alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

SEP 17 2003

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ASHLEY CREEK PHOSPHATE

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 

CHEVRON CORPORATION;

CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.; CHEVRON

PIPE LINE COMPANY; CHEVRON

CHEMICAL COMPANY; CHEVRON

INDUSTRIES, INC.; SF PIPELINE

LIMITED COMPANY;

SF PHOSPHATES LIMITED

COMPANY; FS, INC.; FARMLAND

INDUSTRIES, INC.; J.R. SIMPLOT

COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________

AGRIUM U.S., INC., 

Real Party in InterestAppellee.

No. 01-1074

(D.C. No. 99-M-2099)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
-2-

Before MURPHY and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges, and BRORBY , Senior Circuit

Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Ashley Creek Phosphate Company (Ashley Creek) appeals the

district court’s orders relating to discovery of information from the real party in

interest, Agrium U.S., Inc. (Agrium). The disputed discovery materials were

relevant to the principal litigation between Ashley Creek and the defendants, filed

in a Utah federal court. This court has resolved all claims in the principal

litigation. Ashley Creek Phosphate Co. v. Chevron USA, Inc. , 315 F.3d 1245

(10th Cir. 2003), petition for cert. filed , 71 U.S.L.W. 3760 (U.S. Apr. 21, 2003)

(No. 02-1758). As a result of that opinion, there are no claims pending between

the principal litigants, and thus, no reason to pursue discovery from Agrium. 

Defendants and Agrium maintain that this appeal is moot. Ashley Creek responds

that the appeal is not moot because its petition for a writ of certiorari has not been

ruled on by the Supreme Court. Rather, Ashley Creek maintains that the appeal
-3-

should be abated pending a ruling on its certiorari petition. All parties agree that

the appeal is moot unless the Supreme Court grants certiorari. 

We have determined that abating this appeal pending the Court’s

adjudication of the certiorari petition would be an unnecessary burden on judicial

resources. Because we are confident that our holdings in the principal litigation

are correct and will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court, we conclude that the

appeal is moot and should be dismissed. 

Appeal DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy 

Circuit Judge
#### In the Matter of Joel G., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[832 NYS2d 677]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated February 23, 2006, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated February 14, 2005, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree (two counts), attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, menacing in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), and unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under 16, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services until his 18th birthday. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated February 14, 2005.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant in the custody of the New York State Office *of*Children and Family Services until his 18th birthday is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of placement has expired; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (hereinafter OCFS) until his 18th birthday has been rendered academic, as the period of placement has expired *(see Matter of Ricky A.,*11 AD3d 532, 532-533 *645[2004]; *Matter of Rosalis D.,*305 AD2d 407, 408 [2003]). However, because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency, that portion of the appeal which brings up for review the fact-finding order is not academic *(see Matter of Ricky A., supra*at 532-533; *Matter of Ejiro*A., 268 AD2d 428 [2000]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see Matter of David H.,*69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; *Matter of Shaquana S.,*9 AD3d 466, 467 [2004]; *Matter of Shamasia M.,*4 AD3d 359, 361 [2004]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the determination made in the fact-finding order *(see*Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [3]; § 160.10 [1], [2] [b]; § 155.30 [5]; § 120.14 [1]; § 265.01 [2]; §§ 265.05, 10.00, 20.00).

Resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal *(cf. People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; *People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *Matter of Lawrence A.,*31 AD3d 440, 442 [2006]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence *(cf People v Romero, supra).*Miller, J.P., Mastro, Ritter and Balkin, JJ., concur.
### §8276. System evaluation and purchase program

#### (a) Program

The Secretary shall establish, within 60 days after November 9, 1978, a photovoltaic systems evaluation and purchase program to provide such systems as are required by the Federal agencies to carry out this part. In acquiring photovoltaic solar electric systems under this part, the Secretary (or other Federal agency acting under delegation from the Secretary) shall insure that such systems reflect to the maximum extent practicable the most advanced and reliable technologies and shall schedule purchases in a manner which will stimulate the early development of a permanent low-cost private photovoltaic production capability in the United States, and to stimulate the private sector market for photovoltaic power systems. The Secretary and other Federal agencies acting under delegation from the Secretary shall, subject to the availability of appropriated funds, procure not more than 30 megawatts of photovoltaic solar electric systems during fiscal years ending September 30, 1979, September 30, 1980, and September 30, 1981.

