alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ROSS v. TRUE TEMPER CORP.

Civ. A. No. 27306.

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

Jan. 22, 1951.

Peter E. Klein, Cleveland, Ohio, John P. McKnight, Auburn, Neb., Jack W. Marer, Omaha, Neb., for plaintiffs.

Arthur F. Zalud, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

FREED, District Judge.

Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff has willfully failed to attend a deposition hearing in Cleveland, Ohio. Rule 37(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

It appears from the affidavit of plaintiff, a Nebraska resident, that his physical condition prevented him from appearing for the deposition hearing. It further appears in the affidavit that he did not then, nor does he presently, have the necessary funds to enable him to travel to Cleveland. These contentions contained in the' affidavit are not disputed by the defendant.

The requirements of the law would not be served by the drastic remedy of dismissal suggested by the defendant. There is no showing of unexplained, willful and deliberate disregard of court process. Cf. Collins v. Wayland, 9 Cir., 139 F.2d 677, Peitzman v. City of Illmo, 8 Cir., 141 F.2d 956. Nor, under the extenuating circumstances, does plaintiff’s failure to proceed under Rule 30(b), when he was notified to appear for his deposition, justify it.

Under the circumstances defendant may obtain discovery or elicit the information which it seeks in a deposition hearing, by means of written interrogatories. *308Should the defendant feel that depositions would better serve its purpose, it may advance sufficient funds to plaintiff to enable him to travel to' Cleveland; or in the alternative, it may take plaintiff’s deposition- in Nebraska.

Motion will be overruled.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-11177

Summary Calendar

____________

Theotis Lee Hodge, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Dustin Zimmerman, Correctional Officer V, Sergeant; James Judd, 

Captain; James Villegas, Major; Shelia Briscoe; Stephanie 

Patton, Head Grievance Investigator; Justin Perez, Counsel 

Substitute; Vickie Brown, Counsel Substitute II; Amy Garcia, Head 

of Classification; Angelique Turner, Grievance; Timothy 

Hooper, Assistant Warden; Kim Massey, Classification; J. Rilley, 

Central Grievance Officer, 

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:22-CV-200

______________________________

Before Smith, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 3, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-11177 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2024
No. 23-11177

2

Theotis Lee Hodge, Texas prisoner # 504582, appeals the district 

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims 

against a defendant for failure to serve her within 120 days of filing the 

complaint and the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for 

appointment of counsel or an investigator.

As a threshold matter, we must consider whether we have jurisdiction 

to review the appeal. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). 

The district court’s order dismissing the defendant without prejudice did not 

resolve all of Hodge’s claims against the remaining defendants and, 

therefore, it is not a final judgment for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See 

Elizondo v. Green, 671 F.3d 506, 509 (5th Cir. 2012). Moreover, the order 

does not evince an unmistakable intent to enter a final, appealable judgment 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Kelly v. Lee’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers, Inc., 908 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 

1990) (en banc). The order does not fit within the categories of appealable 

interlocutory orders listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), and the district court did 

not certify that the order was appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 

Finally, the collateral-order doctrine is inapplicable because the district 

court’s order did not conclusively resolve disputed issues that are separate 

from the merits and that could not be reviewed on appeal from a final 

judgment. See Tracy v. Lumpkin, 43 F.4th 473, 475 (5th Cir. 2022).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider the magistrate judge’s denial of 

the motion for appointment of counsel or an investigator because Hodge did 

not file a notice of appeal from that order, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), and 

the parties did not consent to proceed before the magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), see Butler v. S. Porter, 999 F.3d 287, 297 (5th Cir. 2021).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Case: 23-11177 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
INTERIM STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10QSB FOR QUARTERLY
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,602,717
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  167,190
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     63,850
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,842,216
<PP&E>                                         418,357
<DEPRECIATION>                                 284,522
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,984,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,170,367
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           17,106
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       126,333
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,670,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,984,797
<SALES>                                        104,042
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,072
<CGS>                                           94,088
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,822
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               762,957
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (713,791)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (713,791)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (713,797)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT (23)(d)



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-32229 and No. 333-58686) pertaining to the CMS Energy
Corporation Performance Incentive Stock Plan and Executive Stock Option Plan,
respectively, (Form S-8 No. 333-76347) pertaining to the Employee Savings and
Incentive Plan of Consumers Energy Company, in the Registration Statements (Form
S-3 No. 333-51932, No. 333-52560, No. 333-27849, No. 333-37241, No. 333-74958,
No. 333-45556 and Form S-4 No. 33-60007) of CMS Energy Corporation of our report
dated June 27, 2004 relating to the financial statements of Emirates CMS Power
Company PJSC which appears in the CMS Energy Corporation Annual Report (Form
10-K/A-1) for the year ended December 31, 2003.


