alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: JUNE 14, 2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASf:[INGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF 

### JOSEPH MOESSER FAA DOCKETNo. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Case) DMS No. FAA-2011-1286
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION 

### 1 Lt 

### P

••

The parties have filed ajointMotion for Ruling onthe Second Motion for Decision ("Joint Motion"). 1heMotion asks thatthe substantive matters in:tssue be adjudged onthe pleadings and discovery filed to date. The parties, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") and Joseph Moesser ("Respondent"), state in support that the papers filed inthe docket establishthat the material facts relevant to the question ofliability are not in dispute. ·They assert that the matters incontention involve questions oflaw only. The parties further move thatthe ruling they seekrefrain from considering the issue ofpenalty: "the question ofsanctionwill be amenable to**settlem~nt**.once the question ofliabilityhas been decided," they state. , The Joint Motion is hereby GRANTED. In view ofthe foregoing, 1 -AnInitial Decision ("I.D.") adjudicating the charges filed in t!1e Complaint will issue in due course;**~** 

# .. 

# - 002 2 - Giving due regard to considerations of judicial economy, the public policy favoring settlements, and the declaration of the parties, the I.D. wm refrain from considering the issue of penalty;

- - 3 - The issue of penalty will be considered and, if not settled by the parties by a**~** date to be determined by subsequent order, adjudicated following issuance of·

the I.D.; and 4- All other motions not specifically granted are hereby DENIED.**(l~c~** Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment - Service List**~-·** ••

"!_**'~**

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 

### ONE COPY Gregory G. Skordas, Respondent's Counsel Skordas, Caston & Hyde, LLC 341 South Main Street, Suite 303 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2707 TEL: 801-531-7444 FAX: 801-531-8885 Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-2161 FAX: 425-227-1007 FDMS No. FAA-2011-1286 (Civil Penalty Action)

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 .,, U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000,Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT CATHCART,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-03784 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION

TO WITHDRAW AS

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL

Represented by counsel, plaintiff Scott Cathcart brought this action on August 7, 2008,

to obtain a refund of what he claims were erroneously imposed tax penalties he paid the IRS. 

An automatic stay of this matter has been in effect since November 10, 2008, due to plaintiff’s

bankruptcy. Attorneys Daniel B. Rosenbaum and Matthew C. Hicks of Caplin & Drysdale and

David B. Porter of Wood & Porter move to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff pursuant to Local

Rule 11-5. This motion is not accompanied by the simultaneous appearance of substitute

counsel. Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(a), counsel “may not withdraw from an action until

relieved by order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the

client and to all other parties who have appeared in the case.” When withdrawal by an attorney

from an action is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or

agreement of the parties to appear pro se, leave to withdraw may be subject to the condition that

papers may continue to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes, unless and until the

clients appear by other counsel or pro se. Civil L.R. 11-5(b).

Attorneys Hicks and Porter state in their brief that they seek to withdraw because

plaintiff has breached his agreement to pay their expenses and fees (Br. at 1–2). They state that

Case 3:08-cv-03784-WHA Document 19 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

plaintiff “knowingly and freely assents to termination of their employment,” intends to proceed

pro se, and would like future papers to be served on him directly. They further state that they

have given counsel for defendant written notice of their intent to withdraw and that defendant

does not object to their withdrawal. However, they do not include any sworn declaration in

support of their brief.

A hearing will be held on this motion on MARCH 11, 2010, AT 8:00 A.M. It is more

likely that this motion will be granted if substitute counsel are present. Existing counsel of

record should be prepared to explain why they launched this lawsuit and why they should not be

required to see it through to the end.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-03784-WHA Document 19 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

M.L.
,

A ppellant

,

v

.

J.L.

A ppellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 139

- CV

Appeal from the

231st District Court

of Tarrant County, T exas

(TC# 231

- 57649 5

- 15 )

MEMO RANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Appellant, M.L. , has failed to pay the case filing

fee, and further finding that Appellant has failed to file an amended notice of appeal as directed

, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Appellant did not pay the case filing fee of $ 205 when s he filed h er notice of appeal or

establish th at s he is indigent in accordance with T EX .R.A PP .P. 20.1. On July 7, 2016 , the Clerk

of the Court sent Appellant a second request for payment of the case filing fee. The letter also

notified Appellant that failure to pay t he case filing fee within twenty days could result in

dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.3(b) and (c).

