alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
180328 SCH ORDER RE REPLY BRIEF TO D.E. 2798 VERSION MARCH 28, 2018 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

----------------------------------------------------------x 

In re: PROMESA 

 Title III 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered) 

et al., 

 Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x 

ORDER SCHEDULING REPLY BRIEF TO DOCKET ENTRY NO. 2798 

 The Court has received and reviewed the informative motion (Docket Entry No. 

2815, the “Informative Motion”) filed by Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Guaranty Municipal 

Corp. and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (collectively, “Objectors”). Pursuant 

to the Informative Motion, the Objectors informed the Court that they intend to seek leave to file 

a reply to the Response to Objections of Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Guaranty Municipal 

Corp. and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation to the Magistrate Judge’s February 

26, 2018 Order (Docket Entry No. 2798, the “Response”). The Objectors may file a reply to the 

 

1

 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) 

(Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation 

(“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 

17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement 

System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 

17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric 

Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 3747). (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to 

software limitations).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2819 Filed:03/28/18 Entered:03/28/18 11:57:01 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
180328 SCH ORDER RE REPLY BRIEF TO D.E. 2798 VERSION MARCH 28, 2018 2 

Response, not to exceed five (5) pages, by Monday, April 2, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. (Atlantic 

Standard Time). 

 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 28, 2018 

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

 LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

 United States District Judge 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2819 Filed:03/28/18 Entered:03/28/18 11:57:01 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
            AS ADDED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  Pacific  CMA,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September  30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Alfred Lam,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (a)   The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (b)   The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.


                                       By: /s/ Alfred Lam
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Alfred Lam, Chief Executive Officer


Date: November 14, 2005


                                       45
#### § 295.20 Use of duly authorized direct air carriers.

Air charter brokers are not authorized under this part to hold out, sell, or otherwise arrange charter air transportation to be operated by a person or entity that does not hold the requisite form of economic authority from the Department and appropriate safety authority from the Federal Aviation Administration and, if applicable, a foreign safety authority. Air charter brokers are not authorized under this part to hold out, sell, or arrange air transportation to be performed by a direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier that the direct carrier is not authorized in its own right to hold out, sell, or operate. Only direct air carriers that are citizens of the United States as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(15) may provide direct air transportation operations in interstate or intrastate air transportation.
#### BELL v. THE STATE.

(Decided May 30, 1916.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. A. H. Alston.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Pelham, P. J.

No bill of exceptions, no error of record. Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0233

_________________

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

ESTATE OF PAMELA PASTEUR HATCH,

 Co-Petitioner and Appellee,

 and

JEFFERY D. HATCH,

 Co-Petitioner and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Jeffrey D. Hatch, to all counsel of 

record, and to the Honorable Dan Wilson, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 19 2022

10/19/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0233
###### Editorial Note on Part 221

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 221.112 Rejected tariff is void and must not be used.

A tariff rejected by the Department is void and is without any force or effect whatsoever. Such rejected tariff must not be used.
§ 27.735 Brakes. For rotorcraft with wheel-type landing gear, a braking device must be installed that is— ( a ) Controllable by the pilot;
( b ) Usable during power-off landings; and
( c ) Adequate to— ( 1 ) Counteract any normal unbalanced torque when starting or stopping the rotor; and
( 2 ) Hold the rotorcraft parked on a 10-degree slope on a dry, smooth pavement.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-21, 49 FR 44434, Nov. 6, 1984]
§ 198.3 Basis of insurance. ( a ) Premium insurance may be issued by the FAA is the requirements of § 198.1 (a), (b)(1) and (c) are met.
( b ) Subject to § 198.9(c), standby insurance without premium may be issued by the FAA if all of the following conditions have been met: ( 1 ) A department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government seeks performance of air services operations, pursuant to a contract of the department, agency, or instrumentality; or transportation of military forces or materiel on behalf of the United States, pursuant to an agreement between the United States and a foreign government.
( 2 ) Such department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government has agreed in writing to indemnify the Secretary of Transportation against all losses covered by such insurance. Such an agreement, when countersigned by the President, constitutes a determination that the continuation of that aircraft operation is necessary to carry out the foreign policy of the United States.
( 3 ) A current copy of the aircraft operator's applicable commercial insurance policy or policies is on file with the FAA, including every endorsement making a material change to the policy. Updated copies of these policies must be provided upon each renewal of the commercial policy. Every subsequent material change by endorsement must be promptly provided to the FAA.
( c ) Insurance is activated, placing the insurance in full force, as specified by the FAA's written notification to the operator and remains in force until such time as either of the following occurs: ( 1 ) The requirements in § 198.1 are no longer met; or
( 2 ) In the case of non-premium insurance, an aircraft operation is no longer performed under contract to a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government; or pursuant to an agreement between the United States and a foreign government; or the Administrator finds that commercial insurance can now be obtained on reasonable terms.
( d ) Insurance policies revert to standby status upon written notification by the FAA to the aircraft operator. A policy will remain in standby status until either— ( 1 ) The insurance is activated by written notice; or
( 2 ) The policy is canceled.
[S. F. No. 924.

Department One.

September 1, 1898.]

#### GEORGE C. GAULD, Appellant, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Respondents.

Certiorari—Proceedings op Supervisors—Proposed Grant op Franchise.—Certiorari is not the proper remedy to review the proceedings- of a hoard of supervisors in the matter of a proposed grant of a telephone franchise, while the proceedings are *in fieri,*and no final action of the board had been had when the application for the writ was made.

Id.—Office op Writ—Restraining Order.—The office of the writ of review is in no sense that of a restraining order, but only to annul; and until the proceedings have culminated in a final order there is nothing to annul.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, sustaining a demurrer to an application for a writ of review. J. M. Seawell, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Woods & Levinsky, for Appellant.

Harry T. Creswell, City and County Attorney, for Respondent Board of Supervisors.

Robert A. Friedrich, and Crittenden & Van Wyck, for Respondent, People’s Mutual Telephone Company.

GAROUTTE, J.

The present litigation was inaugurated upon application for a writ of review to annul the proceedings of the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, looking toward the future granting of a franchise for the conduct of the telephone business. A demurrer was sustained to the petition of Gauld, and the ease is now before the court upon the sufficiency of the facts set forth in that petition to justify the issuance of the writ. The sufficiency of the petition is attacked from many points, and we need notice hut a single one. At the time this proceeding was inaugurated no franchise had been granted by the hoard of supervisors. The matter was *m*
      *19
      *fieri.*No final action of the hoard had been had, and for this reason *certiorari*was not the remedy. The office of this writ is in no sense that of a restraining order. It is not the purpose of the writ to restrain or prohibit, hut to annul. And until the proceedings of the inferior tribunal or board have culminated in a final order there is nothing to annul. Conceding, for present purposes only, that the writ of review would lie to annul an order of the hoard of supervisors granting a franchise, we have no such case here, for no franchise had been granted when the application was filed, and it necessarily follows the application for the writ is premature. There is an abundance of authority in this state supporting these views. *(Wilson v. Board of Supervisors,*3 Cal. 386; *People v. County Judge,*40 Cal. 480; *Lamb v. Schottler,*54 Cal. 321; *Sayers v. Superior Court,*84 Cal. 645.)

For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed,

Harrison, J., and Van Fleet, J., concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,903
<SECURITIES>                                    24,498
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (721)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,013
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,461
<PP&E>                                           2,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (902)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,066
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,226
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,311
<SALES>                                         20,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,619
<CGS>                                            7,964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,828
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 485
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,018
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,018
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,018)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.80)


</TABLE>
### Summary of Analy tical Results 662 - July

2011 **Sample ID** 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB **Date** 7/4/11 7/11/11 7/18/11 7/25/11 **Top (ft)** 0 0 0 0 **Total (T)/ Bottom (ft)**  0 0 0 0 **An aly**  **te units**  **Diss. (D) Duplicate #**  1 1 1 1 PFOA ug/L T 6.89 4.29 3.96 3.40

Samples were analyzed by Critical Path Services. Reported results PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic Acid ug/L = micrograms per Liter
represent a single analysis, except for the sample collected on 7/11/11. collected on 7/11/11 represents the average of duplicate results. Aceptable precision was obtained and the reported result for the sample

< and ND = Non detect at stated reporting limit Page 1 of 1 0900006480fc8945.xls:Sheet1 2/29/2012 8:38 AM
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of General Metals Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen Parent, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|      |                   |  |                                                                                   
|----- | ----------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: | December 21, 2009 |  | /s/ STEPHEN PARENT                                                                
|      |                   |  | Stephen Parent
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Order entered June 10, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 22
- 00298
- CV
VENKY VENKATRAMAN , Appellant
V.
STEPHEN D. SKINNER , ET AL. , Appellee s On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 04
- 11968
- V
O RDER The reporter’s record is incomplete. Glenda Finkley, Official Court Reporter for the 256th Judicial District Court, has informed the Court that the hearing held on January 4, 2022 was recorded by substitute court reporter Crystal Carey. Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. Carey to file, by June 30, 2022 , the reporter’s record of the January 4 hearing. As the record reflects appellant is indigent, the record shall be file d without payment of costs.We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Finkley, Ms. Carey, and all parties.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32

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 on Form 10-Q of Arch Chemicals, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the Company), for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers 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, to such
officers knowledge, that:



|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 as of and for the periods
presented in the Report.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 3, 2007 |  | /s/ Michael E. Campbell
|                   |  | Michael E. Campbell    
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                   | 
|Dated: May 3, 2007 |  | /s/ Louis S. Massimo   
|                   |  | Louis S. Massimo       
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Arch Chemicals, Inc.
and will be retained by Arch Chemicals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### CHARLES D. BAYLIS v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 42337.

Decided May 7, 1934]

*Mr. John W. Gaskins*for the plaintiff. *Messrs. King King*were on the brief.

*487
      *Miss Stella Akin,*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General George G.*Sweeney, for the defendant.

*488Littleton, *Judge,*

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claim made in this case arises under section 12 of the act of May *18, 1920,*41 Stat. 601, 604, section 12 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat. 625, 631, and Executive Order 3726 dated August 25, 1922.

There can be no question that the orders received by plaintiff March 9, 1932, constituted a permanent change of station and that plaintiff was entitled to the travel allowances claimed. *Bullard*v. *United States,*66 C.Cls. 264; *Henry*v. *United States,*74 C.Cls. 527. However, counsel for the defendant contend that the decisions in these cases are-not applicable here for the reason that the travel involved in this case was not performed until subsequent to the effective date of plaintiff’s retirement, while in the cases mentioned the travel occurred prior to retirement, and that, for this reason, it cannot be said that plaintiff traveled to his home to await orders. We are of opinion that the attempted. distinction is without merit and that the decisions in the *Bullard*and *Henry cases*are applicable.

Plaintiff was authorized by legal and competent authority to delay, at his convenience, in proceeding to his home, in obedience to the orders given, but the orders stated that travel thereunder should be performed within one year after detachment, that is, one year after March 4, 1932, and this-was done. The fact that orders were issued placing the-plaintiff on the retired list before the travel was performed cannot deprive him of the allowance therefor given by the-statutes. Such travel was performed strictly in accordance-with the orders issued to him by competent authority, and when the trip was made he was still a commissioned officer-of the United States. His station was changed and he-traveled to his home after a period of active duty. A retired officer returning from a tour of active duty is entitled to the-same allowances credited officers on the active list, among; which are travel allowances for dependents..

*489Plaintiff is clearly entitled to recover the amount of $314.38, and judgment therefor will be entered. It is so ordered.

Whaley. *Judge;*Williams, *Judge;*Green, *Judge;*and; Booth, *Chief*Justice, concur.
# In the Missouri Court of Appeals

**Eastern District**

DIVISION FIVE

EVANGELINE CULP, ) No. ED101563

)

Claimant/Appellant, )

)

vs. ) Appeal from the Labor and

) Industrial Relations Commission

TARG ET CORPORATION and DIVISION )

OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, )

) F iled : August 26, 2014

Respondents. )

Claimant, Evangeline Culp

, h as filed a notice of appeal from the Labor and Industrial

Relations Commission's (Commission) decision concerning her claim for une mployment

benefits

. We dismiss the appeal.

A deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant

was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits . Claimant appealed to both the Appeals

Tribunal of the Division and then t o the Commission, which both affirmed the disqualification.

T he Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on May 6, 2014. Claimant filed a notice of

appeal to this Cou rt

.

The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant’s appeal. Claimant has not f iled a

response to the motion

. The Division contends that Claimant’s notice of appeal to this court was

not filed within the time limits set forth in chapter 288, RSMo. Section 288.210, RSMo 2000,

provides that: “ Within twenty days after a decision of t he commission has become final, the2 director or any party aggrieved by such decision may appeal the d ecision to the appellate court . .

. .” T he Commission’s decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to the parties. Section

288.200.2, RSMo 2000

.

Here, the Secretary to the Commission certified she mailed its decision to Claimant on

May 6, 2014

. Therefore, Claimant’s notice o f appeal to this Court was due on or before June 5,

2014

. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210 . Claimant mailed her notice of app eal to the Commission

,

which received it on June 11, 2011.

Section 288.240, RSMo 2000, provides that when a notice of appeal is mailed to the

Commission, it is “deemed to be filed as of the date endorsed by the United States post office on

the envelope. . . .” Here, Claimant did mail her notice of appeal, but the post office did not place

a postmark on the envelope. As a result, Claimant’s notice of appeal is considered filed when it

was received on June 11, 2014, which is untimely.

The unemployment statu tes fail to provide a procedure f or filing a late notice of app eal

.

Ross v. Division of Employment Sec. , 332 S.W.3d 922 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). While there are

procedures for filing a late notice of appeal in other civil matters, such procedures do not app ly

to special statutory proceedings, such as unemployment matters under Chapter 288. Heffner v.

Division of Employment Sec. , 345 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). T herefore, this

court’s only option is to dismiss Claimant’s appeal.

The Division’s m otion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is di smissed.

__________________________________ ANGELA T. QUIGLESS

, CHIEF JUDGE

LISA VAN AMBURG , J. and

PHILIP M. HESS , J.,