alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michael L. Dworkin (CA Bar# 64047) 

MICHAEL L. DWORKIN and ASSOCIATES 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: 415-421-2500 

FAX: 415-421-2560 

Email: law@avialex.com 

Counsel for MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC 

MAY 1 5 2014 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

In the Matter of: 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC 

W ASIDNGTON, D.C. 

FAA Case No. 2011SW700189 

DMS No. FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC'S 

NOTICE OF MOTIONS 

Judge: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE HONORABLE RICHARD C. 

GOODWIN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, AND TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Wednesday, June 18,2014 at 9:00am, in the 

Bankruptcy Court, 14th Floor, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas, Respondent will 

and hereby does apply to this Court for an Order granting the following Motions; 

1. Request for Judicial Notice (Request attached hereto); 

2. Motion in Limine to Preclude Complainant's Evidence Relating to 

Computation and/or Reasonableness of Sanction (Motion attached hereto); 

3. Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony by Persons Not Previously Identified 
by Complainant and Complainant's Expert Witness and/or Opinion Testimony 

(Motion attached hereto); and 

4. Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony that HMR Section 175.33 Has Been 

Promulgated and Serves to Assist First Responders (Motion attached hereto). 

Respondent respectfully requests that upon hearing said motions, the Court 

immediately issue an Order granting or denying same as the disposition of said Motions 

will directly affect the conduct and duration of the hearing on the merits of the Complaint 

and Answer. 

Complainant is hereby put on notice that these Motions will be raised at hearing. 

Dated this [(h day of May, 2014 

Re~tfully su mityed, 

// jlfit!U-tPZ 1

/ //_--~ // M1chael L. Dwor in 

/ Attorney for Respondent 

2 

FAA Case No. 2011SW700189/FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTIONS 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this J!}!!'aay of May, 2014, a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTIONS 

was served as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-

320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

{Federal Express} 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

{Federal Express} 

James Archier, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASW-7 

2601 Meacham Boulevard, Suite 6E 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

{Federal Express} 

CAITLIN M. MILLER 

3 

FAA Case No. 2011SW700189/FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-0040 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTIONS
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

 

Division

In re 

 Case No. 

 Debtor(s) Chapter 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME 

TO FILE LISTS, SCHEDULES AND STATEMENTS 

 

The above debtor(s) having timely filed a motion to extend the time for filing certain required lists, schedules 

and statements pursuant to Local Rule 1007-1(B); it is, therefore 

ORDERED, under authority of Local Rule 1007-1(C), the time is extended to ____________________, for 

filing the following:

WILLIAM C. REDDEN 

Clerk of Court 

By __________________________________________ 

 Deputy Clerk 

Date: _____________________________ 

 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER 

 ENTERED ON DOCKET:

 ________________________________ 

[oextflss ver 01/10]

Alexandria

Bluepoint Medical Associates, LLC

19-13121-KHK

11

10/18/2019

All Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs

Summary of Your Assets and Liabilities and Certain Statistical Information

List of Equity Security Holders

Attorney Fee Disclosure and Small Business: Balance Sheet, Statement Of Operations, Cash Flow Statement,

Federal Income Tax Returns (or perjury statement of none)

October 1, 2019

/s/ Kimberly J Chandler

October 1, 2019

Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 15 Filed 10/01/19 Entered 10/01/19 15:21:18 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Robert F. Woods

Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and

Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.(S) 1350, as
adopted), I, Robert F. Woods, Chief Financial Officer of SunGard Capital Corp., SunGard Capital Corp. II and SunGard Data Systems Inc. (collectively, the Company), hereby certify that to my knowledge:

1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained
in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
March 1, 2011



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Robert F. Woods    
|Robert F. Woods        
|Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SunGard Capital Corp., SunGard Capital Corp. II and SunGard Data Systems Inc. and will be retained by SunGard Capital Corp., SunGard Capital Corp. II and SunGard Data Systems
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
National Cooperative Refinery Association 

2000 S. MAIN • PO. BOX 1404 • McPHERSON, KANSAS 67460 • 620/241-2340 

September 19, 2013 

The Hon. Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Re:	Petition for Waiver of 2014 Renewable Fuel Standard 

Dear Administrator McCarthv: 

National Cooperative Refinery Association (NCRA) respectfully submits this petition to 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") for a partial waiver of the 2014 

applicable volumes of the Renewable Fuel Standard ("RFS") pursuant to section 

211(o)(7)(A) of the Clean Air ActJ11 

NCRA is an obligated party pursuant to regulations promulgated by EPA to implement 

the RFS (40 C.F.R Part 80, Subpart M). NCRA is thus a person subject to the 

requirements of subsection 211(o) of the Clean Air Act. NCRA also is a member of the 

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers ("AFPM"). Existing EPA administrative 

and judicial precedent makes clear that AFPM has standing to file an RFS waiver 

petition. Notwithstanding NCRA's submittal incorporates by reference the RFS waiver 

petition filed by AFPM and the American Petroleum Institute on August 13, 2013. 