Appellant has not paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to our notice

.- 2

-

On June 17, 2016, the Second Court of Appeals directed Appellant to file an amended

notice of appeal to correct multiple defects in the notice of appeal. Following transfer of this

appeal from the Second Court of Appeals, the Clerk of this Court sent Appe llant a second

request for the amended notice of appeal. On our o wn motion, the Court extended the time for

Appellant to file the amended notice of appeal to August 1, 2016. Appellant has not responded

to our letter nor has she filed the amended notice o f appeal. The appeal is dismissed for want of

prosecution. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.3(b), (c).

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice August 10, 2016

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
#### Katherine Sussman, Respondent, v. Benjamin Sussman, Appellant.

. Order entered November 9, 1960, which denied plaintiff’s motion to punish defendant for contempt on condition that defendant return the child to plaintiff and denied defendant’s cross motion for a change in custody, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-respondent. Settle order on notice in which provision shall be made (1) for the return of the boy to the mother upon the conclusion of the present school term, and (2) for the boy spending the Christmas school holiday with the mother. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan


### September 24, 2007

134339

MICHAEL TOWNSEND, Plaintiff,

v
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/ SC: 134339 AGC: 2018/06 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### On the order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief.

p0917 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
September 24, 2007
Clerk
#### Fatimat Talabi et al., Respondents, v Mamadou D. Diallo et al., Appellants.

[820 NYS2d 904]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated September 15, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Fatimat Talabi did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff Fatimat Talabi did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident. The defendants never addressed the claim, clearly set forth in the bill of particulars, that Talabi sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident. The defendants’ neurologist and orthopedist each examined the plaintiff on April 22, 2005, some 18 months post accident. Although both doctors stated that Talabi was not disabled when they examined her, neither doctor addressed the possibility that she had a medically determined injury or impairment immediately following the accident that affected her activities during the 180 days im*1015mediately following the accident *(see Sayers v Hot,*23 AD3d 453 [2005]). Since the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiffs’ papers in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### Gurjinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73278.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 15, 2007.

Martin Avila Robles, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James R. Macayeal, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Enforcement Section, Thankful T. Vanders-tar, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gurjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider and to reopen his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, *see Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), *amended by*404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen and reconsider as untimely because it was filed more than three years after the BIA’s June 28, 2002 order. *See*8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(b)(2) and (c)(2).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). *See Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

REQUEST

FOR CALCULATIONS 

FOR TRIAL

Both sides are invited to run calculations to ascertain how the fund would have done if the

25-percent non-guaranteed mortgaged-back securities limitation had been honored with the

excess over the 25 percent being: (a) kept in cash (Calculation One), and (b) distributed pro rata

among the other non-guaranteed mortgage-back securities investments (up to the limit of any

other industry limitation) (Calculation Two). These should then be pared down to those who

were shareholders as of the date of the mortgage-back securities industry limitation deletion. 

This should then be compared to the way it did turn out. This should be done in time for each

side to depose the experts on these calculations reasonably before trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02878-WHA Document 29 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 1
aethlon_8k-ex1001.htm


 







Exhibit 10.1


 


 




 



		 
8910 University Center Lane, Suite 660


San Diego, CA 92122


858-459-7800


858-272-2738 (fax)







 






  






 












October 25, 2010













Mr. Rodney S. Kenley


1402 Pearson Road


Libertyville, Illinois 60048







Dear Mr. Kenley:







It is my pleasure to extend the following offer of employment to you on behalf of Aethlon Medical, Inc. (“Aethlon” or the “Company”).  This offer is contingent upon freeing yourself from any conflicts with DEKA Research and upon final approval by the Aethlon Medical Board of Directors.







Title:  President







Base Salary: Will be paid in semi-monthly installments of $10,000, which is equivalent to $240,000 on an annual basis, and subject to deductions for taxes and other withholdings as required by law or the policies of the company.







Confidentiality Agreement: Our standard confidentiality agreement must be signed prior to start.







Benefits: The current, standard company health, life, and dental insurance coverage are generally supplied per company policy.  Employee contribution to payment for benefit plans is determined annually.







