alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fatman & Co. *v.*D. T. Brown.

Common Carrier — Injury to Goods in Transit — Damages — Consignee not Responsible.

Where goods are injured in transit, it not being the result of any improper conduct on the part of the consignee, he cannot be held responsible for the damages, and is only accountable to the consignor for the price received for the damaged goods.

Commission Merchants — ’Duties to Customers.

Where a consignee makes advances on tobacco shipped him by commission merchants, such advancing does not give them the exclusive right to control it except to sell so much of same as was necessary to reimburse them; nor does it give them the right to reship to a foreign market, without the consent, express or implied, of consignor.

APPEAL PROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT.

March 4, 1867.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Williams:

It is evident from the proof that the jury gave the appellee, on his answer and cross-petition, the benefit of his claims for the three hogsheads of tobacco at the weight alleged by him, and then gave the value thereof at the highest figures proven, say $27 per hundred net. ■

One hogshead got injured on the boat on its passage to Cincinnati, so much, that the middlemen, the agents of the railroad and consignee there, would not receive it to be forwarded to the consignor, Fatman *&*Co., New York; this hogshead was properly valued as though it had not been injured and the boat paid for it to the consignees at Cincinnati which wTas afterward paid over by them to Fatman & Co.

The injury was an accident of transportation, and not being the result of any improper conduct of Fatman *& Co., they*should not be held responsible for it.

_The loss being adjusted by the boat, without suit and nothing appearing to show that appellee was injured by this adjustment through any careless or improper conduct of Fatman & Co., they should not be held responsible for more than they received on account of said hogshead of tobacco.

*491*McPherson,*for Appellant.

Fatman & Co. did not by their advances get the unlimited right to control appellee’s tobacco; they thereby got the right to control and sell so much of it as was necessary to reimburse them, in the New York .market, but not to ship it to a foreign market, or sell in any other than the New York market, without the consent, express or implied, of appellee; and no such power is to be inferred from mere advancing. Nor does the evidence establish, but negatives, any such commercial custom or regulation in New York; it cannot, therefore, be inferred from the known commercial custom of the place.

Fatman & Co. should be held responsible for the fair market-value of the two hogsheads of tobacco in the market of New York city, as if sold within a reasonable time after their arrival, and for the price obtained for the damaged hogshea,d sold at Cincinnati.

This is evidently not the criterion by which the jury were governed, therefore, the judgment is reversed for a new trial and further proceedings as herein indicated.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 15, 2021

.

________________ No. 3D21

- 169 Lower Tribunal No s

. 20

- 163 AP , 11

- 7660 CC

________________ 

### United Automobile Insurance Company , Appellant ,
vs. 

### Life Medical Center Corp., a/a/o Alma A. Guevara , Appellee

.

A n Appeal from the County Court for Miami

- Dade County, Lawrence D. King , Judge. Michael J. Neimand , for appellant

. David B. Pakula, P.A., and David B. Pakula (Pembroke Pines ); and Corredor & Husseini, P.A ., and Maria E. Corredor, for appellee

.
Before HENDON, MILLER, and BOKOR , JJ. ON CONFESSION OF ERROR HENDON, J.2 The appellee, Life Medical Center Corp., a/a/o Alma A. Guevara (“Life Medical”), has properly confessed error based on the decision in United Automobile Insurance Company v. Profes sional Medical Group,
Inc. , 318 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), in which this Court held that the trial court reversibly erred by awarding attorney’s fees without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of attorney’s fees. Id. at 1262. Acc ordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Reversed and remanded.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov NP-2020-06-046-LaRC
Voluntary Self-Identification of Employee Disability Status

• Send date: Sept. 2022

• Sender: Assistant Administrator, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer / 

Associate Administrator, Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity

• Audience: Employees

• What is this? Brief description: Annual notice

• Subject: Voluntary Self-Identification of Employee Disability Status

///

Hello NASA employees,

Self-identification of disabilities allows employees to bring their whole selves to work and is 

essential for a workplace that is truly inclusive. Please take a moment to visit your Employee 

Express account to review your disability status codes and make any updates. Log into 

Employee Express and click on “Disability Update” to verify or update your status. You can also 

update other information such as level of education, race, and ethnicity. Once you make 

changes, save your selections, and the system will update to reflect your latest choices.

This information is important because it helps us:

• Create accessible workplaces, processes, spaces, and opportunities; 

helps the identify gaps in recruiting, hiring, retention, and promotion of people 

with disabilities; aids in determining future diversity efforts and building 

budgets for various disability-related activities, including reasonable 

accommodation; and assists NASA in providing the right support for people 

who need it.

• Provide accurate aggregated employee demographic data to the U.S. 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and measure our progress toward reaching 

federal workforce representation goals for individuals with disabilities.

• Support presidential executive orders related to diversity and inclusion in 

the workforce. The enhancement of our NASA workforce disability data is 

also a specific focus of NASA’s new DEIA Strategic Plan, in alignment to the 

strategic goals for data, inclusion, and accessibility.

Understandably, you may be hesitant to identify your disability status. However, you can be 

assured that all personally identifiable information, including disability status, is protected by the 

Privacy Act of 1974. Also, your specific information can only be accessed by NASA officials with 

a “need to know,” such as staff in the NASA Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer. The 

Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity only has access to only aggregated employee 

demographical information.

You can find this request also on the ODEO OneNASA site. For questions regarding NASA’s 

Disability Program, contact your Center Disability Program Manager or Rebecca Doroshenk, 

ODEO, at 202-358-0038 or rebecca.d.doroshenk@nasa.gov.

Jane Datta Stephen T. Shih

Assistant Administrator Associate Administrator

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity
## This page has permanently moved.

### If redirect does not occur in 5 seconds, click the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/Investigation.html?#id=1882
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk June 25, 2012

p0618 

# Order

June 25, 2012

144565

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144565

COA: 300457

Kent CC: 10

- 001234

- FH

ROMALLE LEE LAIRD,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 13, 2011

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
DONALD LEE HOLMQUEST (M.D., PH.D.)

NASA ASTRONAUT (FORMER)

PERSONAL DATA: Born in Dallas, Texas, on April 7, 1939. Married. One 

daughter. He enjoys skiing and handball.

EDUCATION: Attended Roger Q. Mills Elementary School and is a 1957 graduate 

of W. H. Adamson High School in Dallas, Texas; received a bachelor of science 

degree in Electrical Engineering from Southern Methodist University in 1962 and 

doctorates in Medicine and Physiology from Baylor University in 1967 and 1968, 

respectively. Has completed specialty training in Nuclear Medicine and is a 

Diplomat of the American Board of Nuclear Medicine. Received the Juris Doctor 

degree from University of Houston in 1988.

ORGANIZATIONS: Member of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, American 

College of Nuclear Physicians, the Association for the Advancement of Medical 

Instrumentation. Dr. Holmquest holds a faculty appointment as Adjunct Professor of Medicine at Baylor College of 

Medicine.

EXPERIENCE: After receiving his medical degree and his doctorate in Physiology from Baylor College of Medicine, and 

completing his internship in internal medicine at The Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas, Dr. Holmquest served as a 

scientist/astronaut with NASA. There, he earned Air Force Wings and worked in the Apollo and Skylab programs. He 

logged 750 hours flying time in jet aircraft prior to resigning from NASA in September 1973.

Dr. Holmquest was selected as a scientist-astronaut by NASA in August 1967. After completing initial academic training and 

a 53-week course in flight training at Williams Air Force Base, Arizona, he worked on Skylab habitability systems and 

medical experiments for a period of 1 1/2 years.

Dr. Holmquest then returned to Baylor to train in nuclear medicine, and then assumed the role of Chief of Nuclear Medicine 

at Ben Taub General Hospital in Houston. He established the Department of Nuclear Medicine at Eisenhower Medical 

Center in Palm Desert, California, and then took the post of Associate Dean of Medicine at Texas A&M University, where he 

was instrumental in developing A&M's new College of Medicine.

While pursuing his legal education, Dr. Holmquest also maintained a successful private practive in medicine. He received his 

juris doctorate cum laude from the University of Houston, and after serving as a senior partner at Wood, Lucksinger & 

Epstein until its dissolution, he established the firm of Holmquest & Associates, dedicated to the health care industry. He now 

practices medicine and law on a full-time basis.

JANUARY 1995

This is the only version available from NASA. Updates must be sought direct from the above named individual.

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Biographical Data

 Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

 Houston, Texas 77058
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

Drone Maze

A company is using a package-delivery drone to bring a customer’s order. Start in the center of 

the maze, and find the route the drone needs to take to get through the maze to deliver the 

package.

 
Solution:
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In connection with the accompanying amended Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cargo Connection Logistics Holding, Inc. for the year ending December 31, 2008, I, Scott Goodman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cargo Connection Logistics Holding, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:
  1. Such yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cargo Connection Logistics Holding, Inc.
  Dated: December 17, 2010
  By:
/s/ Scott Goodman

Scott Goodman

President, Chief Executive Officer,

Chief Financial Officer and Director

(Principal Executive, Accounting and Financial Officer)
<PAGE>
                                                                    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


The undersigned, Rob Sims, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Crossroads Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
the dates and for the periods expressed in the report.


Dated:  January 21, 2004


/s/ ROB SIMS
----------------------------------------------
Rob Sims
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>   1
                                      - 1 -

                                                                     Exhibit 4.1

                                SHARE CERTIFICATE

 ORDINARY SHARES                                           CERTIFICATE NO. [---]

                                DEALTIME.COM LTD.
                             COMPANY NO. 51-246003-1

               Incorporated under the Laws of the State of Israel

                         Authorized Capital: NIS 500,000

                               THIS IS TO CERTIFY

                               That ___________].

                           is the registered holder of

                           ___________ ORDINARY SHARES
                         par value NIS 0.01, fully paid
                           in the above named Company,
                 subject to the provisions of the Memorandum and
                    Articles of Association of the Company.

                     Given this __th day of __________, 2000

                         _______________________________
                                    Director

THE SECURITIES EVIDENCED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE
UNITED STATES SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, AND MAY NOT BE SOLD,
TRANSFERRED, ASSIGNED OR HYPOTHECATED UNLESS THERE IS AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION
STATEMENT UNDER SUCH ACT COVERING SUCH SECURITIES, THE SALE IS MADE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 144 UNDER SUCH ACT, THE SALE IS MADE OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES TO A FOREIGN PERSON IN A TRANSACTION MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 904
UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OR THE ISSUER RECEIVES AN OPINION OF COUNSEL FOR THE
HOLDER OF THESE SECURITIES REASONABLY SATISFACTORY TO THE ISSUER, STATING THAT
SUCH SALE, TRANSFER, ASSIGNMENT OR HYPOTHECATION IS EXEMPT FROM THE REGISTRATION
AND PROSPECTUS DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS OF SUCH ACT.
<PAGE>   2
                                     - 2 -


THE TRANSFERABILITY OF THE SHARES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE IS RESTRICTED
BY CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANY'S ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION AND BY THE TERMS
OF A CERTAIN SHAREHOLDERS' RIGHTS AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 8, 2000, COPIES OF
WHICH MAY BE EXAMINED AT THE OFFICES OF THE COMPANY.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS OF 8/1/98, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS OF 1/31/98 AND
UNAUDITED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIODS
ENDED 8/1/98 AND 8/2/97 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED 8/1/98.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1998
<CASH>                                           2,235
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     19,137
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,042
<PP&E>                                          65,997
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,401
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,433
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        98,603
<OTHER-SE>                                    (44,808)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,652
<SALES>                                         20,862
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,862
<CGS>                                           15,945
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   340
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,550
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (3)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,173)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,173)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,173)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 27, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT DAVID DUNN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DAVID PARKER, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-6086

(D.C. No. 5:09-CV-01239-F)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before MURPHY, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Robert David Dunn seeks from us a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in

order to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus

relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court dismissed Mr. Dunn’s

petition pursuant to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation finding that

the petition was untimely, as it was filed approximately 16 years after his

conviction in 1992, and that Mr. Dunn identified no lawful reason that might

entitle him to equitable tolling of the normal statutory limitations period. 

Appellate Case: 10-6086 Document: 01018464999 Date Filed: 07/27/2010 Page: 1 
- 2 -

We may issue a COA only if the petitioner makes “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, the

district court dismisses a § 2254 petition on procedural grounds, a COA is

warranted only if “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000). 

That standard is not met in this case. The magistrate judge’s thorough

nine-page report, adopted by the district court in its entirety, is entirely correct. 

Neither do we see any way in which we might improve upon that analysis by

further elaboration. Accordingly, we deny Mr. Dunn’s application for COA and

dismiss this appeal. We also deny Mr. Dunn’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis as he fails to present a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on appeal. See

McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997).

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 10-6086 Document: 01018464999 Date Filed: 07/27/2010 Page: 2
NUMBER 13-16-00231-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT,

v.

ANTHONY CHRISTIAN CASAS, APPELLEE.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Victoria County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, the State of Texas, by and through the District Attorney in and for 

Victoria County, Texas, has filed a motion for stay of proceedings in the above cause. 

On April 12, 2016, the trial court granted a motion to suppress evidence. The State has 

filed a notice of appeal and has requested a stay in the trial court’s proceedings pending 

disposition of its appeal. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. § 44.01(a)(5), (e) (West, 
2

Westlaw through Ch. 46, 2015 R.S.). The Court, having examined and fully considered 

the motion for stay of proceedings, is of the opinion that said motion should be granted. 

The motion for stay is hereby GRANTED, and the trial court's proceedings are hereby 

ordered STAYED pending disposition of the State’s appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

5

th day of May, 2016.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ESW CAPITAL, L.L.C.

,

Appellant,

v.

PLATO LABS, INC.

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 25 6

- CV

Appeal from the

200th District Court

of Travis County, Texas 1

(TC# D

- 1

- GN

- 17

- 000883 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant ESW Capital, L.L.C

. , ha s filed a n unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of

this appeal. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed.

Per the agreement of the parties, costs are assessed against the party that incurred them

. See

T EX .R.A PP

. P. 42.1(d).

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

February 7, 2020

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

1 We hear this case on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 41.3.
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on FormS-3 (Nos.333-81601, 333-66128, 333-63364, 333-56588 and 333-118353) Form S-8 (No. 333-43550 and 333-51928) of Newtek Business Services, Inc. of our report dated March 30, 2005 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule,which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

New York, NewYork 

March 30, 2005
#### THE SHAFTSBURY CENTERS, INC. v. CITY OF HACKENSACK.

July 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.