Respectfully submitted, 

I

eve-"

Rick K. Leicht 

Vice - President Refining 

m m 

N C=:> _ 

C^^ m r! 1 

—A -n

i"c'1 (:---> n Ti 

('i'-i

7 ^..^ ^ 

^7 w 

.. 

l^

III See 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(7)(A). 

Supplying Refined Fuels	 CHS INC., ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 

To Our Member-Owners	 GROWMARK, INC., BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS • MFA OIL COMPANY, COLUMBIA, MISSOURI 
^ ^ •o u'^-

f

c 

^ ^^^	• 

^

049J82050899 

$06.110 

09/20/2013 

Mailed Frorn 67203 

! 

►

q POSTAGE 

-wl 

O 

E-'

L^ 

ru 

0 

C3O 

O 

O 

O 

ru

m 

^ 

ru

^ — 

fll

r 

^ 

Z 

w 

CD 

Q 

z c 

^- 

U W ^ 

O K tZ

3 J Z Q ^ Z W 

w z 

>_ X: z O 2 z w "p ^	o :> -:Iinf 0:^ Q o 

Q — N 

U ^ Q 

U Z — 

^ w z 

Q U 

Q cr^ Ul) > o Z O W J

c7 Q Q cn Z^ of	o F-cnz^ 

z cn w c7 

o — o a- z 

= z w — 

— 1— 0 2 

W z: — U (N 

S 0 Z N Q 

r— QZD —3
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

In re:

Global Realty Management Inc.

Debtor

Case No. 19-12812-KHK

(Chapter 11)

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND REQUIRING DEBTOR TO APPEAR TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY &$6(SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

On August 26, 2019, the Debtor filed this Voluntary Chapter 11 case without counsel. The Debtor 

is not an individual nor is the Debtor represented by an attorney. An Order to Show Cause (Docket No.

29) was issued by this Court for the Debtor to appear as to why there has been no response regarding the

requirement of counsel for filing on behalf of an entity. ,WDSSHDULQJWKDWWKH'HEWRUKDVQRWUHWDLQHG

FRXQVHODQGIDLOHGWRDSSHDUDWWKHKHDULQJ7KH&RXUWILQGV.LPEHUO\9XWKHGHEWRUGHVLJQHHLQ

FRQWHPSWIRUIDLOXUHWRUHWDLQFRXQVHOIRUWKHEXVLQHVVDQGLWLVWKHUHIRUH

ORDERED:

1. The Show Cause Hearing shall be held on Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 11:00 am in

Courtroom III, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 200 South

Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

2. The Debtor shall appear and show cause, if any, why this case should not be dismissed

with prejudice.

3. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order, or provide electronic notice of its entry, to the

parties below.

Date: _________________

Klinette H. Kindred

United States Bankruptcy Judge

/s/ Klinette H. Kindred

Entered on Docket: Oct 11, 2019

Oct 11 2019

Case 19-12812-KHK Doc 39 Filed 10/11/19 Entered 10/11/19 13:23:16 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Copy electronically to: 

Jack Frankel 

John P. Fitzgerald, III 

 

Copy mailed to:

Global Realty Management Inc. 

42414 Chamois Ct 

Arcola, VA 20166 

Kimberly Vu 

42414 Chamois Court 

Sterling, VA 20166 

Case 19-12812-KHK Doc 39 Filed 10/11/19 Entered 10/11/19 13:23:16 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
#### Herbert A. Hubbard v. Charles M. Seitz.

Filed March 22, 1899.

No. 8828.

Suit for Goods Sold and Delivered: Verdict for Plaintiff: Evidence. In a suit for groceries sold and delivered to the defendant the plaintiff testified that he furnished the defendant with groceries to the amount of $33.65, and that no part of the same had been paid. *Held,*The evidence sustains a verdict for the plaintiff.

Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Hall, J.

*Affirmed.*

Webster, *Bose & FisherdieJc,*for plaintiff in error.

*'John M. Stewart*and *William F. Schwind, contra.*

Ragan, C.

Charles M. Seitz sued Herbert A. Hubbard in the district court of Lancaster county, had verdict and judgment, and Hubbard prosecutes error.

In his petition in the district court Seitz alleged that, *352at the instance and request of Hubbard, he had sold and delivered to him groceries to the amount of $33.65, no part of which had been paid. The answer was a general denial. The defendant below did not appear at the trial. The plaintiff testified that he was in the grocery business; that he furnished the defendant with groceries to the amount of $33.65, — the amount sued for; that no part of the same had been paid. It is now insisted that this evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding in favor of the plaintiff below. The argument seems to be that the record contains- no evidence showing that the plaintiff below sold and delivered the goods sued for to the. defendant below, and no evidence as to the reasonable or fair market value of the goods. What we understand the plaintiff below to mean by saying that he furnished the defendant goods is that he sold and delivered them to him, and what we understand him to mean when he Says that the goods furnished amounted to $33.65 is that that sum was the value of the goods, — either that they were reasonably worth that sum or that was the price at which they were sold to the defendant below. The evidence sustains the finding and the judgment is

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

RULE 13A-14(A) OR RULE 15D-14(A)



I, Howard L. Ehler, Jr., certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Imperial Industries, Inc.;



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.