Stock Options: Options to purchase one million shares of common stock (“Options”) at a $0.25 strike price.  250,000 Options vest one year from the date this letter is signed bilaterally and 20,833 Options vest monthly thereafter.







Vacation and Personal Emergency Time Off: Vacation is accrued at 3.33 hours per pay period, which is equivalent to two weeks on an annual basis. Personal emergency days are generally accrued per company policy.







Start Date: Upon Approval by the Aethlon Medical Board of Directors







Car/Phone/Travel Expenses: Normal and reasonable expenses will be reimbursed on a monthly basis per company policy.







Your employment with Aethlon is at-will and either party can terminate the relationship at any time with or without cause and with or without notice.


You acknowledge that this offer letter represents the entire agreement between you and Aethlon and that no verbal or written agreements, promises or representations that are not specifically stated in this offer, are or will be binding upon Aethlon.








  





  











  














If you are in agreement with the above outline, please sign below. This offer is in effect for five business days.







Signatures:







/s/ James A. Joyce


James A. Joyce


Chairman


Aethlon Medical, Inc.







Date: October 25, 2010












/s/ Rodney S. Kenley


Rodney S. Kenley







Date: October 27, 2010
#### § 1006.960 Ineligible or ineligibility.

*Ineligible or ineligibility* means that a person or commodity is prohibited from covered transactions because of an exclusion or disqualification.
|
|

ee ees een

RBON |

SWEETWATER

(70)

98)

| A_| Basin Soils (7 - 9 in. Precipitation Zone)
Mid-Elevation Soils (10 - 14 in. Precipitation Zone, West)
(HEM High Elevation Soils (15 - 19 in. Precipitation Zone)
HE Stabilized Dunes (10 - 14 in. Precipitation Zone)

E_ Mid-Elevation Soils (10 - 14 in. Precipitation Zone, East)
Lower Elevation Soils (15 - 17 in. Precipitation Zone)

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

1°) 10 20 40 60 80 100
Kilometers
0 5 10 20 30 40 50
aaa
Miles
Map 3-12

Soil/Precipitation Zones
#### Edwin J. Evans, appellant, v. James J. Kelly, executor under the last will and testament of Rosa A. Benson, deceased, and Provident Life and Trust, appellees.

Gen. No. 27,097.

Suit to foreclose a mechanic's lien. Bill dismissed for want of equity. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon.

*594Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1921.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 18, 1922.

Aaron R. Eppstein, for appellant. James F. Burns and, Winston, Strawn & Shaw, for appellees.

Mr. Presiding Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 1600.101 Purpose.

This part effectuates section 119 of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, which amended section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by Executive agencies or the United States Postal Service.
#### § 1509.635 Drug-free workplace.

*Drug-free workplace* means a site for the performance of work done in connection with a specific award at which employees of the recipient are prohibited from engaging in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance.
Exhibit 10.11 Compensation for Named Executive Officers in 2006




			Navigation Links




EXHIBIT 10.1



Compensation for the Named Executive Officers


 


			
2006
	
			
Target Bonus
	
			
As a 
	
		
2006
	
Perentage of
	
2005

		
Base Salary
	
Base Salary
	
Bonus Amount

	

	
Daniel D. Rosenthal
	
$
	
605,000
		
120
	
%
	
$
	
950,400
	
	
President and Chief Executive Officer
								
									
	
Thomas E. Prince
	
$
	
495,000
		
100
	
%
	
$
	
445,500
	
	
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
								
									
	
John R. Gatzke
	
$
	
412,500
		
100
	
%
	
$
	
495,000
	
	
Executive Vice President, Chief Lending Officer
								
									
	
Cliff J. Piscitelli
	
$
	
320,000
		
100
	
%
	
$
	
382,800
	
	
Executive Vice President, Director of Secondary
								
		
Marketing
								
									
	
Jon A. MacDonald
	
$
	
315,000
		
75
	
%
	
$
	
135,000
	
	
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and
								
		
Corporate Secretary
								
									
	
Edward A. Luther
	
$
	
225,000
		
70
	
%
	
$
	
198,660
	
	
Senior Vice President, Director of Major Loans
								
									
	






		Page 1
	Navigation Links
Exhibit 31.1








I, Susan B. Sheffield, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2019-3  (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Citibank, N.A.








By:/s/ Susan B. SheffieldName:Susan B. SheffieldTitle:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:March 3, 2023