alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 99-3748NE

_____________

Lester Leavern Rains, *

* On Appeal from the United

Appellant, * States District Court

* for the District of

v. * Nebraska.

 *

Deloris Cecilia Rains, * [Not To Be Published]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: July 5, 2000

 Filed: July 17, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lester L. Rains appeals the District Court’s1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) dismissal of his action against his ex-wife, in which he had alleged that she

committed perjury in a child-support dispute. Liberally construing the complaint, see

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), and after de novo review, see

Gordon v. Hansen, 168 F.3d 1109, 1113 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we conclude that

the District Court properly dismissed Mr. Rains’s action as the Court lacked subject
-2-

matter jurisdiction. We note, however, that dismissal should have occurred under

Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction)

rather than Rule 12(b)(6). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

does not operate as adjudication upon merits); Charchenko v. City of Stillwater, 47

F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1995) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits lower federal courts

from reviewing federal claims inextricably intertwined with claims asserted in state

court proceeding if requested relief would effectively reverse or void state court

decision); Mershon v. Beasley, 994 F.2d 449, 451 (8th Cir. 1993) (private party may

be held liable on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim only if he is willful participant in joint action

with state or its agents); DeSantiago v. Laborers Int’l Union of N. Am., 914 F.2d 125,

127 n.2 (8th Cir. 1990) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review claims arising under

only state law where parties lack diversity of citizenship); Moffett v. Commerce Trust

Co., 187 F.2d 242, 248 (8th Cir.) (nothing in Civil Rights Act gives federal court

jurisdiction to review state proceedings procured by fraud or perjury), cert. denied, 342

U.S. 818 (1951). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Mr. Rains’s motion for remand

is denied.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 10.14**

 

**AMENDMENT 2005-1**

 

**TO THE**

 

**HILTON HOTELS CORPORATIONDIRECTORS’ STOCK AND DEFERRED RETAINER PLAN**

 

THIS AMENDMENT 2005-1 ismade this 15th day of November, 2005, by Hilton Hotels Corporation, a Delawarecorporation (the “Plan Sponsor”).

 

WHEREAS, the Plan Sponsorhas established and maintains the Hilton Hotels Corporation Directors’ Stockand Deferred Retainer Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its eligibledirectors; and

 

WHEREAS, the Plan Sponsorhas reserved the right to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 7.7 thereof;and

 

WHEREAS, the Plan Sponsordesires to amend Section 3.3 of the Plan to reflect that for the 2005calendar year, members of the Board were permitted to elect to participate inthe Plan for the third and fourth fiscal quarters of 2005 by submitting adeferral election by March 15, 2005, in accordance with the transitionguidance in Notice 2005-1 issued by the Internal Revenue Service under section 409Aof the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and

 

WHEREAS, the plan Sponsordesires to amend Section 7.7 of the Plan to conform to its practice thatthe Board has the authority to amend the Plan.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Planis amended as follows:

 

1.  Effective as of January 1, 2005, Section 3.3is hereby amended to add the following provision after the end of the existing Section 3.3:

 

----

 

3.3                                 Notwithstandingthe foregoing, Directors may elect to participate in the Plan for the third andfourth fiscal quarter of the 2005 calendar year by executing and filing anEnrollment and Distribution Agreement with the Administrator no later than March 15,2005.

 

2.  Section 7.7 is hereby amended to replacethe references to the “Administrator” with references to the “Board.”

 

3.  In all respects not amended, the plan ishereby ratified and affirmed.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, thePlan Sponsor has caused this Amendment 2005-1 to be executed on the day andyear first above written.

 

 
|   | HILTON HOTELS  CORPORATION |
|--------|----------------------------|
|   |                       |
|   |                       |
|   | By:                        | /s/ Molly  McKenzie Swarts |   |

 

----
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Special Emphasis Panel, RFA on AIDS Consortium.                    