I am 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 my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 my 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses 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: March 30, 2005



/s/ Howard L. Ehler, Jr.

Howard L. Ehler, Jr.

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer/
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20995

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALONZO FRANK,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CR-100-1

- - - - - - - - - -

October 20, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Alonzo Frank challenges his conviction for violating the

federal bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Frank contends

that his robbery of a private armored-car courier does not

constitute a violation of § 2113 because the funds do not “belong

to” the financial institution when they are in the courier’s

possession. Frank’s contention is without merit. When Frank

robbed the courier here, he stole funds that “belonged to” the

credit union even though the funds were at that moment in the
No. 97-20995

-2-

possession of an agent of the credit union. See United States v.

Van, 814 F.2d 1004, 1006-08 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing United States

v. Jakalski, 237 F.2d 503, 506 (7th Cir. 1956)).

Frank’s unbriefed assertion that the district court erred by

submitting a purported question of law to the jury is deemed

abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.

1993). 

AFFIRMED.
### §79h. Memorial groves named for benefactors

The present practice of the California Department of Parks and Recreation of maintaining memorial groves of redwood trees named for benefactors of the State redwood parks shall be continued by the Secretary in the Redwood National Park.

(Pub. L. 90–545, §8, Oct. 2, 1968, 82 Stat. 934.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          18,911
<SECURITIES>                                       611
<RECEIVABLES>                                  308,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (18,063)
<INVENTORY>                                    147,755
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               481,546
<PP&E>                                         249,660
<DEPRECIATION>                               (140,291)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,157,955
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          268,773
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           29,518
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     261,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,157,955
<SALES>                                        597,718
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               597,718
<CGS>                                          271,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  493,930
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (34,716)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,593
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                106,911
<INCOME-TAX>                                    43,480
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             63,431
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    63,431
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.28
        

</TABLE>
Summary: Alleged Bribery of a BLM Field Inspector 

Report Date: April 17, 2020 Case Number: 18-1192 

We investigated whether a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) field inspector accepted bribes 

from an oil and gas exploration company operating on an Indian reservation in exchange for 

allowing the company to do business on the reservation. We conducted this investigation jointly 

with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Our investigation found no evidence to corroborate the bribery allegations made against the 

BLM field inspector. Witnesses identified by the complainant did not corroborate the 

complainant’s statement, and the BLM field inspector denied the allegations. 

This is a summary of a report of investigation that we provided to the Acting Director, BLM. 

Office of Investigations | Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of the Interior | Washington, DC
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR ROBLEDO

- GUTIERREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 73335

Agency No. A071

- 918

- 465

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Immigration Judge

Submitted September 8, 2020 * *

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Victor Robledo

- Gutierrez, a native and citizen on Mexico, petitions for

review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a)

that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico and thus

is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 125 2. We review de novo questions of law

. Cerezo v. Mukasey

,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 18 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 73335

512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008) . We grant the petition for review, and we

remand.

The IJ found that Robledo

- Gutierrez did not have a reasonable fear of

persecution or torture. However, the IJ erred in stating he was bound by the “four

corners” of the asylum officer’s decision and by not consider ing the merits of

Robledo

- Gutierrez’s claim that he fears persecution and torture in Mexico because

he is the parent of a handicapped ch ild. See Bartolome v. Sessions , 904 F.3d 803,

812 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that an IJ applies de novo review during a

reasonable fear hearing, which “ means that the IJ does not defer to the asylum

officer’s ruling but freely considers the matter anew, as if no decision had been

rendered below.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Sagaydak v.

Gonzales , 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (the agency is “not free to ignore

arguments raised by a petitioner.”). Thus, we grant the petition for review and

remand to the IJ for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v.

Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

- 18 (2002) (per curiam).

The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry Nos. 1 and 6) is granted.

Robledo

- Gutierrez ’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the IJ

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3





                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT




To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Big Lake Financial Corporation and Subsidiary
Okeechobee, Florida

We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of Big Lake Financial Corporation
and Subsidiary (the "Company") as of December 31, 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of earnings, cash flows, and stockholders' equity for
the year then ended.  These consolidated financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated
financial statements are free of material misstatement.  An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements.  An audit also includes assessing the accounting
principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe that our
audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of
December 31, 2001, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the
year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States of America.

As discussed in Note 17 to the consolidated financial statements, certain
adjustments were made in 2002 to restate the 2001 financial statements.  We
have not audited these adjustments.


/s/ Stevens, Powell & Company, P.A.


Jacksonville, Florida
January 11, 2002 (except for Note 17, as to
which the date is January 10, 2003)