#### (b) Other procurement

Nothing in this part shall preclude any Federal agency from directly procuring a photovoltaic solar electric system (in lieu of obtaining one under the program under subsection (a)), except that any such Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary before procuring such a system.

(Pub. L. 95–619, title V, §567, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3281; Pub. L. 96–294, title IV, §407(2)(C), (D), June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 717.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1980—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–294 inserted provisions relating to Federal agencies acting under delegations from the Secretary.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1729906
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   766307
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              16567459
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                16567459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2409457
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  16567459
<SALES>                                        1061035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 42117
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                197948
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 149067 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             149067
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    149067
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 62
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 62 appear at 64 FR 54539, Oct. 7, 1999, and 67 FR 17612, 17613, Apr. 11, 2002.

§ 62.6 Designation. ( a ) Upon its favorable determination that an applicant meets all statutory and regulatory requirements, the Department of State may, in its sole discretion, designate the applicant as an Exchange Visitor Program sponsor.
( b ) Initial designations are effective for one or two years at the sole discretion of the Department of State.
( c ) Designation will confer upon a sponsor the authority to engage in one or more activities specified in § 62.4. A sponsor may engage only in the activity or activities specifically authorized in its written letter of designation.
( d ) The Department of State may, in its sole discretion, require a sponsor to secure a payment bond in favor of the Department of State guaranteeing the sponsor's obligations hereunder.
( e ) Designations are not transferable or assignable.
[79 FR 60307, Oct. 6, 2014]
#### § 108.5 Authority.

The regulations in this part are issued pursuant to the authority to issue regulations granted to the Secretary by section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). They implement the functions, powers, and duties imposed on the Secretary by Executive Order 11063, 27 FR 11527 and title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3608.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          38,181
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,927
<PP&E>                                          32,621
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,453)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 223,045
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          190,979
<BONDS>                                              4
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           159
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,903
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   223,045
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,658
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,571
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,334<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,334
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
<FN>
<F1>Includes Equity in loss of affiliate of (112)
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.1
------------

                            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 Brantley Capital Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert P. Pinkas, Chief Executive Officer of Brantley Capital Corporation,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements 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 financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


/s/ Robert P. Pinkas
-----------------------------
Robert P. Pinkas
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002
#### § 92.49 “Deposition” defined.

A deposition is the testimony of a witness taken in writing under oath or affirmation, before some designated or appointed person or officer, in answer to interrogatories, oral or written. (For the distinction between a deposition and an affidavit see § 92.22.)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Rafael ESTRELLA-TAVERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-41661.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 2, 2007.

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

*326Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED. Appellant’s conviction and sentence are 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned
Officer of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2014 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



November 19, 2014

/s/ H. Dean Cubley
H. Dean Cubley
Chief Executive Officer
#### § 231.1 Eligibility requirements.

The requirements set forth in 24 CFR part 200, subpart A, apply to multifamily project mortgages insured under section 231 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715v), as amended.

[61 FR 14406, Apr. 1, 1996]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2736 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2736

   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit direct 
payment under the Medicare Program for clinical social worker services 
          provided to residents of skilled nursing facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2005

