alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ARKAY INFANTS WEAR, Inc. v. KLINE’S, Inc.

No. 5712.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

May 17, 1950.

See also, 93 F.Supp. 967.

Claude A. Fishburn, Kansas City, Mo., Harry Price, New York City, for plaintiff.

Kemp, Koontz, Clagett & Norquist, Thomas E. -Scofield, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

RIDGE, District Judge.

We understand the issues in this patent action involve claims of infringement of different garments sold by defendant and manufactured by Apeo Manufacturing Company, Chicago, Illinois, and Perfect Knit Manufacturing Company, of New York. That a possible claim of infringement may also- be made by reason of infant’s garments sold by defendant and manufactured by Knitown Togs, of New York City.

*863In light of the multiple claims of infringing devices involved in this action. we believe it would be an abuse of sound judicial discretion to stay proceedings herein pending disposition of the infringement suit plaintiff now has pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in which Apeo Manufacturing Company is named as a direct infringing defendant, for these reasons:

The pendency of a suit for the infringement of a patent is not ground for staying a second suit in another district against a different defendant, particularly where several devices are the premise of the claimed infringement.

 Plaintiff, under the law, has the right to assert the validity of his letters patent against all who participate in claimed acts of infringement thereof. Only in rare circumstances should a patent-holder be compelled to stand aside in one court until he litigates the validity of his patent in some other court, even though he has several such actions presently pending against various direct infringers or dealers. Bad faith in the institution of such actions may present such a circumstance. No bad faith on the part of the plaintiff is here established.

 In a declaratory judgment action brought hy a claimed infringer, the courts have the right to restrain a patent-holder from bringing other actions against dealers of the direct infringer, but only when good cause and irreparable damage is shown tO' exist for action so taken by the court in which the declaratory judgment is pending. Plaintiff in the case at bar apparently has considerable litigation pending, challenging the validity of its letters patent. Most of such litigation, however, is pending in jurisdictions of which this court may take judicial notice, have excessive dockets, and in which the time of trial i; -Mayed from one to two years after actions are instituted. There is considerable uncertainty raised in the affidavits of the parties as to when the action pending against Apeo Manufacturing Company, in the Eastern District of New York, will be reached for disposition. The uncertainty as to the time of the disposition of that action militates against any stay of proceedings in the case at bar.

This cause is now set down for trial on Wednesday June 7, 1950, at 10:00 A.M.
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DWIGHT BOYKIN, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 09-0747-WS-C

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, :

Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

denying plaintiff benefits be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g), see Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991),

for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. The remand pursuant to sentence

four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to

Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 112 S.Ct. 2625, 125

L.Ed.2d 239 (1993), and terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. 

DONE this the 11th day of May, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00747-WS-C Document 18 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>

                                   WSMP, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                        
<CAPTION>       
                    Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss)
                                        
                                                             1997             1996          1995
                                                             ----             ----          ----
<S>                                                      <C>            <C>              <C>
Computation of Earnings (Loss) Per
 Common and Common Equivalent Share:

Net earnings (loss)                                      $ 1,120,696    $ (1,494,989)   $ 1,096,670
                                                         ============   =============   ============

Actual outstanding shares beginning of year                2,760,338       2,660,338      2,666,588

Add (deduct) weighted average shares applicable to:

    Common stock options outstanding                         316,547                        214,219

    Treasury stock acquisitions                                                              (1,786)

    Common stock options exercised                            14,178          69,179
                                                         ------------   -------------   ------------

Weighted average shares, as adjusted                       3,091,063       2,729,517      2,879,021
                                                         ============   =============   ============

Earnings (loss) per common and common 
  equivalent share                                       $       .36    $       (.55)   $       .38
                                                         ============   =============   ============


Computation of Earnings (Loss) Per 
 Share - Assuming Full Dilution:

 Net earnings (loss)                                     $ 1,120,696      (1,494,989)     1,096,670
                                                         ============   =============   ============