*Date:*                         April 21-22, 2011.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ranga Srinivas, PhD, Chief, Extramural Project Review Branch, EPRB, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Room 2085, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2067,                         *srinivar@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards., National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 15, 2011.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-6730 Filed 3-21-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
§ 636.113 Is the stipend amount eligible for Federal participation? ( a ) Yes, stipends are eligible for Federal-aid participation. Stipends are recommended on large projects where there is substantial opportunity for innovation and the cost of submitting a proposal is significant. On such projects, stipends are used to: ( 1 ) Encourage competition;
( 2 ) Compensate unsuccessful offerors for a portion of their costs (usually one-third to one-half of the estimated proposal development cost); and
( 3 ) Ensure that smaller companies are not put at a competitive disadvantage.
( b ) Unless prohibited by State law, you may retain the right to use ideas from unsuccessful offerors if they accept stipends. If stipends are used, the RFP should describe the process for distributing the stipend to qualifying offerors. The acceptance of any stipend must be optional on the part of the unsuccessful offeror to the design-build proposal.
( c ) If you intend to incorporate the ideas from unsuccessful offerors into the same contract on which they unsuccessfully submitted a proposal, you must clearly provide notice of your intent to do so in the RFP.
[67 FR 75926, Dec. 10, 2002, as amended at 73 FR 77502, Dec. 19, 2008]
### §450ll–3. Additional lands

#### (a) Lands added to Monument

The boundary of the Booker T. Washington National Monument is modified to include the approximately 15 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled "Boundary Map, Booker T. Washington National Monument, Franklin County, Virginia", numbered BOWA 404/80,024, and dated February 2001. The map shall be on file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

#### (b) Acquisition of additional lands

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire from willing owners the land or interests in land described in subsection (a) by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.

#### (c) Administration of additional lands

Lands added to the Booker T. Washington National Monument by subsection (a) shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior as part of the monument in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

(Apr. 2, 1956, ch. 158, §5, as added Pub. L. 107–215, §2, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1054.)
### §460n–6. Political jurisdiction; taxing power; Hualapai Indians

Nothing in this subchapter shall deprive any State, or any political subdivision thereof, of its civil and criminal jurisdiction over the lands within the said national recreation area, or of its rights to tax persons, corporations, franchises, or property on the lands included in such area. Nothing in this subchapter shall modify or otherwise affect the existing jurisdiction of the Hualapai Tribe or alter the status of individual Hualapai Indians within that part of the Hualapai Indian Reservation included in said Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

(Pub. L. 88–639, §7, Oct. 8, 1964, 78 Stat. 1041.)
### **Exhibit99.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Caldera International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q,for the quarter ended January 31, 2003, the undersigned each certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of each of our knowledge:

 
| 1.     |   | The  quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                          |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                              |
| 2.     |   | The  information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Company. |

 

 
| By:    | /s/  Darl McBride                                |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Darl McBride    President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                                  |
|   |                                                  |
|   | /s/  Robert K. Bench                             |   |
|   | Robert K.  Bench  Chief Financial Officer             |
|   |                                                  |
|   |                                                  |
| Date:  | March 14,  2003                                       |

 

----
§ 551.4 Hair length. ( a ) The Warden may not restrict hair length if the inmate keeps it neat and clean.
( b ) The Warden shall require an inmate with long hair to wear a cap or hair net when working in food service or where long hair could result in increased likelihood of work injury.
( c ) The Warden shall make available to an inmate hair care services which comply with applicable health and sanitation requirements.
[44 FR 38252, June 29, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 59509, Dec. 4, 1981]
### §460t–4. Authorization of appropriations

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated not more than $780,000 for the acquisition of land and interests in land pursuant to this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 89–664, §5, Oct. 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 914; Pub. L. 92–272, title I, §101(3), Apr. 11, 1972, 86 Stat. 120.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1972—Pub. L. 92–272 increased the authorization of appropriations from not more than $355,000 to not more than $780,000.
#### § 81.3 Designation of Federal Bureau of Investigation.

