alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Claim Number: 29845

Claim Number: 29845

 3:17-BK-3283 (LTS) Aversary Proceeding

Exhibit B

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-2 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit B Page 1 of 6
 3:17-BK-3283 (LTS) Aversary Proceeding

Exhibit B

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-2 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit B Page 2 of 6
 3:17-BK-3283 (LTS) Aversary Proceeding

Exhibit B

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-2 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit B Page 3 of 6
 3:17-BK-3283 (LTS) Aversary Proceeding

Exhibit B

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-2 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit B Page 4 of 6
 3:17-BK-3283 (LTS) Aversary Proceeding

Exhibit B

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-2 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit B Page 5 of 6
 3:17-BK-3283 (LTS) Aversary Proceeding

Exhibit B

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839-2 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit B Page 6 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20474

EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ELECTRICAL RELIABILITY SERVICES, INC., OLD REPUBLIC 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendants - Appellants

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CV-2258

Before JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.*

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:**

Following oral argument, this action was held in abeyance while the 

Texas Supreme Court considered certified questions from this Court in a 

similar case, In re Deepwater Horizon, No. 13-0670. The Texas Supreme Court 

 

* Judge DeMoss, the third judge on the panel that originally heard this case, retired 

before this decision was issued. Consequently, this decision and opinion is rendered by a 

quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c) and (d). ** 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 12-20474 Document: 00513194396 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2015
No. 12-20474

2

has now answered. See In re Deepwater Horizon, Relator, --- S.W. 3d ---, 58

Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 330 (Tex. 2015). Among other things, the Texas Supreme 

Court’s answer provides clarification regarding the court’s previous holding in

Evanston Insurance Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc., 256 S.W.3d 660 

(Tex. 2008), a case that has been at the center of this dispute. 

When deciding this case, the district court did not have the benefit of the 

Texas Supreme Court’s answer to the certified questions posed in In re 

Deepwater Horizon. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s judgment,

and REMAND this case for further consideration in the light of the answer 

given by the Texas Supreme Court.

VACATED, and REMANDED.

 Case: 12-20474 Document: 00513194396 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2015
#### COLUMBIA STEEL & SHAFTING CO. v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. J-107.

Decided November 3, 1930]

*Mr. Newell W. Ellison*for the plaintiff. *Messrs. Edward B. Burling*and *William Merrick*Parker, and *Covington. Burling <& Rublee*were on the briefs.

*Mr. Charles R.*Pollard, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Charles B. Rugg,*for the defendant. *Mr. D. L. Bergeron*was on the brief.

*734LittletoN, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

It is argued by plaintiff that this suit is not for the purpose of annuling, modifying, or setting aside the determination or assessment by the commissioner, but is for the recovery of interest on an overpayment as to which no reference is made in the statute or in the closing agreement. Section 1312 of the revenue act of 1921, which is entitled “ Final Determinations and Assessments,” provides “ That if after a determination and assessment in any case * * * an agreement is made in writing * * *, that such determination and assessment shall be final and conclusive * * *, no suit, action, or proceeding to annul, modify, or set aside such determination or assessment shall be entertained by any court * * It will thus be seen that no attempt was made to define what should be included within the term “ determination,” and the term is in no way limited to any particular question or feature of the tax account with reference to the liability of the taxpayer to the Government, or of the Government to the taxpayer, with the decision of which the commissioner is charged. The provision in the section “ That if * * * a taxpayer has without protest paid in whole any tax or penalty or has accepted any abatement, credit, or refund based on such determination and assessment, and an agreement is made * * *,” is not a limitation upon the “ determination,” but is a condition prerequisite to the right to enter into the agreement and to its validity. If the taxpayer or the Government is not willing to make the determination that has been made final and conclusive, neither is required to make the agreement, but once it is made, neither the taxpayer nor the Government can raise any further question or make any further claim with reference to any feature of the tax account for the particular taxable year involved.

We are of opinion, therefore, that under the closing agreement and section 1312 of the revenue act of 1921 the plaintiff can not recover and that the court is without authority to annul, modify, or set aside the agreement. *Parish*& *Bingham Corp. et al.*v. *United States,*
      *1*
      **No. J-445, and *735
      *Wilton Lloyd-Smith, Receiver,*v. *United States,*
      *1*
      **No. J-390, this date decided.

Tbe petition must therefore be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Williams, *Judge;*Green, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief Justice,*concur.

Whalet, *Judge,*did not hear this case and took no part in the decision thereof.

To He reported in nest volume.

To be reported in next volume.
§ 5.8 Public notice. ( a ) *In general.* A filer must publish a public notice of its filing in a newspaper of general circulation in the community in which the filer proposes to engage in business, on the date of filing, or as soon as practicable before or after the date of filing. This notice must be published in the English language but if the OCC determines that the primary language of a significant number of adult residents of the community is a language other than English, the OCC may require that an additional notice(s) simultaneously be published in the community in the appropriate language(s).
( b ) *Contents of the public notice.* The public notice must state that a filing is being made, the date of the filing, the name and address of the filer, the subject matter of the filing (including the name of the institution that is the subject of the filing), that the public may submit comments to the appropriate OCC licensing office, the address of the appropriate OCC licensing office where comments should be sent, the closing date of the public comment period (if known at the time of publication of the notice), that the public portion of the filing is available on request, that the public may find information about the filing (including the closing date of the comment period) in the OCC's Weekly Bulletin available at *www.occ.gov*, and any other information that the OCC requires.
( c ) *Confirmation of public notice.* Promptly following publication, the filer must mail or otherwise deliver to the appropriate OCC licensing office a statement containing the date of publication, the name and address of the newspaper that published the public notice, a copy of the public notice, and any other information that the OCC requires.
( d ) *Multiple transactions.* The OCC may consider more than one transaction, or a series of transactions, to be a single filing for purposes of the publication requirements of this section. When filing a single public notice for multiple transactions, the filer must explain in the notice how the transactions are related.
( e ) *Joint public notices accepted.* Upon the request of a filer, for a transaction subject to a public notice requirement of both the OCC and another Federal agency, the OCC may accept publication of a single joint notice containing the information required by both the OCC and the other Federal agency, provided that the notice states that comments must be submitted to both the OCC and, if applicable, the other Federal agency.
( f ) *Public notice by the OCC.* In addition to the foregoing, the OCC may require or give public notice and request comment on any filing and in any manner the OCC determines appropriate for the particular filing.
( g ) *New public notice.* At the OCC's discretion, a filer may be required to publish a new public notice if: ( 1 ) The filer submits either a revised filing or new or additional information related to a filing;
( 2 ) A major issue of law or change in circumstance arises after a filing; or
( 3 ) The OCC determines that a new public notice is appropriate.
[80 FR 28414, May 18, 2015, as amended at 82 FR 8103, Jan. 23, 2017; 85 FR 80436, Dec. 11, 2020]
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3161

To ratify the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to establish a 

do-not-call registry. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2003

Mr. TAUZIN (for himself, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. UPTON, and Mr. MARKEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

A BILL

To ratify the authority of the Federal Trade Commission 

to establish a do-not-call registry.

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

3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY. 

4 (a) AUTHORITY.—The Federal Trade Commission is 

5 authorized under section 3(a)(3)(A) of the Telemarketing 

6 and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 

7 U.S.C. 6102(a)(3)(A)) to implement and enforce a na8 tional do-not-call registry. 

9 (b) RATIFICATION.—The do-not-call registry provi10 sion of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 C.F.R. 
2

•HR 3161 IH 

1 310.4(b)(1)(iii)), which was promulgated by the Federal 

2 Trade Commission, effective March 31, 2003, is ratified.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 199 (Friday, October 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53308-53309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25037]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, October 
22, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
October 22, 2009 will be:

institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution and 
settlement of administrative proceedings; and other matters relating 
to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.


[[Page 53309]]


    Dated: October 14, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25037 Filed 10-14-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### § 614.4155 Interest rates.

Loans made by each bank and direct lender association shall bear interest at a rate or rates as may be determined by the institution board. The board shall set interest rates or approve individual interest rate changes either on a case-by-case basis or pursuant to an interest rate plan within which management may establish rates. Any interest rate plan shall set loan-pricing policies and objectives, provide guidance regarding the circumstances under which management may adjust rates, and provide the upper and lower limits on management authority. Any interest rate plan adopted shall be reviewed on a continuing basis by the board, as well as in conjunction with its review and approval of the institution's operational and strategic business plan.

[62 FR 66818, Dec. 22, 1997]
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2976

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer certain land within the 

Ottawa National Forest to the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2003

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

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer certain 

land within the Ottawa National Forest to the Lac Vieux 

Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, and 

for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. LAND TRANSFER TO INDIAN TRIBE. 

4 (a) REQUIREMENT FOR TRANSFER.—The Secretary 

5 of Agriculture shall transfer all right, title, and interest 

6 of the United States in and to the land described in sub7 section (b) for cultural preservation, without consider-
2

•HR 2976 IH 

1 ation, to the the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior 

2 Chippewa Indians. 

3 (b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The land to be trans4 ferred under subsection (a) is the approximately 46 acres 

5 located within the Ottawa National Forest in Watersmeet 

6 Township, Gogebic County, Michigan, Michigan Meridian, 

and further described as follows: G.L. 1 (W 1 7 ⁄2 of the SW 

1 8 ⁄4). 

9 (c) REVERTER UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.—All 

10 right, title, and interest of the Lac Vieux Desert Band 

11 of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in and to the land 

12 transferred pursuant to subsection (a) shall immediately 

13 revert to the United States to be administered by the Sec14 retary of Agriculture as part of the Ottawa National For15 est if—

16 (1) the tribe attempts to sell all or any part of 

17 the land other than that land east of Indian Village 

18 Road; or 

19 (2) all or any part of the land is used for any 

20 economic purpose, including gaming. 

21 (d) REVISION OF FOREST BOUNDARY.—Not later 

22 than 30 days after the transfer under subsection (a), the 

23 Secretary of Agriculture shall adjust the boundaries of the 

24 Ottawa National Forest to reflect that transfer.

Æ
#### § 619.9170 Fixed interest rate.

The rate of interest specified in the note or loan document which will prevail as the maximum rate chargeable to the borrower during the period of the loan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Quipp, Inc.
10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         315,587
<SECURITIES>                                 7,075,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,730,646
<ALLOWANCES>                                   715,275
<INVENTORY>                                  3,731,332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,073,186
<PP&E>                                       1,867,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,719,096
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,809,939
<BONDS>                                      1,150,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,345
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,179,096
<SALES>                                     14,857,950
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,857,950
<CGS>                                        9,410,622
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,410,622
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,282,770
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,063
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,374,913
<INCOME-TAX>                                   878,368
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,496,545
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,496,545
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~** 

# QCourt of**~peal~** 

# for tbe jf 

# eberal QCirmit

AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, 

### v. DELPHI CORPORATION, DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, LLC, DPH 

### HOLDINGS CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, GENERALMOTORS COMPANY, LLC, GENERAL MOTORS LLC, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, VOLVO CARS OF NORTHAMERICA, INC., AND 

### HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, Defendants·Appellees, AND 

### NISSAN NORTHAMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND 

### MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, AND 

### FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND 

### MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY, Defendant.AUTOMOTIVE TECH v. DELPHI CORP 2

2011-1292
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofMichigan in consolidated case nos. 08- CV-ll048 and 10-CV-10647, Judge Robert H. Cleland.



### ONMOTION

Before RADER, 

### ChiefJudge, andGAJARSA and REYNA, 

### Circuit Judges. REYNA, 

### Circuit Judge. 

### ORDER Automotive Technologies International, fnc. ("AT!"), moves without opposition to remand this appeal to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, so that that court may consider an unopposed motion to vacate a portion ofa summaryjudgment, due to settlement. Previously, this court dismissed this appeal because 

### ATI failed to file its initial brief. Subsequently, we granted ATI's unopposed motion to reinstate the appeal so that 

### ATI could file its motion to remand, on the condition that

### ATI filed a motionto remand. Accordingly, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The mandate is recalled, the court's dismissal order is vacated, and the appealis reinstated. (2) The motion to remand is granted.3



## MAR 08 2012 Date AUTOMOTIVE TECH v. DELPHI CORP FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly JanHorbaly Clerk

cc: Andrew J. Kochanowski, Esq. 

## u.s.COURn'r.J>PEALSFOR THEFEDERALCIRCUIT



### s23 John R. Hutchins, Esq. PaulRichard Steadman, Esq. DavidM. Schnorrenberg, Esq. Reginald J. Hill, Esq. 

### MAR lJ 

## 82012 JAHIDIBAIY 

### WIll
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3239

To amend title 38, United States Code, to delay the termination of the 

Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 2, 2003

Mr. MICHAUD (for himself, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, and Mr. REYES) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to delay the 

termination of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON MI4 NORITY VETERANS. 

5 Subsection (e) of section 544 of title 38, United 

6 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2003’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2007’’.

Æ
#### Matter of the Estate of David Krakauer, Deceased.

(Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

January, 1901.)

Surrogate’s Court — Substitution of executors’ attorneys cannot be enforced where there is no proceeding pending before the court.

A surrogate has no general authority over attorneys and, therefore, where a will has been proved, the transfer tax assessed, and no other or further proceeding is pending in his court, the executors are not entitled to move for a substitution of attorneys, and for a delivery back by the existing attorneys of papers of the estate on which they claim a lien, upon condition that the executors secure them for any claim they may have for legal services rendered.

Application on petition and notice of motion for an order substituting new attorneys for respondents, and directing said respondents to deliver to them the papers belonging to their estate now in their possession, upon security approved by the court being given by petitioners to meet any claim of respondents for legal services, in the matter of the estate.

Wolf, Ko'hn & Ullman, for executors.

Norman W. Kemgood, for respondents.

Thomas, S.

The executors of the will of the decedent apply, on

a petition and notice of motion, for an order substituting new attorneys for the respondents and directing the respondents to deliver to them the papers belonging to their estate now in their possession, upon security approved by the court being given by the petitioners to meet any claim of the respondents for legal services in the matter of the estate. The respondents assert a lien on the papers for their services. No proceeding is pending in this court. The will of the decedent has been proved and no papers are specified as having reached the hands of the respondents as incident to that proceeding. A proceeding to assess the transfer tax has been concluded and it is not charged that the papers in question were delivered to the respondents solely for the purposes of that proceeding. Upon these facts this court is entirely without jurisdiction to grant the *675relief sought. A surrogate has no general control over attorneys and cannot either direct or protect them, except incidentally in mating orders pertinent to a proceeding pending before him. There is no proceeding pending in which a substitution of attorneys can be ordered. An order substituting one attorney for another is merely an incident in the progress of a cause, and no such order can be made by a court in which no cause is pending to which such order can relate. Rollins, S., in Matter of Hoyt, 5 Dem. 432, 445; Estate of Aaron, 7 N. Y. Supp. 735. It is no answer to this that both parties to the application request the assertion and exercise of a jurisdiction adequate to adjust their controversy. No such consent would prevent either party from asserting the invalidity of any order that might be made, either upon appeal or in resisting the enforcement of such order, and this court cannot act as a mere arbitrator. Belief must be sought, if at all, in another tribunal.

Application denied.