Actual outstanding shares beginning of year                2,760,338       2,660,338      2,666,588

Add (deduct) weighted average shares applicable to:

     Common stock options outstanding                        454,284                        214,219

     Treasury stock acquisitions                                                             (1,786)

     Common stock options exercised                           14,178          69,179
                                                         ------------   -------------   ------------

Weighted average shares, as adjusted                       3,228,800       2,729,517      2,879,021
                                                         ============   =============   ============

Earnings (loss) per common share - assuming 
 full dilution                                           $       .35    $       (.55)   $       .38
                                                         ============   =============   ============


</TABLE>
RL-2015.03.28-10K EX10.15






Exhibit 10.15


AMENDMENT NO. 2
to the
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




AMENDMENT ("Amendment No. 2"), effective as of the 29th day of March 2015, by and between Ralph Lauren Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Valerie Hermann (the "Executive"). 
 
WHEREAS, the Executive is party to an Employment Agreement by and between the Company and the Executive with an effective date of April 7, 2014, as amended June 24, 2014 (the "Employment Agreement"); and


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend the Employment Agreement in certain respects;


NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be bound, the parties hereby agree as follows.


		
	1.
	The third paragraph in the "One-Time Sign-On Awards" section of Exhibit 1 to the Employment Agreement is amended to add the following additional sentence, effective as of the date set forth above: "For all equity awards beginning in Fiscal 2016, the conversion of annual grant value shall be based on the Fair Market Value on the applicable grant date, as approved by the Compensation Committee." 






		
	2.
	Except as amended and/or modified by this Amendment No. 2, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed and all other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, unaltered and unchanged by this Amendment No. 2.



	
			
	 
	1
	 


















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 2 to be duly executed and the Executive has hereunto set her hand, effective as of the date first set forth above.




	
			
	 
	RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	  /s/ Mitchell Kosh

	 
	 
	Mitchell Kosh

	 
	 
	Title: Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer

	 
	 
	 

	 
	Date: April 27, 2015

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	EXECUTIVE

	 
	 
	 

	 
	  /s/ Valerie Hermann

	 
	Valerie Hermann

	 
	 
	 

	 
	Date: April 24, 2015







	
			
	 
	2
Exhibit 10.9


 


Lease Agreement


 


Lessor (hereinafter referred to as Party A) : Bengbu Boyuanzhiye
Co.,Ltd.


 


Lessee (hereinafter referred to as Party B): Anhui Renrenjia Energy
Group


  


Article 1: The premise is located at Guanzhen
quanminchuangyeyuan Benbu city Guzhen country, with the construction floorage of 1139.64 square meters.


 


Article 2: The lease term will be from 01(
Month)20(Day)2014(Year) to 01 (Month)20(Day)2015 (Year).


 


Article 3: This lease will be 7000RMB
per month.


 


Article 4: Payment
of the lease will be one installment per year, Party B should pay the full amount before January 20th of each
year in advance. The lease should be paid in the form of cash.


 


Article 5: Party A will bear the cost of utilities
such as water,electricity,in the amount of 3000RMB total.


 


Article 6 : This property is for Business
site only.


 


Article 7 : During the lease term,Party A shall
responsible for maintenance of the housing.


 


Article 8: During the lease term, Party B shall
not sublease the house to a third party.


 


Article 9 : Party B shall pay Party A a deposit
of Ten thousands  Yuan from the effective date of this lease.


 


If Party A fail to respond to the maintenance
repair and caused damage to Party B, Party A shall bear for all the cost and penalty.


 


If Party B failed to pay rent on time, a penalty
of outstanding fee will be charged with the rent.


 


Any damage of the property caused by the subleased
third party,Party B shall bear all the cost and penalty.


 





	Lessor :	 	Lessee :
	 	 	 
	/s/ Bengbu Boyuanzhiye Co., Ltd. 	 	/s/ Anhui Renrenjia Energy Group 
	(corporate chop)	 	(corporate chop)
	 	 	 
	2014-01-20	 	2014-01-20
11004.

