alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re HOGSETT. FEINTECH v. HOGSETT.

No. 35712-C.

District Court, S. D. California, Central Division.

May 25, 1940.

Zuckerman & Stein, of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioning creditor, Norman Feintech.

John C. Miles, of Los Angeles, Cal., for H. K. Fenton.

COSGRAVE, District Judge.

In a successful proceeding to dismiss the involuntary petition in bankruptcy, the prevailing party claimed his costs, and gave notice to the Clerk to tax the same, pursuant to District Court Rule, Southern District of California, 10. No appearance in the proceeding before the Clerk was made by petitioner here, who had filed the involuntary petition in bankruptcy, and the Clerk accordingly allowed the costs as claimed, including the $50 as attorneys’ fees. Contrary to the opinion held by the Court at the time of +he oral argument, there seems to exist authority for the inclusion of attorneys’ fees as recoverable costs. Gilbert’s Collier on Bankruptcy, Fourth Edition, page 74, and cases there cited.

A review of the decision of the Clerk is provided for in Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, rule 54(d), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, and District Court Rule number 10 above referred to. Petitioner gave notice that he will move the District Court “to strike from the memo of costs and disbursements filed by the said H. K. Fenton the item of $50.00 attorneys’ fees included therein.” No error appears in the action of the Clerk, as it seems that item is recoverable under the authority above cited. Petitioner’s motion must therefore be denied, and it is so ordered.
@article{1208836,
  author = {Jiajia Li and Christopher U. Brown and Dillon Dzikowicz and Mary Carey and Wai Cheong Tam and Michael Xuelin Huang},
  title = {Towards Real-Time Heart Health Monitoring in Firefighting Using Convolutional Neural Networks},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-06-28 04:06:00},
  publisher = {Fire Safety Journal},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936248},
  language = {en},
}
July 16, 2015

Twelfth Court of Appeals

1517 W Front St Ste 354

Tyler TX 75702-7854

Re: Eric Bartolo

 12-14-00221-CR

To The Honorable Clerk of the Court:

Please find enclosed a copy of the letter sent to my client regarding his right to file a PDR along 

with a copy of the certified return receipt showing the mailing of the same. 

Sincerely,

/s/Austin Reeve Jackson

ACCEPTED

12-14-00221-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

7/16/2015 10:44:45 AM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/16/2015 10:44:45 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk

July 09, 2015

Eric Bartolo

Inmate 01945583

Bradshaw Unit

PO Box 9000

Henderson, TX 75653-9000

Re: Opinion

 

Mr. Bartolo: 

Please find enclosed a copy of opinion issued by the Court of Appeals in your case. The Court 

has affirmed your conviction.

Should you desire to do so, you do have the right to file a pro se Petition for Discretionary 

Review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. If you decide to pursue that option you must file your 

petition prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of the court’s opinion.

I would be happy to address any questions or concerns you have if you will simply let me know. 

Sincerely,

Austin Reeve Jackson
#### Angelo J. DORIZAS, Plaintiff, v. K.L.M. ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES, Defendant.

No. 84 C 5911.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

Nov. 21, 1984.

*98Anthony E. Blumberg, Chicago, 111., for plaintiff.

William J. Mullins, Catherine E. Tinker, Conklin & Adler, Ltd., Chicago, 111., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SHADUR, District Judge.

K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines (“K.L.M.”) has moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Angelo Dorizas (“Dorizas”).1 For the reasons briefly stated in this memorandum opinion and order, K.L. M.’s motion is denied.

Dorizas seeks damages for the alleged loss of baggage on a flight between Athens and Amsterdam. That claim is asserted here under the Warsaw Convention, 49 U.S.C. § 1502 note (Article 28 of the Convention provides for jurisdiction over foreign carriers in damage claims where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract was made, and Dorizas says that applies here).

K.L.M. rests its motion to dismiss on the theory that the Warsaw Convention does not itself create a cause of action. With commendable candor, K.L.M.’s counsel acknowledges that the tide has turned to run against K.L.M. on this score. *Benjamins v. British European Airways,*572 F.2d 913, 918 (2d Cir.1978), *cert. denied,*439 U.S. 1114, 99 S.Ct. 1016, 59 L.Ed.2d 72 (1979), followed in *In re Mexico City Air-crash of October 31, 1979,*708 F.2d 400, 409-16 (9th Cir.1983) and *Enayati v. Lufthansa German Airlines,*714 F.2d 75 (9th Cir.1983); *Seth v. BOAC,*329 F.2d 302, 305 (1st Cir.1964). K.L.M. contends the older law in the Second Circuit and elsewhere, as exemplified by Judge Van Graafeiland’s dissenting opinion in *Benjamins,*572 F.2d at 919-23, is more sound.

