alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Franklin B. HENDERSON, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FUJI PHOTO FILM, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-2326.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 27, 2001.

Decided May 3, 2001.

Franklin B. Henderson, Sr., pro se. Richard James Morgan, McNair Law Firm, P.A., Columbia, SC, for appellee.

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Franklin B. Henderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights claims and granting summary judgment on his Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000), claim of employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Henderson v. Fuji Photo Film, Inc.,*No. CA-99-307-8-20AK (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma*89terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 8, 2014

No. 04

- 14

- 00604

- CV

IN RE Ronald E. GOTANCO, M.D.

and Star Anesthesia, P.A.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On August 26, 2014, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court is of the

opinion that a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires furth er

consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real parties in interest

may file a response to the petition in this court no later than September 22, 2014. Any such

response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

I t is so ORDERED on September 8 th , 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO : ________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2012

- CI

- 09786, styled Tonya R. Catalano and Anthony N. Catalano v.

Ronald E. Gotanco, M.D. and Star Anesthesia, P.A. , pending in the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County,

Texas, the Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe presiding.
#### HANEY v. LENTHERIC, Inc., et al.

Civ. A. No. 51-186.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

June 7, 1951.

Thomas H. Mahony, Herbert U. Smith, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Fernand A. Boudreau and Foley, Hoag & Eliot, all of Boston, Mass., for defendants.

SWEENEY, Chief Judge.

There is before me a motion to dismiss the action or, in lieu thereof, to quash return of service of the trustee writ, on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, because no bond has been filed as required by the trustee process statute, Mass.G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 246, § 1. That statute requires the filing of a bond when an action is brought by trustee process when the *ad damnum*is in excess of $1,000 “except in the case of a writ which contains a statement that the action is upon a judgment or in contract for personal services * * The writ in this action contains the following statement — -“In an action of Contract for personal services.” Regardless of the statement in the writ, I think that we can look further to see if the action is actually brought in contract for personal services. In other words, I feel that the mere statement on the writ is not sufficient unless supported by the allegations in the declaration. From the allegations of the declaration it would appear that the plaintiff had a written contract for personal services with the defendant which was breached. The defendant argues that the action is for breach of contract and is not within the terms of the exception of the statute. The statute is open to the construction that it was meant to be limited to small claims by laborers and others for *148monies due for services rendered, but I can find no decision which makes such an interpretation, nor is there anything in the history of the Act itself which would appear to limit the exception to such a class. This being so, I think that this Court ought not to be the first to place a limitation upon the plain words of this statute. I feel that this action sufficiently involves a claim for personal services to bring it within the exception, and since no bond is required the motion to dismiss must be denied.
#### Lauren Carpenter v. John H. Graham.

*Assumpsit cannot be brought by mortgagee of chattels.*

A mortgagee of chattels cannot recover in assumpsit for their value if they are converted.

Error to Berrien.

Submitted June 29.

Decided Oct. 5.

*532Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*Clapp & Fyfe*for plaintiff in error.

*Potter c& Potter*for defendant in error.

Marston, C. J.

I am wholly unable to discover any essential difference in the facts, as presented by the record in the present case, and as presented when here before, and reported in 42 Mich. 191, and any extended argument would be but a repetition of what was then Said. This of course , is unnecessary and uncalled for.

Upon the question as to whether the transaction was-intended as a sale or a mere security or mortgage the court clearly and distinctly left that question to the jury, with instructions that if the latter, plaintiff could not recover.

In my opinion there was no error committed, and the-judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Graves and Cooley, JJ. concurred.

