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

1

STIPULATION and ORDER OF DISMISSAL Case No. C-09-2575 SC

BRODSKY MICKLOW BULL & WEISS LLP

Eugene A. Brodsky, State Bar No. 36691

Edward M. Bull III, SBN 141996

384 Embarcadero West, Suite 200

Oakland, California 94106

Telephone: (510) 268-6180

Facsimile: (510) 268-6181

Attorneys for Plaintiff

TAMMY UTOAFILI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAUMAOE (“TAMMY”) UTOAFILI

Plaintiff,

vs.

TRIDENT SEAFOODS

CORPORATION;M/V INDEPENDENCE,

her engines, tackle, apparel, furniture, and

appurtenances, and DOES 1 through 10,

inclusive,

Defendants. 

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C-09-2575 SC

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF

DISMISSAL

[Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(1)]

Whereas the parties to this action have agreed to a settlement of all claims and

all settlement funds have been paid to the Plaintiff,

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and among Plaintiff TAUMAOE

(“TAMMY”) UTOAFILI (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant TRIDENT SEAFOODS

CORPORATION (“Defendant”), through their respective counsel of record that this

action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure with each party to bear his or its own attorney’s fees and costs. 

Case 3:09-cv-02575-SC Document 41 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 2
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

STIPULATION and ORDER OF DISMISSAL Case No. C-09-2575 SC

DATED: March 17, 2010 BRODSKY MICKLOW BULL & WEISS LLP

 

 By /S/ Edward M. Bull III 

 Edward M. Bull Iii

Attorneys for Plaintiff

TAMMY UTOAFILI

DATED: March 17, 2010 ENGLAND PONTICELLO & ST.CLAIR

 By: /S/ Barry W. Ponticello

 Barry W. Ponticello

Attorneys for Defendant

TRIDENT SEAFOODS CORPORATION

 

CERTIFICATE OF SIGNATURE

I attest that the content of this document is acceptable to Barry W. Ponticello,

 and that he authorized me to sign the document on his behalf.

 /S/ Edward M. Bull III 

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: _____________________ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

March 22, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-02575-SC Document 41 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      25,423,572
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,146,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,508,192
<PP&E>                                      22,242,590
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,136,654)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,621,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,884,920
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        77,120
<OTHER-SE>                                  45,411,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,621,916
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,457,086
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,737,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             181,924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,036,889
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,036,889
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,036,889
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
### §6283. Summer fill and fuel budgeting programs

#### (a) Definitions

In this section:

#### (1) Budget contract

The term "budget contract" means a contract between a retailer and a consumer under which the heating expenses of the consumer are spread evenly over a period of months.

#### (2) Fixed-price contract

The term "fixed-price contract" means a contract between a retailer and a consumer under which the retailer charges the consumer a set price for propane, kerosene, or heating oil without regard to market price fluctuations.

#### (3) Price cap contract

The term "price cap contract" means a contract between a retailer and a consumer under which the retailer charges the consumer the market price for propane, kerosene, or heating oil, but the cost of the propane, kerosene, or heating oil may exceed a maximum amount stated in the contract.

#### (b) Assistance

At the request of the chief executive officer of a State, the Secretary shall provide information, technical assistance, and funding—

(1) to develop education and outreach programs to encourage consumers to fill their storage facilities for propane, kerosene, and heating oil during the summer months; and

(2) to promote the use of budget contracts, price cap contracts, fixed-price contracts, and other advantageous financial arrangements,

to avoid severe seasonal price increases for and supply shortages of those products.

#### (c) Preference

In implementing this section, the Secretary shall give preference to States that contribute public funds or leverage private funds to develop State summer fill and fuel budgeting programs.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section—

(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and

(2) such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year thereafter.

(Pub. L. 94–163, title II, §273, as added Pub. L. 106–469, title VI, §602(a), Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2040; amended Pub. L. 109–58, title III, §301(b)(2), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 683.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2005—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 109–58 struck out heading and text of subsec. (e). Text read as follows: "Section 6285 of this title does not apply to this section."
### §382. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–304, §9(a)(3), Sept. 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 664

Section, act May 27, 1908, ch. 200, 35 Stat. 350, related to assignment of pay by employees of Bureau of Reclamation. See section 5525 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
Order 2012-8-19

Served: August 17,2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 17th day of August, 2012 

Fitness Determination of

 KEY LIME AIR CORPORATION

as a commuter air carrier under section 49 U.S.C. § 41738

 Docket DOT-OST-2009-0116

FINAL ORDER

ERRATUM

By Order 2012-8-11, issued August 7, 2012, we indicated that we were making final our 

tentative findings that Key Lime Air Corporation (“Key Lime”) “is fit, willing, and able to 

provide scheduled passenger service as a commuter air carrier using small aircraft pursuant to 

Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.” The ordering paragraph also reflected this same 

restriction on Key Lime’s operations. However, our tentative findings did not propose to limit 

the air carrier’s operations to Part 135. We are issuing this erratum to delete language 

referencing a Part 135 restriction on Key Lime’s operations.

