alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10270.

#### Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company *v.*Guinnip.

Decided June 12, 1919.

Petition for certiorari; from Liberty superior court—Judge Sheppard. November 9, 1918.

From the petition for certiorari it-appeared that the railroad company was sued by Guinnip in a justice’s court of Liberty county for $50, on account of the killing of a horse alleged to have been killed at Allenhurst in that county on April 18, 1918; that at the appearance term the defendant filed a general denial of the plaintiff’s allegations; and that the testimony at the trial on appeal in the justice’s court was as follows: The plaintiff testified: “The horse which they removed from the pilot of the defendant’s train at Allenhurst in said county on April 18, 1918, was my property. His value was $50, which the defendant has not paid me and is now due me. I did not see the train strike the horse.” Another witness testified: “I was at the depot of the defendant at Allenhurst in Liberty county, Ga.> on April 18, 1918, when the defendant’s train No. 21 arrived about 3:40 p. m. When the engine rolled up to the station at Allenhurst- the plaintiff’s horse was on the pilot, dead. I helped to remove the carcass from the track. I. did hot see the train kill the horse. The value of the horse was $50.” The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $50, for which judgment was rendered. The petition for certiorari alleged that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence and without evidence to support it. In the brief uf counsel for the railroad company it is contended: (1) At the time of the alleged killing the United States government was operating the railroad (a fact as to which judicial cognizance must be taken: 16 Cyc. 904; 38 Fed. 415, 419; General Order of Director General, No. 27, Koberts’ Federal Liability of Carriers, p. 1712), and the government alone is liable, if there be any liability: Central Law Journal, Feb. 7, 1919, p. 100. (2) There was no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that the horse was killed by the train. (3) If the suit could be construed as being against the Director General, there was no presumption against him (98 Ga. 306). (4) There was no evidence that the horse was struck by the train in Liberty county, and the jurisdictional *805allegation of the plaintiff’s pleading was not sustained: Park’s Code, § 2798; 53 *Ga.*500, 501(1); 6 *Ga. App.*858(1); 1-11 *Ga.*855, 856.

*804Luke, J.

The court erred in refusing to sanction the certiorari.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*

*805
      *Osborne, Lawrence S Abrahams, Melville Price,*for plaintiff in error.
exv10w2



 






Exhibit 10.2




U.S. HELICOPTER




JOHN FAGAN:





	•	 	EMPLOYMENT TERMS — DATED September 16, 2005






	•	 	POSITION
	 
	4	 	CHIEF PILOT






	•	 	LOCATION
	 
	4	 	SIKORSKY MEMORIAL AIRPORT, STRATFORD, CT or at some other yet to
be determined facility in the New York (TRI-STATE) area.






	•	 	REPORTS TO
	 
	4	 	DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS






	•	 	RESPONSIBILITIES





The Chief Pilot will insure that no person is assigned to flight duties unless such person meets
all applicable FAA and company standards. Specific duties of the Chief Pilot are as follows:




	 	•	 	With respect to crew training, the Chief Pilot will institute and maintain a flight crew
training and proficiency program and will maintain all records associated with that
program.
	 
	 	•	 	The flight crew training program will include periodic instructing, testing, route
checks and flight checks required by the FAA/TSA regulations.
	 
	 	•	 	The Chief Pilot will insure that flight personnel under his jurisdiction maintain
adequate proficiency to perform duties to which they are assigned.
	 
	 	•	 	Ensure that flight and duty times for flight crew personnel are adhered to at all times
in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations.
	 
	 	•	 	Make recommendations for flight crew hiring, discharge and other personnel actions to
the Director of Operations.
	 
	 	•	 	The Chief Pilot may delegate specific duties to his/her qualified designec, but will
retain total responsibility for them.










 









 











JOHN FAGAN

EMPLOYMENT TERMS

September 16, 2005

PAGE TWO





	•	 	SALARY






	 	4	 	Part Time (from date of signing to Pre Start-Up Period),
Salary Rate of $31.25 Per Hour.
	 
	 	4	 	Full Time Per Startup Period (Estimated to be a date
coinciding with the delivery of the first helicopter to first revenue flight
“Start-Up”) Base Salary $60,000
	 
	 	4	 	Effective with Start-Up Base Salary will be $65,000
	 
	 	4	 	Effective Six (6) Months After Start-Up Base Salary will be
$70,000 (Based on Performance)
	 
	 	4	 	Variance Between Pre Start-Up period and Effective
Start-Up, Salary Difference Between $60,000 and $65,000 will be Deferred






	•	 	STOCK OPTIONS
	 
	4	 	70,000 SHARES AT A PRICE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COMPANY.






	•	 	BENEFITS






	 	4	 	John Fagan elects Not to Participate in USH Medical Plan (Only)
	 
	 	4	 	John Fagan will be eligible to participate in Other
Benefits Offered This Position such as Incentive Plan and any Employee Stock
Plans as Established/Finalized by The Company.