                                                    /s/ ERNST & YOUNG

Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
July 21, 2004
NLNK-2012.12.31-EX10.1






Exhibit 10.1





Iowa State University Research Park Corporation
2711 South Loop Drive, Suite 4050
Ames, Iowa 50010-8648


Memorandum of Agreement


DATE:        April 26, 2012


TO:        Nick Vahanian, President & CEO
NewLink Genetics Corporation
2503 S. Loop Drive, Suite 5100
Ames, IA 50010


FROM:    Steven T. Carter, President


		
	RE:
	ADDENDUM TO THE LEASE BETWEEN ISU RESEARCH PARK CORPORATION AND NEWLINK GENETICS CORPORATION DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2001.




The following information constitutes changes to the Lease Agreement between ISU Research Park Corporation (Landlord) and NewLink Genetics Corporation (Tenant).  Upon signatures of appropriate representatives of Landlord and Tenant affixed to this Memorandum, this Memorandum becomes a part of that Lease Agreement dated February 1, 2001.


Tenant has requested and Landlord agrees to release Tenant's remaining space in Building #3- the Lease Agreement for Suites 3500- 3532 (±3,634 rentable square feet) and Suites 3901, 3902 & 3908 (±1,155 rsf) as of April, 30, 2012.


Please sign and return both originals to my office by April 30, 2012 if you concur with the above terms.  We will then send a fully executed copy for your records.


AGREED
FOR                            FOR
NewLink Genetics Corporation            ISU Research Park Corporation


/s/ Carl Langren                    /s/ Steven T. Carter            


VP Finance                        Director                
Title                            Title
May 7, 2012                        May 7, 2012                
Date                            Date
#### The Acorn.

*(District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.*

May Term, 1883.)

Seamen’s Wages—Shipping without Articles—Verbal Agreement.

If the master of a vessel dispenses with shipping articles and disputes arise as t.o the rate of wages to be paid the mariners, the court will incline to allow their claim to the rate paid by other like vessels leaving the same port at the same time on the like voyage. If the seamen can be held to a less rate, by reason of a verbal contract, such contract must be clearly established.

In Admiralty.

*752
      *Geo. C. Wilson,*for libelants.

*D. T. Watson,*for respondent.

Acheson, J.

The evidence shows, and, indeed, the answer admits, that when Duffy and Poe', two of the libelants,' were shipped on the Acorn, no express agreement was entered into, and nothing was said as to the rate of compensation for their services. But, according to the clear weight of the evidence, ón the first evening after the voyage commenced, Cavanaugh, the -first mate, who had hired the hands, stated in the presence of all the libelants, in answer to an inquiry of another of the crew, that the boat would pay the deckhands the same wages as other boats'going out-on that rise did. It is established beyond dispute that other boats like the Acorn, on that rise, paid their deck hands the rate of wages claimed by the libelants, viz., at the rate of $45 per month. This seems to have been the prevailing rate, and clearly Duffy and Poe are entitled to be paid at that rate.

It is, however, alleged, and Cavanaugh testifies, that Conway was expressly hired at the rate of $40 a month. This the latter denies, and testifies that when he shipped nothing was said as to the rate of compensation. It is certain that'no express bargain was made with any other of the deck hands on that trip; and Cavanaugh is successfully contradicted as to what transpired, in respect to the rate of wages-, between'him and Boger Williams, in the presence of the other deck hands, the first evening the boat waá' out. Upon the whole T think the weight of evidence is on the side of Conway. Moreover, if the master-of a vessels dispenses with 'shippingiarticles, and disputes arise as to the rate of wages to to be paid the mariners, the court will incline to allow their claim to payment at the rate paid by other like vessels leaving the same port at the' same time on the like voyage. If the seamen can be held to a less rate by reason of a verbal contract, such contract must be clearly established.

Let a decree be drawn in favor of the libelants for the amount of their respective claims, with interest and costs.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.0

Computation of Earnings per Share

The following represents the computation of earnings per share reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the option and warrants plan which
would be dilutive will be exercised.