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We delete “pursuant to Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations” from paragraph 1 page 

1 of Order 2012-8-11.

2. We delete “pursuant to Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations” from ordering 

paragraph 1 page 1 of Order 2012-8-11.

3. We will serve a copy of this order on the persons listed in Attachment A.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http://www.regulations.gov
Attachment A

SERVICE LIST FOR

KEY LIME AIR 

CORPORATION

CLIFFORD HONEYCUTT

PRESIDENT

KEY LIME AIR CORPORATION

13252 EAST CONTROL TOWER ROAD

ENGLEWOOD COLORADO 80112

GERALD F MURPHY

CROWELL & MORING LLP

1001 PENNSYLVANIA AVNUE NW

WASHINGTON DC 20004-2595

MR PETER LYNCH AGC-300

ASST CHIEF COUNSEL FOR 

 ENFORCEMENT

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW

WASHINGTON DC 20591

MR WILLIAM J WEBER

CERTIFICATION SECTION MANAGER

FAA AFS-900

45005 AVIATION DRIVE SUITE 131

DULLES VA 20166

CHRISTOPHER A LANG

PRINCIPAL OPERATIONS 

INSPECTOR

FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION

DENVER FSDO

26805 EAST 68TH AVENUE

DENVER COLORADO 80249

OFFICE OF AIRLINE 

 INFORMATION

DOT/RITA/BTS 

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

WASHINGTON DC 20590
#### Edwin R. Morrow, Respondent, v Diane M. Morrow, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order unanimously modified in accordance with same memorandum as in *Morrow v Morrow*(62 AD2d 1142) and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. (Appeal from order of Oneida Supreme Court— modify judgment of divorce.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.
#### Lexco, Inc., Doing Business as Hotel Lexington, Respondent-Appellant, v Alameda Room, Inc., Doing Business as Chateau Madrid, Appellant-Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 15, 1977, which severed and dismissed the first, third and fourth affirmative defenses in respondent’s answer, and denied the motion to dismiss the petition and to vacate the arbitration award and directed that a hearing be held as to the sufficiency of respondent’s second affirmative defense, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of striking the second affirmative defense and directing judgment confirming the arbitrator’s award and except as thus modified, affirmed. By having participated in the arbitration, respondent waived its right to object to the confirmation of the award on the grounds that the agreement to arbitrate had not been complied with. (CPLR 7511, subd [b], par 2, cl [iii].) Thus, the issue of whether only the impartial chairman, and no one else, would be authorized to arbitrate disputes and grievances under the collective bargaining agreement is not preserved as a ground for challenging the arbitrator’s award. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Silverman, Evans and Sullivan, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from ORBCOMM
Global, L.P. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,826
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      842
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,242
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,945
<PP&E>                                         362,787
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,045
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 356,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,665
<BONDS>                                        170,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,920
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   356,505
<SALES>                                            514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   514
<CGS>                                              490
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,397<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,403<F2>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (33,776)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (33,776)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (33,776)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes 11,451 as depreciation expenses, 9 as goodwill amortization and 
2,857 as equity in net losses of affiliates.
<F2>Net of interest income of 97.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### §9124. Civil actions

#### (a) Jurisdiction

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any person having a valid legal interest which is or may be adversely affected may commence a civil action for equitable relief on his own behalf in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia whenever such action constitutes a case or controversy—

(1) against any person who is alleged to be in violation of any provision of this chapter or any regulation or condition of a license issued pursuant to this chapter; or

(2) against the Administrator where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary.

In suits brought under this chapter, the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce any provision of this chapter or any regulation or term or condition of a license issued pursuant to this chapter or to order the Administrator to perform such act or duty, as the case may be.

#### (b) Notice

No civil action may be commenced—

(1) under subsection (a)(1) of this section—

(A) prior to 60 days after the plaintiff has given notice of the violation to the Administrator and to any alleged violator; or

(B) if the Administrator or the Attorney General has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action with respect to such matters in a court of the United States, but in any such action any person may intervene as a matter of right; or

(2) under subsection (a)(2) of this section prior to 60 days after the plaintiff has given notice of such action to the Administrator.

Notice under this subsection shall be given in such a manner as the Administrator shall prescribe by regulation.

#### (c) Right of Administrator or Attorney General to intervene

In any action under this section, the Administrator or the Attorney General, if not a party, may intervene as a matter of right.

#### (d) Award of costs

The court, in issuing any final order in any action brought pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, may award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party whenever the court determines that such an award is appropriate.

#### (e) Other remedies not restricted

Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any person or class of persons may have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement or to seek any other relief.