Campbell, J. I concur only on the ground that the case has been heretofore settled by a former decision.
Specifications, Tolerances, 

and Other Technical 

Requirements for 

Weighing and Measuring Devices 

as adopted by the 93rd National Conference on Weights and Measures 2008 

Editors: 

Tina Butcher 

Steve Cook 

Linda Crown 

Carol Hockert, Chief 

Weights and Measures Division 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Weights and Measures Division 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

U. S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

National Institute of 

Standards and Technology

Patrick D. Gallagher, Deputy Director 

NIST Handbook 44

2009 Edition 

Supersedes NIST Handbook 44, 2008 Edition
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an 

experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or 

endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, 

materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 44, 2009 Edition 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Handb. 44, 2009 Ed., 364 pages (Oct. 2008) 

CODEN: NIHAE2 

WASHINGTON: 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1739 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1739

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen the disclosure 
 requirements for institutions of higher education related to foreign 
                          gifts and contracts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2023

  Mrs. Bice (for herself, Mrs. McClain, Mr. Lamborn, and Mr. Stauber) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen the disclosure 
 requirements for institutions of higher education related to foreign 
                          gifts and contracts.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Transparency in College Foreign 
Payments Act''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF FOREIGN GIFTS AND CONTRACTS.

    Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1011f) 
is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the value'' and all 
        that follows through ``calendar year,'';
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``the identity 
                of each foreign source (whether a natural person or a 
                legal entity), and'' before ``the aggregate dollar''; 
                and
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, and the name 
                of each foreign government (including the name of each 
                specific government agency or department, if 
                applicable)'' before the period; and
            (3) in paragraph (1) of subsection (c)--
                    (A) by inserting ``the identity of the foreign 
                source,'' before ``the amount,''; and
                    (B) by striking ``and a description of'' and 
                inserting ``the identity of the specific department, 
                college, project, or other division of the institution 
                that is the recipient (if applicable), and a 
                description of the intended purpose and''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.1

             CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE COMPANY

     I, Joseph J. Greco, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of First Litchfield
Financial Corporation.

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
     prepared;

          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
     and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

          c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
     recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
     to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design
     or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
     reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial information; and

          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
     other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2007

                                           /s/ Joseph J. Greco
                                           -------------------
                                           Joseph J. Greco
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,970
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      100
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,389
<PP&E>                                      16,872,690
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,392,385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,014,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,828,511
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    786,000
<COMMON>                                        11,201
<OTHER-SE>                                    (611,360)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,014,352
<SALES>                                        523,980
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               524,980
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               712,604
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             484,759
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (672,383)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (672,383)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (672,383)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.06)
        

</TABLE>
#### City of Paducah *v.*A. S. Jones’s Adm’x.

City Improvements — Contract.

One wbo contracts witk the city has a right to do so upon the faith of the fact that its council had not disobeyed the law, and where the costs of public improvements made by him thereunder cannot be collected from property owners because of a faulty ordinance he can look to the city to pay him.

APPEAL PROM McCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 1, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

When Jones contracted with the city to improve the street, he agreed to look to the property holders for compensation. He did not expect to look to the city, because he knew that the city had power to charge the costs of such work upon the property improved. The recitals in the ordinance and the contract that the city was to be liable for no part of the cost of the work, were but the recitals of that which both the city and the contractor knew to be the express provision of law, and Jones would have been bound to look to the property owners, in the same way, had these recitals been omitted. But neither the ordinance nor the contract bound Jones to do the work for nothing, in case it should turn out that the city council had failed to keep its journal in the manner the law directs, and by such failure had made it impossible for him to enforce the contract against the property owners. If a provision to this effect had been incorporated either in the ordinance or contract, then Jones would have had notice of the city’s intention, and would doubtless have gone behind the *810municipal law, which was valid on its face, and made examination as to whether the city council had followed the law, in passing it, and in keeping a record of its proceedings.

*L. D. Husbands, for appellant. P. D. Yeiser, for appellee.*

Jones had the right to contract with the city upon the faith of the fact that its council had not disobeyed the law, and he cannot be held to have had notice of the council’s defeat, nor to have agreed to release the city from the legal consequences of its neglect, merely because the effect of its organic law when obeyed, was recited in the ordinance and in the contract.