#### Hughes *v.*Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co.

Decided March 11, 1920.

Smith, J.

1. Section 3 of the act creating the city court of Camilla (Ga. L. 1905, p. 184) is broad enough to vest that court with jurisdiction to establish liens on real estate, that section being as follows: “The city court of Camilla shall have jurisdiction to try and dispose of all civil cases of whatever nature of which the superior court of Mitchell county has jurisdiction, except in those cases over which the exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the superior court by the constitution and laws of this State.”

2. In a suit upon promissory notes a prayer for the establishment of a special lien on real estate, conveyed as security for the payment of the debt evidenced by the notes, does not render the proceeding a “ case respecting title to land;” and in such a suit the city court of Camilla has jurisdiction to declare a special lien on the realty. *Dixon*v. *Bond,*18 *Ga. App.*45 (1) (88 S. E. 825). See also *Edenfield*v. *Bank of Millen, 7 Ga. App.*645 (7 S. E. 896).

3. Want of title in the defendant to the premises on which the lien is claimed, and alleged title in a third person who is no party to the suit, will not bar an action for foreclosing and enforcing the statutory lien. *Thurman*v. *Willingham,*18 *Ga. App.*395 (89 S. E. 442), and cit.

4. For the reasons given above, the trial judge did not err in sustaining the demurrers to the affidavit of illegality and ordering the levy to proceed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*

*73Affidavit of illegality; from city court of Camilla — Judge Bur-son. July 30, 1919.

*M. A.*Warren, *A. S.*Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

*Bryan & Middlebrooks, Peacoch &*Gardner, contra.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 09-0591-KD-M

 )

T. MCCOVERY, et al, )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the

issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this

Court. It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for

failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's Order.

DONE and ORDERED this the 16th day of March, 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DUBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00591-KD-M Document 15 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 1
Presidential Documents

74009 

Federal Register 

Vol. 79, No. 239 

Friday, December 12, 2014 

Title 3— 

The President 

Presidential Determination No. 2015–03 of December 3, 2014 

Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution 

and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem 

Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–45) (the ‘‘Act’’), I hereby determine 

that it is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of 

the United States, to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations 

set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act. 

You are authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress, accompanied by a report in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act, 

and to publish this determination in the Federal Register. 

This suspension shall take effect after transmission of this determination 

and report to the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, December 3, 2014 

[FR Doc. 2014–29373 

Filed 12–11–14; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 4710–10 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with O0OB#1.EPS</GPH>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6042

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDGHILL LEO FRANCIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-95-503, CA-98-1817-AM)

Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edghill Leo Francis, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom,

Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

December 23, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on December 24, 1998. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we

take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See

Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Edghill Leo Francis seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Francis, Nos. CR-95-

503; CA-98-1817-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 24, 1998).* We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RYAN PRICE-WILLIAMS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 09-0693-C

ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, :

et. al.,

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the memorandum opinion and order entered on

this date, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 4) is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly,

this case is hereby REMANDED back to the Circuit Court of Mobile

County, Alabama, from whence it came.

DONE this 28th day of January, 2010.

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00693-C Document 11 Filed 01/28/10 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 )

VS. ) CR. NO. 08-00327-CG

 )

A. SAMUEL KELLEY, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter came on for a hearing outside the presence of the jury on January 28, 2010, at

which the court ruled, in part, on the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal, and heard the

parties’ arguments with respect to witnesses to be called by the defendants. Following further

argument and submissions of authority, the court rules as follows on the motions for judgment of

acquittal:

Defendant Daniel C. Riedel’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal as to all counts

pending against him (Doc. 592) is GRANTED.

Defendant J. Michael Bennett’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal (Doc. 596) is

GRANTED in part as to substantive distribution Counts 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 50 and 95.

The motion is otherwise DENIED.

Defendant J. Mallory Mallon’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal (Doc. 598) is

GRANTED in part as to substantive distribution Counts 36 and 37. The motion is otherwise

DENIED.