AGREED TO:




	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Terence O. Dennison
 

TERENCE O. DENNISON

	 	/s/ John Fagan
 

JOHN FAGAN
	 	 
	Senior Vice President/

	 	9-21-05	 	 
	Chief Operating Officer
August 2005 

Attention: Thermometry Labs!!! 

Thermometry Group Leads International Efforts to Refine 

Temperature Scales 

At its 23rd meeting, the Consultative Committee for Thermometry, the highest 

international authority on scientific issues of thermometry, approved two 

recommendations that will improve the scientific basis of the unit of temperature, the 

kelvin, and will provide for more effective dissemination of accurate and well-defined 

temperature measurements. The kelvin is defined as 1/273.16 of the absolute temperature 

of the triple point of water, but recent research has shown that the isotopic composition of 

the water affects the triple-point temperature significantly. 

NIST’s Thermometry Group led an international task group that drafted both a scientific 

report on this effect and Recommendation T1, which specifies a definite isotopic 

composition and thereby removes an ambiguity in the kelvin. Although it is possible to 

construct a temperature scale based on the definition of the kelvin and a 

thermodynamically based primary thermometer, direct realizations of thermodynamic 

temperature are generally very difficult. 

The present temperature scale adopted for worldwide use, the International Temperature 

Scale of 1990 (ITS-90), provides a recipe for a practical temperature scale that is readily 

disseminated to users through calibration services at NIST and elsewhere. As a result of 

recent research, a number of scientific imperfections have been identified in the ITS-90. 

To address this situation, Recommendation T3, drafted by NIST staff, recommends the 

creation of a formal Practical Method (often referred to by the equivalent French phrase 

mise en pratique) of the definition of the kelvin. Adoption of a Practical Method has a 

number of advantages. In particular, the document will: 

· provide a highly visible and internationally accepted medium for presenting results on 

the differences and uncertainties of the ITS-90 relative to thermodynamic temperature, 

largely determined from the results of NIST research, 

· include a technical annex that contains isotopic compositions of fixed-point materials 

and other essential information needed for a clear and unambiguous realization of the 

ITS-90, and 

· in time, support and provide guidance for calibrations performed directly on the 

thermodynamic temperature scale, as envisioned in the near future by the NIST Optical 

Technology Division. 

Use of a Practical Method enables rapid scientific progress in the refinement of 

temperature scales without excessive and expensive revision of the practical scales 

commonly used in industry. A Practical Method also supports the best possible 

implementations of the existing practical scale. Recommendations T1 and T3 will be 
considered by the International Committee for Weights and Measures in October 2005, at 

its 94th meeting. 

If you have any questions regarding the two recommendations, contact Dean Ripple at 

301-975-4801 or at dean.ripple@nist.gov.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1

Eastern Division

Zhu Zhai Holdings Limited, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04985

Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman

Steven Ivankovich

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, February 7, 2024:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Motion hearing

held on 2/7/2024. Parties confirmed on the record that they will be proceeding with the

Special Master. Respondent Walker & Dunlop, LLC's motion for leave to deposit escrow

funds with court registry and for related relief [291] is granted. Enter Order. An in−person

status hearing is set for 3/8/2024 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice. (ym)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 295 Filed: 02/07/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3832
GRADUATE STUDENT APPLICATION

Professional Research Experience Program

 STUDENT INFORMATION: Please type or print in BLACK ink only.

 NAME (Last, First, M.I.) SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER DATE OF BIRTH

 

 PRESENT ADDRESS ZIP CODE PHONE

 

 PREVIOUS ADDRESS ZIP CODE PHONE

 

 MAJOR COURSE HOURS COMPLETED CUM GPA

STUDENT BACKGROUND:

Are you a U.S. Citizen?

* Yes * No

 * Male

 * Female

Ethnicity

(Optional)

Have you ever been granted a U.S. Government Security Clearance?

* Yes * No

Granting Agency:

Date:

SCHOLARSHIPS:

 List any scholarships and/or grants that you are currently applying toward your tuition:

Name of Scholarship Organization Sponsoring Scholarship Amount of Scholarship Dates Scholarship Has 

Been Applied to Tuition

PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL REFERENCES:

 List three (3) persons in your field who can verify your qualifications:

NAME ADDRESS DAYTIME PHONE OCCUPATION

( ) 

( ) 

( ) 

 List foreign languages you speak or read

 Do you speak these languages fluently and/or read them proficiently? * Yes * No
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:

Start with the present or last position first, include summer or part-time work.

Employed Organization or Firm Supervisor's Name

Start Date

Mo. Yr.

Address Supervisor's Title

End Date Your Title Reason for Leaving

 Description of Duties (Please be specific): 

 

 

Employed Organization or Firm Supervisor's Name

Start Date

Mo. Yr.

Address Supervisor's Title

End Date

Mo. Yr.

Your Title Reason for Leaving

 Description of Duties (Please be specific): 

 

 

Employed Organization or Firm Supervisor's Name

Start Date

Mo. Yr.