(Pub. L. 96–320, title I, §114, Aug. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 990.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 96–320, Aug. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 974, known as the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 9101 of this title and Tables.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 18, 2015

No. 04-12-00238-CR

Kimberly Clark SAENZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 217th District Court, Angelina County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR28665

The Honorable Barry R. Bryan, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Catherine M. Stone, Chief Justice, retired (not participating) 

Marialyn Barnard, Justice 

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice 

The panel has considered the motion for rehearing, and the motion is DENIED.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of December, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
§ 3285.804 Bottom board repair. ( a ) The bottom board covering must be inspected for any loosening or areas that might have been damaged or torn during installation or transportation. Any missing insulation is to be replaced prior to closure and repair of the bottom board.
( b ) Any splits or tears in the bottom board must be resealed with tape or patches in accordance with methods provided in the manufacturers installation instructions.
( c ) Plumbing P-traps must be checked to be sure they are well-insulated and covered.
( d ) All edges of repaired areas must be taped or otherwise sealed.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3093 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 3,3’,4,4’-Biphenyltetracarboxylic 

Dianhydride (BPDA). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2005 

Mr. HOBSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 3,3’,4,4’- 

Biphenyltetracarboxylic Dianhydride (BPDA). 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF SUSPENSION OF 

4 DUTY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.11 of sub6 chapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Sched7 ule of the United States, relating to 3,3’,4,4’- 

8 Biphenyltetracarboxylic Dianhydride (CAS # 2420–87–3) 

9 is amended by striking 12/31/2006 and inserting 12/31/ 

10 2009. 
2 

HR 3093 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, 

3 or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
### §9003. Research and development

#### (a) Initiation of research

The Secretary shall initiate research or accelerate existing research in areas in which the lack of knowledge limits development of ocean thermal energy conversion systems in order to achieve the purposes of this chapter.

#### (b) Evaluations, tests, and dissemination of information, data, and materials

The Secretary shall conduct evaluations, arrange for tests, and disseminate to developers information, data, and materials necessary to support the design efforts undertaken pursuant to section 9004 of this title. Specific technical areas to be addressed shall include, but not be limited to—

(1) interface requirements between the platform and cold water pipe;

(2) cold water pipe deployment techniques;

(3) heat exchangers;

(4) control system simulation;

(5) stationkeeping requirements; and

(6) energy delivery systems, such as electric cable or energy product transport.

#### (c) Consideration of new or improved technologies

The Secretary shall, for the purpose of performing his responsibilities pursuant to this chapter, solicit proposals and evaluate any reasonable new or improved technology, a description of which is submitted to the Secretary in writing, which could lead or contribute to the development of ocean thermal energy conversion system technology.

(Pub. L. 96–310, §4, July 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 943.)
Case 3:09-cv-00920-JSW Document 34 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cv-00920-JSW Document33 Filed02/09/10 Page1 of 2
Case3:09-cv-00920-JSW Document33 Filed02/09/10 Page2 of 2

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court HEREBY VACATES the hearing and the briefing 

schedule regarding motions for summary judgment and SCHEDULES a further case 

management conference to be held on April 9, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. 

Dated: February 10, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Jeffrey S. White

Case 3:09-cv-00920-JSW Document 34 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 2
**12EXHIBIT      21.1**

**List      of Subsidiaries**

| **Name                of Subsidiaries**                       | **Jurisdiction**                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                                                          |                             |
| Synutra,                Inc.                                  | State                of Illinois |
|                                                          |                             |
| Qingdao                St. George Dairy Co., Ltd.             | PRC                              |
|                                                          |                             |
| Qingdao                Sheng Yuan Dairy Co., Ltd.             | PRC                              |
|                                                          |                             |
| Heilongjiang                Luobei Sheng Yuan Dairy Co., Ltd. | PRC                              |
|                                                          |                             |
| Bei’an                Yipin Dairy Co., Ltd.             | PRC                              |
|                                                          |                             |
| Zhangjiakou                Shen Yuan Dairy Co., Ltd.          | PRC                              |
|                                                          |                             |
| Mei                Tai Technology(Qingdao) Co.,Ltd.           | PRC                              |
|                                                          |                             |
| Inner                Mongolia Sheng Yuan Food Co.,Ltd         | PRC                              |
|                                                          |                             |
| Inner                Mongolia Meng Yuan Food Co.,Ltd          | PRC                              |

----
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00348-CV

DAVID COLE D/B/A FINANCIAL FUNDING GROUP, Appellant

V.

HUNG NGUYEN, Appellee

Appeal from the 270th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2012-65954).

Appellant, David Cole d/b/a Financial Funding Group, has neither established 

indigence nor paid, or made arrangements to pay, all the required fees. Further, appellant 

has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. After 

being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately 

respond. It is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the appeal 

be dismissed.

The Court orders that the appellant, David Cole d/b/a Financial Funding Group, 

pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered October 29, 2015.
Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and 

Lloyd.