For federal lands, federally operated facilities, or federally contracted facilities where no agency qualifies for designation under § 81.2, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is hereby designated as the agency to receive and investigate reports of child abuse made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 13031 until such time as another agency qualifies as a designated agency under § 81.2.
Exhibit 32.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of OSK Capital II Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB  for the period ending December 31, 2002,
(the  "Report"), I, Frank Kramer, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2) The information contained in the  Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Frank Kramer
-----------------------
Secretary and Treasurer

Date:
      March 29, 2004
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond) 

In re: Marc Tyson Bates Case No. 15-35842-KLP

TRANSFER OF CLAIM SERVICING 

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a). Transferee 

Servicer hereby gives evidence and notice of the transfer of servicing for the claim referenced in this 

notice. 

USAA Federal Savings Bank USAA Federal Savings Bank

Name of Transferee Servicer Name of Transferor Servicer 

Name and Address where notices to Transferee Court Claim # (if known): 12 

Servicer should be sent: Amount of Claim: $282,463.95

Nationstar Mortgage LLC Date Claim Filed: 03/28/16

PO Box 619096 

Dallas, TX 75261 

Phone: 1-877-343-5602 Phone: 800-669-0340 ext 6732

Last Four Digits of Acct #: 4732 Last Four Digits of Acct. #: 4732 

Name and Address where Transferee Servicer payments 

should be sent (if different from above): 

Nationstar Mortgage 

PO Box 619094 

Dallas, TX 75261 

Phone: 1-877-343-5602

Last Four Digits of Acct #: 4732 

By: /s/ Mark D. Meyer Date: 10/14/2016

Transferee Servicer/Transferee Servicer’s Agent 

Case 15-35842-KLP Doc 63 Filed 10/14/16 Entered 10/14/16 14:04:22 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1



                          CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-84091) pertaining to the Harvey Electronics,  Inc. Stock Option Plan
of our report dated December 28, 2001, with respect to the financial  statements
and schedule of Harvey  Electronics,  Inc. for the years ended  October 27, 2001
and  October 28, 2000  included  in the Annual  Report  (Form 10-K) for the year
ended October 27, 2001.






                                                               Ernst & Young LLP
Melville, New York
January 24, 2002
No. 20,631.

#### Frank Yankovic *v.*The District Court in and for the City and County of Denver, et al.

(380 P. [2d] 680)

Decided April 15, 1963.

Mr. Edward A. Jersin, for petitioner.

Mr. Richard M. Huckeby, Mr. Roger Cisneros, for respondents.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice

Moore delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner was defendant named in an action commenced in the respondent district court, in which he filed a “Motion to Quash the Alleged or Pretended Service of Summons” asserting that no service had actually been made upon him. The respondent court denied the motion. Thereupon a petition was filed in*135voking the original jurisdiction of this court in which petitioner sought the entry of orders as follows:

“1. Directing the issuance of a citation to defendants to show cause why proceedings in Civil Action No. B-58375 in the District Court in and for the City and County of Denver in the State of Colorado should not permanently be stayed until proper personal service is obtained upon this plaintiff.

*“2.*Ordering such proceedings to be stayed while this action is pending.

“3. Upon final hearing, ordering a permanent stay of such proceedings until proper personal service is obtained upon this plaintiff.”

Upon ex parte consideration of the petition this court issued a rule to show cause. Respondents have made answer from which it is made clear that all the pertinent facts were not set forth in the petition on which the rule to show cause was issued. Petitioner alleged that no service had been made upon him but was made upon one Don Kotzman, who had no connection whatever with the action.

It is shown by the answer that on January 17, 1963, the trial court conducted a hearing upon the motion filed by the petitioner to quash the alleged service of summons. At that hearing the trial court considered the affidavits filed in support of the motion. The plaintiff in the action gave pertinent oral testimony; the process server, one Robert Wertz, also testified; and one Vance B. Sanders, a disinterested party, stated that he had witnessed the service of summons by the process server and that the petitioner Frank Yankovic was the person upon whom the service was made. Photographs were identified and admitted in evidence.