<Table>
<Caption>
                                                 Three Months Ended            Nine Months Ended
                                                    September 30,                 September 30,
                                             ---------------------------   ---------------------------
                                                 2002           2001           2002           2001
                                             ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------
<S>                                          <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Net earnings - basic and diluted             $    777,465   $    182,876   $  2,335,974   $    862,506
                                             ============   ============   ============   ============

Weighted average common shares outstanding     12,289,558     12,264,163     12,173,442     12,198,583

Common share equivalents relating to stock
options, warrants                                 123,972        239,214        158,753        201,480
                                             ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------

Adjusted common and common equivalent
shares for diluted computation                 12,413,530     12,503,377     12,332,195     12,400,063
                                             ============   ============   ============   ============

Net Earnings Per Share:
    Basic                                    $       0.06   $       0.01   $       0.19   $       0.07
    Diluted                                  $       0.06   $       0.01   $       0.19   $       0.07

Anti-dilutive options and warrants not
included in the diluted earnings per share
computations                                    1,345,697      1,300,697      1,803,527      1,883,527
</Table>


The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11940

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

QUINTON OLSON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-00020-TFM-N-6

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-11940 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11940

Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant 

to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. 

See United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 1993) 

(sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly 

and voluntarily); United States v. Boyd, 975 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 

2020) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced where “it was 

clearly conveyed to the defendant that he was giving up his right 

to appeal under most circumstances” (quotation marks omitted, alterations adopted, emphasis in original)); United States v. GrinardHenry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to 

appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable 

legal issues or even blatant error).

USCA11 Case: 23-11940 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 2 of 2
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

#### Genesis Properties, Inc. v. Willie Wright and Robinette Rivers

July 12, 2002

Case No. LP-106-1

BY JUDGE MELVIN R. HUGHES, JR.

The trial in this case took place on May 8, 2002, without a jury.

The case is an unlawful detainer action concerning the premises at 1315 North 28th Street, Richmond, Virginia. Plaintiff-landlord seeks rent for the months of September, October, November, and one half of December, and damages for repairs to the premises made after re-entry. Defendants vacated on or about September 18,2001. Defendants have presented a counterclaim, which, among other things, seeks $750.00 for the loss or damage to a child’s Barbie car, $800.00 for damage to a sofa and loveseat, and $300.00 for “cleaning and insect repellant.” In connection with the counterclaim, defendants testified the premises were in need of various repairs constantly. These needed repairs stemmed largely from moisture and water leakage that damaged property and from the infestation of the premises by flies. Photographs were presented depicting conditions of the premises during occupancy and after defendants vacated. Defendants also seek a return of their $500.00 security deposit.

Under the Virginia Residential Landlord Tenant Act, Virginia Code § 55-248.2 et seq., a tenant must notify the landlord in writing of the specific acts and omissions constituting breach of the rental agreement. Such notice must include a statement that the rental agreement will terminate in not less *257than thirty days if such breach is not remedied in twenty-one days. Va. Code § 55-248.21. In the casé athand, defendants notified plaintiff of the numerous specific acts and omissions constituting breach and requesting remediation. In a letter dated July 19, 2001, defendants notified plaintiffs that the rental agreement would terminate in sixty days. The court finds that the specific acts and omissions constituting breach were not remedied within twenty-one days. On September 18, 2001, defendants moved out of the premises. Because defendants complied with both the Landlord Tenant Act and the termination provision of the written lease, plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the rents for September, October, November, and half of December.

However, the court finds that plaintiff has proved that the premises were in need of repair beyond normal wear and tear. In these respects and for the amounts indicated: (1) two broken windows — $70.00; (2) repair fence and gate — $140.00; (3) scratched floors — $70.00.

Defendants’ allegations of various damages as statéd in their cross-claim have not been supported by sufficient evidence.

For these reasons, defendants shall have judgment. The court denies defendants’ counterclaim as to all damages except for return of $220.00 from the security deposit.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40019-40020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17802]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-669 (Fourth Review)]


Cased Pencils From China

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
review, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils 
from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 
material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably 
foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(c)), instituted this review on June 1, 2016 (81 FR 35059) and 
determined on September 6, 2016 that it would conduct a full review (82 
FR 12467, March 3, 2017). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's 
review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was 
given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing 
the notice in the Federal Register on March 3, 2017 (82 FR 12467). The 
hearing was cancelled at the request of the domestic interested 
parties. The notice of cancellation of the hearing was published in the 
Federal Register on June 6, 2017 (82 FR 26118).
    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determination in this review on August 17, 2017. The

[[Page 40020]]

views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4715 (August 
2017), entitled Cased Pencils from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-669 
(Fourth Review).

    By order of the Commission.
    Issued: August 17, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-17802 Filed 8-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Guadalupe HERNANDEZ-MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40972

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 30, 2008.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Guadalupe Hernandez-Mendez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Airellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Public Accountants


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders
of Coltec Industries Inc:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report included in this Form 10-K, into Coltec Industries Inc.'s
previously filed Registration Statement File No.'s 33-46934, 33-54641,
333-27595 and 333-52975 and into The B.F. Goodrich Company's previously filed
Registration Statement File No. 333-74067.



/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina,
March 22, 1999