Neither Judge Van Graafeiland nor K.L.M. cites any decisions by our own Court of Appeals, which does not appear to have spoken to the subject. And with all respect to K.L.M.’s characterization of Judge Van Graafeiland’s reasoning as a “thoughtful dissent,” both *Benjamins*and *Mexico City Aircrash*reflect equally thoughtful and reasoned treatment (each of those decisions reversed prior case law to the contrary in its Circuit). This Court will not accept K.L.M.’s invitation to swim upstream to spawn a return to the older law. K.L.M.’s motion is denied, and it is ordered to answer the Second Amended Complaint on or before November 30, 1984.

1

. This Court’s July 17, 1984 memorandum order dismissed the original Complaint (which had then sought to join Athens Central Airport and Amsterdam Schiphol Airport) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. That sua sponte dismissal did not comment as to the potential for acquiring jurisdiction over K.L.M. on the basis of new jurisdictional allegations. Dorizas’ later amendment alleged facts bringing the claim against K.L.M. within the Warsaw Convention.
<PAGE>
                                                EXHIBIT (10) (xxx)

                             FORM OF

                ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                --------------------------------


     This is an Addendum to the Employment Agreement ("Agreement")
dated August 1, 1995 between Americold Corporation, an Oregon
corporation ("Americold") and                          
("Employee").  The effective date of this Addendum is June 30,
1996.

RECITALS
--------

     Americold and Employee desire to have the opportunity to
secure Employee's position as                                   
for an extended term beyond the period set forth in the Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual desire to
secure Employee's position and the mutual promises, agreements and
conditions hereinafter set forth, it is agreed as follows:

AGREEMENT
---------

     Subject to the termination provisions in the Agreement, if by
July 31, 1996, and by each July 31 thereafter in which the
Agreement remains in effect, neither Americold nor Employee gives
the other notice, as provided in paragraph 13 of the Agreement, of
intent not to renew the Agreement upon its expiration date one year
hence, the term of the Agreement shall extend for an additional
one-year period.  (E.g., if neither Americold nor Employee gives
notice of intent not to renew by July 31, 1996, the term of the
Agreement shall extend until July 31, 1998).

     Except as expressly provided in this Addendum, all terms of
the Agreement, as well as the parties' Covenant Not to Compete and
Consulting and Non-Disclosure Agreement, remain in full force and
effect.

Employee                            Americold Corporation

                                By:  /s/  Ronald H. Dykehouse
-----------------------              ------------------------
[Name of Employee]                   Ronald H. Dykehouse
                             Title:  Chairman & Chief Executive   
                                       Officer
<PAGE>
                  SCHEDULE TO EXHIBIT (10)(xxx)

            Form of Addendum to Employment Agreement



     The Addenda to Employment Agreement between Americold
Corporation and the employees named below (the "Addenda") are
identical in all material respects other than with respect to the
employee and the employment position, which are as follows for each
employee:

       Name of Employee                 Position
       ----------------                 --------

       Joel M. Smith               Senior Vice President and
                                   Chief Financial Officer

       John P. LeNeveu             Executive Vice President

       F. Stanley Sena             Executive Vice President

       J. Roy Coxe                 Senior Vice President
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
The Board of Directors
Bay State Gas Company
 
     The audits referred to in our report dated October 27, 1998, included the
related financial statement schedule as of September 30, 1998, and for each of
the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 1998, included in the
annual report on Form 10-K of Bay State Gas Company. This financial statement
schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our
audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in
relation to the consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents
fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.
 
     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 33-39118, and No. 33-44156) on Form S-3 and in the registration statements
(No. 33-35897, No. 33-22300 and No. 33-22301) on Form S-8 of our report dated
October 27, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets and statements of
capitalization of Bay State Gas Company and subsidiaries as of September 30,
1998 and 1997 and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
September 30, 1998, which report is included in the September 30, 1998 annual
report on Form 10-K of Bay State Gas Company.
 
     As discussed in note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the
Company changed its method of recognizing actuarial gains and losses for
postretirement benefit plans during 1998.
 
                                          KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
 
Boston, Massachusetts
January 6, 1998
 
                                       57
#### Employers Insurance of Wausau, Respondent, v Meli & Borelli Associates, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Cigna Corp. et al., Appellants.

[822 NYS2d 732]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that certain defendants are obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an action to recover damages for personal injuries entitled *Dean v Crown Constr. Corp.,*commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index No. 15633/94, the defendant Cigna Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), dated October 13, 2004, as granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were to restore the action and for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action against it pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420, and the defendants Crown Partition, Inc., and Royal Insurance Company separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to restore the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that the branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to restore the action (see *Travis v Cuff,*28 AD3d 749 [2006]; *Islam v Katz Realty Co.,*296 AD2d 566 [2002]). Further, the court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 against the defendant Cigna Corp. (see *Tarantini v Russo Realty Corp.,*273 AD2d 458 [2000]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.E, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Order entered July 16, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00766-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.M.B., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-51444-2008

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s June 29, 2015 motion to transfer this case to the Eighth 

District Court of Appeals at El Paso where a related case is pending under appellate cause 

number 08-15-00144-CV. Pursuant to the procedure set forth in Miles v. Ford Motor Co., 914 

S.W.2d 135, 137 n.2 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam), the Court is referring the motion to transfer the 

case to the Texas Supreme Court. Although we question whether there is a reviewable order, we 

conclude the matter is significantly related to the appeal pending with the El Paso Court of 

Appeals. For this reason, the Fifth District Court of Appeals does not object to the transfer of 

this case.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
<Page>

                                                               EXHIBIT 10.15(f)

          PriceSmart, Inc.                                     [Memorandum]
          4649 Morena Blvd.
          San Diego, CA  92117
          Tel 858 581-7485
          Fax 858 581-4707

PriceSmart [Logo]




          To:     K.C. Breen

          From:   Bob Gans /s/ BG

          Re:     SALARY INCREASE

          Date:   October 16, 2001




          With reference to your Employment Agreement, this Memorandum will
          confirm that effective September 1, 2001, your annual base salary
          increased by $22,500, to $192,500.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin Pedraja, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 761]

Defendant concedes that he qualifies as a level two sex offender, based on 80 uncontested points in the risk assessment instrument. The court properly declined to rule on the 10 contested points, since no such ruling was necessary to its determination (c*f. People v Graham,*35 AD3d 299 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 808 [2007]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Buckley, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41950

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JUSTIN WADE INNS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 559

Filed: July 20, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum term 

of confinement of two and one-half years, for felony domestic battery, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Justin Wade Inns pled guilty to felony domestic battery, Idaho Code § 18-923. In 

exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a 

unified sentence of five years, with two and one-half years determinate, to run concurrently with 

a sentence in a separate case. Inns filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which was denied. 

Inns appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Inns’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15124]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration


Notice of Informational Filing

    For informational purposes only, the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA) is providing notice that it has received an 
informational filing from BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) to conduct 
testing of Configuration VI of BNSF's Electronic Train Management 
System (ETMS) submitted pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) 236.913. The informational filing is described below, 
including the submitting party and the requisite docket number where 
the informational filing and any related information may be found. The 
document is available for public inspection; however, FRA is not 
accepting public comment on the document.

BNSF Railway Company (Docket Number FRA-2006-23687)

    BNSF has submitted an informational filing to FRA to begin 
operational testing of ETMS Version VI on BNSF's Scenic Subdivision. 
This testing will allow BNSF to obtain the necessary assessments 
required to amend BNSF's currently approved Product Safety Plan (PSP) 
for ETMS Version I for a future submittal to the FRA. In addition, this 
testing will allow BNSF to substantiate the ETMS technology in tunnel 
operations on freight territories. The informational filing has been 
placed under Docket Number FRA-2006-23687 and is available for public 
inspection.
    Interested parties are invited to review the informational filing 
and associated documents at the DOT Docket Management facility during 
regular business hours (9 a.m.--5 p.m.) at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. All documents in the public docket 
are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written 
communications received into any of our dockets by name of the 
individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 22, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program 
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-15124 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAIME ALBERTO SANCHEZ,

Appellant,

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00093-CR

Appeal from the

210th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20060D01366)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jaime Alberto Sanchez is attempting to appeal his conviction for felony driving while 

intoxicated. Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that the trial 

court enter its certification of a defendant’s right of appeal each time it enters a judgment of guilt 

or other appealable order. TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a)(2). The certification should be made a part of 

the record when notice of appeal is filed but may be added by timely amendment or 

supplementation or by order of this Court. TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(d). When a trial court’s 

certification of right to appeal is not present in the record on appeal, an appellate court should 

order the trial court to supplement the trial record with the certification. See Cortez v. State, 420 

S.W.3d 803, 804 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013). The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that 
- 2 -

shows the defendant has the right to appeal has not been made a part of the record. 

TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(d).

By letter dated May 20, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified the trial court, Appellant, 

the State, and the District Clerk that the notice of appeal and record in this case is defective 

because no certification of right to appeal had been made a part of the record in accordance with 

Rule 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2(d). The letter advised Appellant of the requirement that he remedy the 

defect within ten days, and directed the District Clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing the certification on or before July 4, 2015, or the Court would dismiss the appeal 

without further written notice.

On July 8, 2015, the District Clerk informed the Court that a supplemental clerk’s record 

could not be filed as ordered because no certification of defendant’s right to appeal had been 

filed with the District Clerk. On that same date, we sent notice to the parties that the District 

Clerk had advised the Court that the certification had not been filed. We have received no 

response from Appellant and a supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification still has 

not been made part of the record on appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. TEX.R.APP.P.

25.2(d).

July 17, 2015

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,922]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 15, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Seton Identification Products, Inc., Branford, Connecticut. The workers are engaged in activities related to the production of signs, tags and labels.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 26th day of May 2009.

Richard Church

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15221 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P