee, etc., and it being unavailable, their vendee should be compelled to accept their title and pay the purchase price, and the chancellor very properly so ordered. Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
#### CHRISTIAN RODGERS v. JOHN D. GUTH.

June 27, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### JOSEPH BARROW v. NEWARK STAR LEDGER.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.