Address Supervisor's Title

End Date

Mo. Yr.

Your Title Reason for Leaving

 Description of Duties (Please be specific): 

 

 
GRE RESULTS:

Examination Score %

Analytical

Verbal

Quantitative

Test Date:

 

* I have not

taken the GRE

* I am scheduled to

take the GRE on:

 

 How did you hear about the PREP Fellowship Program?

 * Saw an announcement at school * Informed in the Grants Office

 * Informed by a faculty member * Received information in the mail

 * Heard about it from a friend * Informed by an employer

 * Other (specify): 

 I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE NIST PREP FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.

 ______________________________ _______________ 

 STUDENT DATE
United States

Department of

Commerce

Technology

Administration

National

Institute of

Standards and

Technology

SPECIFICATIONS, TOLERANCES,

AND OTHER TECHNICAL

REQUIREMENTS FOR WEIGHING

AND MEASURING DEVICES

as adopted by

the 91st

National

Conference on

Weights and

Measures 2006

44

2007

NIST Handbook
#### Samuel E. Phillips *v.*Chas. P. Burdin, etc.

Dismissal and Nonsuit — Sufficiency of Evidence.

Tlie evidence was held not sufficient to sustain plaintiff’s petition, and the petition was properly dimsissed.

APPEAL FROM! LOUISVILLE 'CHANCERY COURT.

March 7, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Wm. P. Phillips' states that Burdin said to him' that he owed Tatum more than would pay for the work, and before paying Tatum he would notify him (witness) and see that he was paid; that Burdin allowed him to go on with the work and said that he should be paid, whereupon the work was resumed and he always looked to Burdin for the money due.

Thompson says Burdin said to Phillips that he owed Tatum' more than would pay for all the work and that he would not pay him *543until he had notified him (Phillips) also to go on and do the work and he should be paid.

*Riley, for appellant.*

*'Dembits & Wehle, for appellee.*

Giving to this, testimony the construction most favorable to appellant, it does not show that he abandoned his contract with Tatum, and completed the work, upon the idea that he had made a new contract with Burdin. All that he demanded of Burdin was that he would hold back from Tatum1 a sum sufficient to pay for the work he had undertaken to do, and that he be responsible to him, or see that he was paid. This and nothing more Burdin promised. It was a promise upon his part to pay1 the debt, or to answer for the default of Tatum. Not being in writing, it is within the statute of frauds, and can not be enforced by suit.

Upon .the proof the chancellor properly dismissed appellant’s petition.1

The judgment must be *affirmed.*
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2444

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Acme W. Price, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 5, 1997 Filed: September 18, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
After Acme W. Price was arrested for robbing a federally-insured bank, h e confessed to four other such robberies. Price later pleaded guilty to an indictmen t charging him with one count of acting with others to rob a federally-insured bank, in vio lation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and 2, and with four counts of robbing a federally-The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. -2- insured bank, in violation of section 2113(a). The district court sentenced Price t o 1 120 months & imprisonment and 2 years & supervised release. Price appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in denying his request pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.0, p.s. (1995), for a departure from t he applicable Guidelines range based on his extraordinary acceptance of responsibility. As the district court & s remarks at sentencing evince recognition of its authority to depart, we conclude that the court & s refusal to do so was an unreviewable exercise of discr etion. See United States v. Hernandez-Reyes , 114 F.3d 800, 802 (8th Cir
. 1997).The judgment is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 13, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128130 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MARIA L. LYLE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128130 

 COA: 257689 

WCAC: 02-000481 

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 20, 2005 

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

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

CAVANAGH, WEAVER, and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

t1006 

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. 

October 13, 2005 

Clerk
#### Fu Jing WANG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-1457.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 8, 2004.

Decided Dec. 7, 2004.

Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Eric W. Marsteller, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

*863Unpublished opinions are .not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Fu Jing Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.

The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive “unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We have reviewed the immigration judge’s decision and the administrative record and find the record supports the conclusion that Wang failed to establish past persecution or a well founded fear of persecution. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish his eligibility for asylum); *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Because the decision in this case is not manifestly contrary to law, we cannot grant the relief Wang seeks.*

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*

*

**Wang abandoned her challenge to the Board’s denial of her applications for withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          23,084
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  202,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,914)
<INVENTORY>                                     21,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               297,101
<PP&E>                                         917,339
<DEPRECIATION>                               (316,085)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,561,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          169,660
<BONDS>                                      1,591,496
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       117,497
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,181,238
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,561,221
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               883,575
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  616,693
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                96,609
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,256
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                111,650
<INCOME-TAX>                                    52,752
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             58,898
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    58,898
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6198

ANDREW M. JACOBS,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:09-cv-00366-REP)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew M. Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew M. Jacobs seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies, as 

well as its order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for 

reconsideration.*

 * Because the record clearly establishes that exhaustion did 

not occur, the orders are final. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. 

Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (1993).

 The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Jacobs has not made the requisite showing. 
3

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED