alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Memorandum To: Docket ID Number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0505 for Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New and Modified Sources

Re: EPA Oil and Gas Production Site Visits Message: EPA staff attended two site visits on September 24, 2015, to oil and natural gas production sites. The purpose of the visit was educational.

1. Chesapeake Energy & Williams Dallas, TX

EPA Participants : Bruce Moore , Lisa Thompson , Mark DeFigueired o Chesapeake Energy Corporation Representatives: Bran Woodard , Brian Boerner , Levi Poe , Greg Johnston , Jim Cooper , Allen Doyel , Jason Conway , Clovis Smith , Andrew Whiteneck Williams Representatives: Jaron Hill , Beau Gallowa y , Jacob Mills , Chris McClanahan

2. Conoco Phillips

- Niobrara Field Office Denver, CO EPA Participants : Cindy Beeler , Chris Dresser , Claudia Smith, Alexis McKittrick , Cheryl Vetter , Jodi Howard , Amy Hambrick Conoco Phillips Representatives : Ken Powers , Steve Bradford , Derly Gonzales , Milind Bhatte , Maria Torres , Beth Aldrich Keith Bailey, Wayne McCreesh , Brian Aldrich , Greg York
#### Rose Lorenzo et al., Appellants, v. Center Kinney, Inc., et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, loss of services, etc., the plaintiffs (husband and wife) appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bungs County, entered February 1, 1963 after a jury trial, in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaint on the merits at the close of plaintiffs’ case. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial with the following memorandum: The plaintiff wife testified that she drove her car into defendants’ parking lot and up an incline to a level place in front of an attendant’s shack. She stopped the car, took it out of gear and left the motor running. The attendant approached the car and collected the parking fee, for which he gave plaintiff a ticket. He also attached a ticket to the windshield. Plaintiff asked for parking instructions, whereupon the attendant said he would take the car. The *attendant*then opened the door of the car, whereupon plaintiff got out and started walking down the incline toward the street. As she was walking, her own car with no one in it suddenly rolled down and struck her. In my opinion, this testimony was sufficient to establish that the car was standing still, out of gear and on a level surface when defendants’ employee assumed exclusive control. As stated in *Lessig*v. *New York Cent. R. R. Co.*(271 N. Y. 250, 253): “ The case is, therefore, one in which *‘*the agency which has produced an injury is within the exclusive possession, control and oversight of the person charged with negligence whence, legitimately, flows the inference that if there is any explanation of the accident consistent with freedom from negligence, he ought to be able to give that explanation, and if he does not give it, a presumption arises against him.’ *(Slater*v. Barnes, 241 N. Y. 284, 287.) ” plaintiff’s testimony, on cross-examination, that she did not apply the emergency brake, is not sufficient to establish contributory negligence as a matter of law. Whether, under all the circumstances, a reasonably prudent person would have applied the emergency brake was a jury question.
### §9c. Notice of investigations and enforcement actions

The Commission shall provide the Securities and Exchange Commission with notice of the commencement of any proceeding and a copy of any order entered by the Commission pursuant to section 9 and 13b of this title against any futures commission merchant or introducing broker registered pursuant to section 6f(a)(2) of this title, any floor broker or floor trader exempt from registration pursuant to section 6f(a)(3) of this title, any associated person exempt from registration pursuant to section 6k(6) of this title, or any board of trade designated as a contract market pursuant to section 7b–1 of this title.

(Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 369, §6(g), as added Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(5) [title II, §253(b)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–449.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of subsec. (g) of section 6 of act Sept. 21, 1922. Subsecs. (a) and (b) of section 6 are classified to section 8 of this title. Subsec. (c) of section 6 is classified to section 9 of this title. Subsecs. (d), (e), and (f) of section 6 are classified to sections 13b, 9a, and 9b of this title, respectively.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :

:

v. : No. 748 C.D. 2021

:

Kenneth L. Trainer, Jr., :

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6 th day of January , 202 3

, it is ordered that the above

- captioned

Memorandum Opinion, filed November 17, 2022 , shall be designated OPINION and

shall be REPORTED.

_____________________________________ BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

President Judge Emerita
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Chase General Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended

December 31, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Barry M. Yantis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |                                       |  |                    
|----------------- |  | ------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|                  |  |                                      
|February 11, 2010 |  |                                       |  | /s/ Barry M. Yantis
|Date              |  | By:                                   |  | Barry M. Yantis    
|                  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



27
Chief Judge: James F. Holderman
Case no.: 12cv428
Filed: 01/13/2012

dmkf UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: INNOVATIO IP VENTURES, LLC,
PATENT LITIGATION MDL No. 2303

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-1)

On December 28, 2011, the Panel transferred 3 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1407. See F.Supp.2d_ (J.P.M.L. 2011). Since that time, no additional action(s) have been
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. With the consent of that court, all such actions have
been assigned to the Honorable James F Holderman, Jr.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are
common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and assigned to
Judge Holderman.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

itigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the
Northern District of Illinois for the reasons stated in the order of December 28, 2011, and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James F Holderman, Jr.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be
stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the
Panel within this 7-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

Inasmuch as no objection is
pending at this time, the

stay is lifted. =
van 13.2012 Jeffery N. Liithi A TRUEGORY-ATTEST
CLERK'S OFFICE Clerk of the Panel. THOMAS, FON CLERK
UNITED STATES i Fe

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION



IN RE: INNOVATIO IP VENTURES, LLC,

PATENT LITIGATION

MDL No. 2303

SCHEDULE CTO-1 — TAG-ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. CANO,

DELAWARE
DE 1 11-00920
DE 1 11-01139

WISCONSIN WESTERN

WIW 3 11-00643

WIW 3 11-00644

CASE CAPTION

SonicWALL Inc. v. Innovatio IP Ventures LLC = 12cv426
Netgear Inc. v. Innovatio IP Ventures LLC 12cv427

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC v. Best Western Azews28

Arrowhead Lodge &Suites et al

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC v. Madison Marriott West 12cv431
etal
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ART INSURANCE COMPANY, et al 

 Plaintiffs 

 v. 

AL QAEDA, 

 Defendant 

No. 1:12-CV-1346 

Judge Matthew F. Kennelly 

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 

In accordance with the Court’s October 9, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order, 

Plaintiffs move for entry of Judgment in their favor, in the form attached as Exhibit “A” hereto. 

As directed by the Court, Plaintiffs shared this proposed form of Judgment with counsel for the 

United States prior to filing with the Court. The United States has no objection to the proposed 

form of Judgment. 

Respectfully submitted, 

COZEN O’CONNOR 

Sean P. Carter, Esquire /s/ Daniel R. Johnson 

PA Bar No. 78886 Daniel R. Johnson, Esquire 

Stephen A. Miller, Esquire Illinois State Bar No. 6283164 

PA Bar No. 308590 Cozen O’Connor 

Cozen O’Connor 333 West Wacker Drive 

1900 Market Street Chicago, IL 60606-1293 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 312-382-3100 

215-665-2020 

scarter1@cozen.com 

samiller@cozen.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

LEGAL\17552636\1

Case: 1:12-cv-01346 Document #: 68 Filed: 10/31/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:392
#### 1450.104 Residual powers.
#### Denis J. Leahy, appellee, v. Finch Truitt Company, Inc., appellant.

Gen. No. 29,011.

Action to recover salary as salesman. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Laurence B. Jacobs, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 11, 1925.

Pennish & Rashbaum, for appellant; F. D. Shobe, of counsel.

Musgrave, Oppenheim, McKeever & Lippincott, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §§5931, 5932. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–127, title VIII, §§865, 866, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1174

Section 5931, Pub. L. 101–624, title XVI, §1678, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3780; Pub. L. 102–237, title IV, §407(16), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1865, related to special grants to study constraints on agricultural trade.

Section 5932, Pub. L. 101–624, title XVI, §1679, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3780, provided for establishment of five-year pilot project to coordinate food and nutrition education programs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                          $       158
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                         9,975
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                          12,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     23,791
<PP&E>                               71,068
<DEPRECIATION>                       41,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       62,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 9,432
<BONDS>                               1,200
<COMMON>                              1,087
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                           30,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         62,095
<SALES>                              43,408
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     43,408
<CGS>                                38,829
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        40,971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      462
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       1,975
<INCOME-TAX>                            671
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   1,304
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                          1,304
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                          1.20
        


</TABLE>
#### Edwin A. Logue, Appellant, v Cottage Associates, Respondent.

In an action pursuant to subdivision 6 of section 11 of the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law (see L 1957, ch 755, § 1, as amd) to recover treble damages, attorney’s fees and costs, on the ground that the landlord failed to comply with an order of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal to refund excess rent payments, the tenant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 28, 1977, which, in effect, dismissed the action. Judgment modified, on the law, by adding to the decretal paragraph thereof, immediately after the word "denied”, the following: "except that the landlord is directed to pay the tenant the sum of $39.44 in actual damages.” As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In July, 1976 the Division of Housing and Community Renewal ordered the respondent landlord to refund excess rent payments to its tenants. The landlord credited these refunds to the tenants’ September, 1976 rent. However, the appellant tenant did not comply with the landlord’s payment instructions and paid the landlord $173.48, which is $39.44 in excess of the rent actually due. Pursuant to the Emergency Housing Rent *770Control Law, appellant, as a tenant, was authorized to bring an action against the landlord to enforce the order of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, because that agency did not commence an action for enforcement. The Supreme Court, as a court of general jurisdiction, did not lack jurisdiction over this controversy. Owing to appellant’s failure to comply with the landlord’s payment instructions, he did not receive his refund of excess rent payments. Consequently, he was entitled to a refund of $39.44. However, since the landlord did not willfully defy the order of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, the Special Term’s denial of treble damages was not an abuse of discretion (see, e.g., *Lindstedt v Monds,*38 Misc 2d 57). Since appellant acted *pro se*in this action he is not entitled to attorney’s fees. Finally, since appellant brought the instant action in the Supreme Court when he could have brought the action in a court with lesser monetary jurisdiction, he is not entitled to costs (see CPLR 8102, subd 2). Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and O'Connor, JJ., concur.
### Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
#### FOX, Respondent, v. MAHONY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1903.)

Action by Edward Fox, as administrator, etc., against John J. Mahony.

D. P. Mahony, for appellant. L. O. Van Doren, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000093 22-JAN-2018 09:18 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          63,008
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,138
<PP&E>                                          58,367
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,427
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 411,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          333,830
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,755
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   411,046
<SALES>                                        402,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               441,384
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  651,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (210,598)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (210,598)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.86)
        

</TABLE>
#### 1.603-1 General.

41 U.S.C. 1702(b)(3)(G), requires agency heads to establish and maintain a procurement career management program and a system for the selection, appointment, and termination of appointment of contracting officers. Agency heads or their designees may select and appoint contracting officers and terminate their appointments. These selections and appointments shall be consistent with Office of Federal Procurement Policy's (OFPP) standards for skill-based training in performing contracting and purchasing duties as published in OFPP Policy Letter No. 05-01, Developing and Managing the Acquisition Workforce, April 15, 2005.

[59 FR 67015, Dec. 28, 1994, as amended at 73 FR 21800, Apr. 22, 2008; 79 FR 24195, Apr. 29, 2014; 81 FR 67781, Sept. 30, 2016]
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JOSEPH SPIVAK, individually and on behalf of a 

class of similarly situated and aggrieved persons, No. 12 CV 01116 

 Judge Kennelly 

 Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge Valdez 

 

 

v. 

 

WILLIS OF ILLINOIS, INC., an Illinois corporation, 

and PS ILLINOIS TRUST,

 Defendants. 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS

 Plaintiff, Joseph Spivak, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated 

and aggrieved person, by his attorney, the Law Offices of Hall Adams, LLC and James B. 

Hardin, attorney for Defendants, PS Illinois Trust and Willis of Illinois, Inc., hereby 

stipulate that the above case be dismissed with prejudice and with each party to bear its 

own costs and attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) 

and the parties’ settlement. 

 

 /s/ Hall Adams /s/ James B. Hardin 

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendants, PS Illinois Trust 

Hall Adams and Willis of Illinois, Inc 

Law Offices of Hall Adams, LLC James B. Hardin. 

33 North Dearborn Street Newport Trial Group 

Suite 2350 895 Dove Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 Newport Beach, California 92660 

Case: 1:12-cv-01116 Document #: 30 Filed: 08/30/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:123
### §7214. Determination of contract payments under contracts

#### (a) Individual payment quantity of contract commodities

For each contract, the payment quantity of a contract commodity for each fiscal year shall be equal to the product of—

(1) 85 percent of the contract acreage; and

(2) the farm program payment yield.

#### (b) Annual payment quantity of contract commodities

The payment quantity of each contract commodity covered by all contracts for each fiscal year shall be equal to the sum of the amounts calculated under subsection (a) for each individual contract.

#### (c) Annual payment rate

The payment rate for a contract commodity for each fiscal year shall be equal to—

(1) the amount made available under section 7213 of this title for the contract commodity for the fiscal year; divided by

(2) the amount determined under subsection (b) for the fiscal year.

#### (d) Annual payment amount

The amount to be paid under a contract in effect for each fiscal year with respect to all contract commodities covered by the contract shall be equal to the sum of the products of—

(1) the payment quantity determined under subsection (a) for each of the contract commodities covered by the contract; and

(2) the corresponding payment rate for the contract commodity in effect under subsection (c).

#### (e) Reduction in payment amount

The contract payment determined under subsection (d) for an owner or producer for a fiscal year shall be immediately reduced by the amount of any repayment of deficiency payments that is required under section 114(a)(2) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1445j(a)(2)) and is not repaid as of the date the contract payment is determined. The Secretary shall be required to collect the required repayment, or any claim based on the required repayment, as soon as the contract payment is determined.

#### (f) Assignment of contract payments

The provisions of section 590h(g) of title 16 (relating to assignment of payments) shall apply to contract payments under this section. The owner or producer making the assignment, or the assignee, shall provide the Secretary with notice, in such manner as the Secretary may require in the contract, of any assignment made under this subsection.

#### (g) Sharing of contract payments

The Secretary shall provide for the sharing of contract payments among the owners and producers subject to the contract on a fair and equitable basis.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §114, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 901.)
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FE BRUARY 21, 2014

NO. 03
- 13
- 0022 2
- CR

Remberto Santos
- Hernandez, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUS TICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED
-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court on February 28, 2013. Having reviewed the record and the partie s’ arguments, the Court ho lds that there was no error in the court’s judgment requiring reversal

. However, there was error in the judgment that requires correction. Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court’s judgment to correctly spell appellant’s name as “Remberto Santos

- Hernandez,” to reflect that the “Date Judgment Entered” was February 28, 2013, and to reflect that the age of the victim at the t ime of the offense was 40 years . The judgment, as modified, is affirmed

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made

.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TIMOTHY FONSECA,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00227-CR

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20180D02567)

O R D E R

The Court received and filed the first supplemental reporter’s record as requested in its 

order issued November 11, 2020. The appeal is therefore reinstated, and the Appellant’s motion 

for extension of time to file the brief has been GRANTED. The Appellant’s brief is now due 

December 30, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.