All other motions for judgment of acquittal filed by A. Samuel Kelley, II (Doc. 593), Jason

R. Kelley (Doc. 594), Jodi C. Silvio (Doc. 590), Robin K. Kelly (Doc. 597), Roger A. Everett (Doc.

572), Brett W. Branch (Doc. 589), and Ronald E. Winter (Doc. 588) are DENIED.

Case 1:08-cr-00327-CG-B Document 602 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 2
It, therefore, is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:

All charges against Daniel C. Riedel as set out in the Superseding Indictment filed on

December 30, 2008, are hereby DISMISSED.

The substantive distribution charges in Counts 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 50 and 95

against J Michael Bennett as set out in the Superseding Indictment filed on December 30, 2008,

are hereby DISMISSED.

The substantive distribution charges in Counts 36 and 37 against J. Mallory Mallon as set

out in the Superseding Indictment filed on December 30, 2008, are hereby DISMISSED.

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of January, 2010.

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cr-00327-CG-B Document 602 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-44312,
33-45651, 33-49775, 33-55851, 33-64193, 333-01723, 333-01121, 333-01121-01,
333-15079, 333-15079-01 through 04, 333-20427, 333-20427-01 through 03,
333-37315, 333-40447, 333-38633 and 333-38633-01) and in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8, as amended, (Nos. 33-61167, 33-61181, 33-65065,
33-49267, 33-32659, 33-49419 and 33-63659) of our report dated January 14, 1998
appearing on page 41 of the J. P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated Annual Report, which
is included as Exhibit 13 to this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1997.




/s/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
--------------------------


PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
New York, New York
March 9, 1998
* 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 February 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40651 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus REYMUNDO PIEDRA-GARCIA, also known as Ramiro Piedro-Pompa, Defendant-Appellant.

Consolidated with No. 06-40658 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus REYMUNDO PIEDRA-GARCIA, also known as Sabino Perez Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-855 USDC No. 1:03-CR-368-1

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *No. 06-40651 c/w No. 06-40658 -2-Appealing the Judgments in Criminal Cases, Reymundo PiedraGarcia raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PEDRO PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, :

Petitioner, : 

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00229-WS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 11-00011-WS

Respondent.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all issues raised, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the 

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated 

November 24, 2015 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 5th day of January, 2016.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cr-00011-WS-C Document 148 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 1
OMB Number: 4040-0001 

Expiration Date: 10/31/2019

RESEARCH & RELATED PERSONAL DATA 

Project Director/Principal Investigator and Co-Project Director(s)/Co-Principal Investigator(s)

The Federal Government has a continuing commitment to monitor the operation of its review and award processes to identify and address any inequities 

based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of its proposed PDs/PIs and co-PDs/PIs. To gather information needed for this important task, the 

applicant should submit the requested information for each identified PD/PI and co-PDs/PIs with each proposal. Submission of the requested 

information is voluntary and is not a precondition of award. However, information not submitted will seriously undermine the statistical validity, and 

therefore the usefulness, of information received from others. Any individual not wishing to submit some or all the information should check the box 

provided for this purpose. Upon receipt of the application, this form will be separated from the application. This form will not be duplicated, and it will not 

be a part of the review process. Data will be confidential.

Project Director/Principal Investigator

Prefix: * First Name: Middle Name:

* Last Name: Suffix:

Gender:

Race (check all that apply):

American Indian or Alaska Native

Black or African American

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Do Not Wish to Provide

White

Asian

Ethnicity: Disability Status (check all that apply):

Visual

Other

Mobility/Orthopedic Impairment

None

Hearing

Do Not Wish to Provide

Citizenship:

NOTE: THE IDENTIFIERS ON THIS FORM ARE 

OPTIONAL (E.G. "DO NOT WISH TO PROVIDE") BUT 

THE FORM(S) MUST STILL BE SUBMITTED WITH 

YOUR APPLICATION!