Respondents alleged in their answer, inter alia:

“b. That after extended examination of the witnesses by counsel for both parties, and after careful consideration of the affidavits, exhibits, and testimony, the mat*136ter was resolved adversely to complainant and his Motion to Quash was denied.”

The petitioner has not taken issue with the facts set forth in the answer of respondents.

The respondent court and the judge thereof considered a disputed issue of fact and held that the service of summons had been made upon the petitioner.

The rule accordingly is discharged.

Mr. Justice Sutton not participating.
#### In the Matter of Edward J. Russel et al., Appellants, against Paul J. Kern, et al., Constituting the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Cohn, JJ.
December 4, 2009 

Mr. Vincent Camobreco 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Submitted electronically 

Subject: FASOM Sensitivity Analysis to Distillers Grains Assumptions 

Dear Vince, 

As you are aware, distillers grains from corn ethanol plants can have a significant 

impact on the net amount of land required to produce corn for ethanol and other markets. 

FASOM, the model used by EPA to estimate domestic land use changes for the RFS2 

analysis, assumes that 1 lb of distillers grains replaces 1 lb of feed, where the replaced 

feed is 0.915 lbs of corn and 0.085 lbs of soybean meal. Our comments on the proposed 

rule show that, based on information from the feed industry, nutritionists and Argonne 

National Laboratory, the replacement rates are higher than assumed in FASOM. 

We carefully examined the proposed RFS2 rule for any evidence that EPA 

evaluated FASOM’s predictions of corn and soybean meal production and their 

sensitivity to the distillers grains feed replacement assumptions, but found no sensitivity 

analyses. Therefore, we asked Air Improvement Resource, Inc. (AIR) to run sensitivity 

analysis of FASOM results to three different DG input assumptions, as follows: 

3⁄4 “Default” DG assumptions (same as EPA) 

3⁄4 “Zero DGs” (i.e., DGs do not replace feed at all) 

3⁄4 “RFA DGs” (i.e., DGs replace corn and soybean meal at rates recommended by 

Prof. Gerald Shurson, University of Minnesota) 

The results of this analysis are shown in the attached briefing slides. Basically, 

there are three findings from this analysis: 

1. The model shows that DG use does reduce land devoted to soybeans, and also 

reduces soybean production. 

2. The model shows that DG use does reduce land devoted to corn, but for some 

unidentifiable reason, does not reduce corn production. 
3. The model does not reduce corn and soybean acreage in response to increased DG 

displacement to the degree our external calculations suggest should reasonably 

occur. The reasons for this are not clear. 

Since DGs have a significant effect on net land use for corn ethanol, we think 

these FASOM modeling issues should be carefully examined by EPA before finalizing 

the RFS2. While the directional effects of increasing DG substitution inside the FASOM 

model appear correct, the magnitude of the effects appears grossly understated. The 

reasons for this should be investigated. Based on the apparent gross understatement of the 

land impact of increasing DG substitution, it appears the FASOM model may possibly be 

flawed in how it translates changes in DG substitution rates into acreage impacts. 

If you have any questions on our analysis, we would be glad to meet with you to 

go over these results. 

Respectfully yours, 

Geoff Cooper 

VP, Research & Analysis
**Michigan Supreme Court** 

**Lansing, Michigan**

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2014 

# Order

September 24, 2014

148444 ( 54 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

,

v

RICHARD LEE HARTWICK

, Defendant

- Appell ant

. SC: 148444

COA: 312308

Oakland CC: 2012

- 240981

- FH

________ _____________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff

- appellee to extend the time to

file its brief and appendix on appeal is GRANTED. The brief and appendix submitted on

September 12, 2014

, are accepted for filing.