Mr. Stark (for himself, Mr. Leach, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Hinchey, 
Mr. McNulty, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Abercrombie, and Mr. Kildee) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit direct 
payment under the Medicare Program for clinical social worker services 
          provided to residents of skilled nursing facilities.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity 
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING DIRECT PAYMENT UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM FOR 
              CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER SERVICES PROVIDED TO RESIDENTS OF 
              SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1888(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395yy(e)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``clinical 
social worker services,'' after ``qualified psychologist services,''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1861(hh)(2) of such Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(2)) is amended by striking ``and other than services 
furnished to an inpatient of a skilled nursing facility which the 
facility is required to provide as a requirement for participation''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
§ 234.1 Cross-reference. ( a ) All of the provisions of subpart A of part 203 of this chapter concerning eligibility requirements of mortgages covering one- to four-family dwellings under section 203 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709) apply to mortgages on individually owned units insured under section 234 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715y), except the following provisions: Sec. 203.12 Mortgage insurance on proposed or new construction. 203.14 Builders' warranty. 203.18a Solar energy system. 203.18c One-time or up-front mortgage insurance premium excluded from limitations on maximum mortgage amounts. 203.38 Location of dwelling. 203.42 Rental properties. 203.43c Eligibility of mortgages involving a dwelling unit in a cooperative housing development. 203.43d Eligibility of mortgages in certain communities. 203.43f Eligibility of mortgages covering manufactured homes. 203.43g Eligibility of mortgages in certain communities. 203.43h Eligibility of mortgages on Indian land insured pursuant to section 248 of the National Housing Act. 203.43i Eligibility of mortgages on Hawaiian Home Lands insured pursuant to section 247 of the National Housing Act. 203.43j Eligibility of mortgages on Allegany Reservation of Seneca Nation of Indians. 203.50 Eligibility of rehabilitation loans.
( b ) For the purposes of this subpart, all references in part 203 of this chapter to section 203 of the Act shall be construed to refer to section 234 of the Act.
[61 FR 60161, Nov. 26, 1996, as amended at 64 FR 56111, Oct. 15, 1999]
#### Hunt *v.*City of Rome.

May 15, 1912.

Action for damages. Before Judge Maddox. Floyd superior court. December 26, 1910.

*M. B. Eubanlcs,*for plaintiff. *Max Meyerhardt,*for defendant.

Hill, J.

The suit-being for damages alleged to have resulted to the real 'property of the plaintiff by reason of the raising of the grade of the street in front of it, and there being involved no question of the taking of property, but only the question of consequential damages, or consequential benefits thereto; and the evidence of the plaintiff tending to show damages and loss of rental value, and the testimony for the defendant tending to show that the benefits arising from the change in grade were greater than the injury caused thereby, there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial, made by the plaintiff in error on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, although the verdict for the plaintiff was for a less sum than any of his witnesses estimated the damages to be.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices eoneur.*
#### § 1000.516 What reporting period is covered by the annual performance report?

For the first annual performance report to be submitted under NAHASDA, the period to be covered is October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998. This first report must be submitted by January 31, 1999. Subsequent annual performance reports must cover the period that coincides with the recipient's program year.

[64 FR 3015, Jan. 20, 1999]
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 14

- 00329

- CV

Style: Fariha Ashfaq

v Mohammad Ashfaq

Date motion filed * : June 24, 2014

Type of motion: Motion for Extension of Time to File Reporter’s Record

Party filing motion: Court Reporter

Document to be filed: Reporter ’ s Record

If motion to extend time:

Deadline to file document:

Number of previous extensions granted:

Length of extension sought:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 The Clerk is instructed to file the document as of the date of this order

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend

time

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

The reporter’ s record was filed on July 2, 2014. Accord ingly, the court reporter’ s motion for an

extension of time to file the reporter ’ s record is dismissed as moot

.

Judge's signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

______________________________ .

Date: July 3, 2014
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

LORRAINE PLACIDO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE

COMPANY OF AMERICA; NORTEL

NETWORKS LONG TERM DISABILITY

PLAN,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00668 WHA

ORDER RE SUBMISSION OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

The case management order of January 22, 2010, set a deadline of April 18, 2010, for

defendants to file the “administrative record” and its motion for summary judgment in this

matter. This deadline is hereby continued to APRIL 19, 2010. The motion for summary

judgment shall be heard on a 35-day track. In all other respects, the schedule set in the case

management order of January 22, 2010, remains in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2009. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00668-WHA Document 44 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 1