The judgment of the court below is *affirmed.*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1640 

To prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule titled ‘‘Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products’’, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2023 

Mrs. LESKO (for herself and Mr. BURGESS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule titled ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards 

for Consumer Conventional Cooking Products’’, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Save Our Gas Stoves 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1640 IH

1 SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR KITCHEN RANGES AND OVENS. 

2 Section 325(h) of the Energy Policy and Conserva3 tion Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)) is amended by adding at 

4 the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(3) The Secretary may not determine that imposi6 tion of an energy conservation standard under this section 

7 for kitchen ranges or ovens is economically justified for 

8 purposes of subsection (o) unless the Secretary determines 

9 that imposition of such energy conservation standard is 

10 not likely to result in the unavailability in the United 

11 States of a type (or class) of product based on what type 

12 of fuel the product consumes.’’. 

13 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON RULEMAKING. 

14 The Secretary of Energy may not finalize, implement, 

15 or enforce the proposed rule titled ‘‘Energy Conservation 

16 Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer 

17 Conventional Cooking Products’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 6818 

18 (February 1, 2023)) or any substantially similar rule. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Order entered August 29, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00195-CR

VINCENT BERNARD JENKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-53064-V

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES this appeal.

On July 7, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether the 

record could be supplemented with the State’s notice to seek enhancement on punishment. We 

ADOPT the findings that: (1) the record can be supplemented with the State’s notice to enhance 

the punishment range; (2) prosecutor Summer Elmazi sent “Notice of State’s Intent to Enhance 

Punishment Range” to trial counsel Deandra Grant via facsimile on June 16, 2011; and (3) the 

June 16, 2011 Notice of State’s Intent to Enhance Punishment Range was included in the 

supplemental record.
We ORDER appellant to file the brief within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this 

order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8) pertaining to the Micro-ASI, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan and the Micro-ASI,
Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated March 20, 2000 with
respect to the financial statements of Micro-ASI, Inc. (a development stage
company) as of December 31, 1999 and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for the two years in the period
then ended, included in its Annual Report, as amended, included in this Form
10-KSB/A.

                                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Dallas, Texas
September 22, 2000
ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 8-9, 2005, MEETING OF THE 

NIBS/MMC COMMITTEE TO TRANSLATE THE NIST WORLD TRADE 

CENTER INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS 

INTO BUILDING CODES AND STANDARDS 

National Institute of Building Sciences 

1090 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. (202-289-7800) 

TENTATIVE AGENDA 

Thursday, December 8, 2005 

8:30 am Continental breakfast 

9:00 am Opening remarks, introductions, review of October 2005 

meeting summary, and agenda review 

Brice and Jones 

9:30 am Committee and guest input on current activities 

addressing and/or related to the NIST recommendations 

and strawman proposals (ICC CTC and TRB Committee 

and other ICC documents like ICC/ANSI A117.1, ASME 

elevator standard, NFPA 1 and 5000 and other NFPA 

standards, ASTM standards) 

All 

10:30 am Break 

10:45 am Introduction and discussion of the NIST strawman 

proposals 

All 

noon Lunch 

1:00 pm Continuation of discussion All 

5:00 p.m. Adjourn for day 

Friday, December 9, 2005 

8:30 am Continental breakfast 

9:00 am Opening remarks Brice and Jones 

9:15 am Continuation of previous day’s discussion All 

10:00 am Break 

10:15 am Continuation of discussion All 

Noon Lunch 

1:00 pm Recap of prior discussion and setting of priorities for 

proposals to be developed by the committee 

All 

2:00 pm Schedule for remaining ICC-related project activities, 

translation of recommendations for NFPA 5000, and 

selection of next meeting date 

All 

3:00 pm Adjourn
**EXHIBIT 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No.333-41542 and No. 333-72036) pertaining to the 1999 Equity Participation Plan of Golden Telecom,Inc. and in the Post Effective Amendment No. 1 (Form S-3 No. 333-39260) to Registration Statementon Form S-1 of Golden Telecom, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our reports dated March 15,2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Golden Telecom, Inc.,Golden Telecom, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of GoldenTelecom, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2005./s/ Ernst & Young LLCMoscow, Russia