alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
704 P.2d 965

#### Randall O. KNIGHT and Mary L. Knight, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Starr KELSO and “Jane Doe” Kelso, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 14540.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

Aug. 1, 1985.

Charles B. Lempesis, Coeur d’Alene, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Daniel W. O’Connell, Ware, O’Connell & Creason, Lewiston, for defendants-respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a suit for attorney malpractice. In a companion appeal, *Knight v. Kelso,*109 Idaho 56, 704 P.2d 960 (Ct.App.1985), we discuss the circumstances surrounding the dispute between the attorney, Starr Kelso, and his clients, Randall and Mary Knight. In that appeal, we uphold the trial court’s directive that the Knights’ claim of malpractice be litigated in that case rather than here.

Accordingly, we affirm the order dismissing the malpractice complaint in the present action. Such dismissal is, of course, without prejudice to the Knights’ right to pursue the claim in the companion case, as directed by the district court. No costs or attorney fees awarded in this appeal.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COLUMBIA DIVISION

United States of America, t he States of

California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,

Hawaii, Illinois, I ndiana, Iowa, Mas sachusetts,

Minnesota, Montana, Neva da, New Jersey,

New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,

Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and the

District of Columbia, ex rel. Laurence

Schneider, C/A No. 3:13

- cv

- 01223

- JFA

Plaintiff s

,

vs. ORDER

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, National

Association, J.P. Morgan Chase &

C ompany, and Chase Home Finance, LLC,

Defendant s

.

The United States having declined to intervene in this action pursuant to the False Claims

Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(4)(B), the Court rules as follows:

IT IS ORDERED that,

1. The complaint be unsealed and immediately served upon the defendants

by the relator ;

2. The entire docket in this action and all documents that have been filed in it

be unsealed ;

3. The seal be lifted as to all other matters occurring in this action after the

date of this o rder;

4. The parties shall serve all pleadings and motions filed in this action,

including supporting memoranda, upon the United States, as provided for in 31 U.S.C.3730(c)(3). The United States may order any deposition transcripts and is entitled to intervene in

this action, for good cause, at any time;

5. The parties shall serve all notices of appeal upon the United States;

6. All orders of this Court shall be sent to the United States; and that

7. Should the relator or the defendants propose that this action be dismissed,

settled, or otherwise discontinued, the Court will solicit the written conse nt of the United States

before ruling or granting its approval.

IT IS SO ORDERED

.

February 24, 2014 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.

Columbia, South Carolina United Stat es District Judge
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 23-10666 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee ,
versus Tlatoani Itzcoatl Peralta Romero, Defendant—Appellant

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CR-124-1

______________________________ Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * The attorney appointed to represen t Tlatoani Itzcoa tl Peralta Romero has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Peralta Romero ha s filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Peralta

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 3, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10666 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2024No. 23-10666

2 Romero’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without pr ejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Peralta Romero’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R . 42.2. Case: 23-10666 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2024
Argued and submitted August 26,

affirmed October 26,

appellant’s motion for reconsideration filed November 1,1994,

allowed by opinion Februaiy 22,1995

See 133 Or App 191 (1995)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*MECHA LADON WILLIAMS, *Appellant.*

(10-92-09756B; CA A81447)

883 P2d 918

Jesse Wm. Barton, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Ann F. Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

*86De MUNIZ, J.

*87De MUNIZ, J.

Defendant was convicted of felony murder, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and burglary in the first degree. ORS 163.115; ORS 164.135; ORS 164.225. The victim was an elderly man who lived in a rural area. Defendant, along with two other persons, went to that area late one night in order to commit a robbery or burglary. They stopped at the victim’s home and lured him outside on a pretext of car trouble. When the victim looked under the hood of defendant’s car, one of defendant’s companions sneaked behind him and struck him repeatedly with a pipe. He was robbed of $42 and the keys to his house and car. He later died from his injuries.

The court imposed departure sentences on the conviction for felony murder and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. It indicated that the aggravating factors “individually indicate that a departure is warranted.” Defendant challenges four of the five aggravating factors given by the trial court to support the departure terms.1

We do not address defendant’s assignments of error. Under ORS 138.222(5), we must remand for resentencing when we determine “that the sentencing court, in imposing a sentence in the case, *committed an error that requires resen-tencing** * (Emphasis supplied.) Even assuming that we agreed with all of defendant’s arguments, she has not assigned error to the finding that one aggravating factor was the victim’s vulnerability because of his age and hearing impairment. Neither the statutes nor the sentencing guidelines limits the trial court’s discretion in imposing departure sentences to more than one aggravating factor. The record shows that the court would have imposed the departure sentence on the vulnerability finding alone. There is no error that requires remand. *See State v. Tremillion,*111 Or App 375, 826 P2d 95, *rev den*313 Or 300 (1992).

Affirmed.

1

 Defendant argues only that the court erred in finding the departure factors. She does not .contend that those factors could only apply to the sentence on her conviction of murder. We note that the departure sentence on the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle is to be served concurrently to her sentence on the murder conviction.
S89A0085.

#### KILGORE v. R. W. PAGE CORPORATION.

(385 SE2d 406)

Weltner, Justice.

A newspaper publisher filed suit against a coroner to prohibit him from closing to the public a scheduled inquest. The superior court directed that any such inquest be open to the public. The coroner appealed, insisting that an open inquest might compromise an ongoing criminal investigation.

In granting relief, the trial court relied upon the standards set out in *R. W. Page Corp. v. Lumpkin,*249 Ga. 576 (292 SE2d 815) (1982). The coroner insists, however, that he is permitted to convene a closed inquest by virtue of certain language1 contained in *R. W. Page Corp. v. Kilgore,*257 Ga. 179 (356 SE2d 870) (1987).

1. *Lumpkin,*supra, arose out of a felony prosecution. There we held:

> [A] Georgia trial court judge shall *use*jury sequestration (or some other means) to exclude prejudicial matters from the jury’s knowledge and consideration unless for some reason fully articulated in his findings of fact and conclusions of law jury sequestration (or another remedy) would not adequately protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial. [249 Ga. at p. 580.]

*557Decided November 9, 1989.

*E. H. Polleys, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Jerome M. Rothschild,*for appellee.

At a coroner’s inquest, there is no defendant. Nor is there a “trial,” in the sense of an adversarial proceeding that is empowered to fix rights and duties, or to determine guilt and innocence. Hence, a coroner’s inquest is not a “Georgia trial court,” as contemplated by the rule in *Lumpkin,*supra.2

2. The relief sought by the newspaper must be governed by the Open Meetings Law, OCGA § 50-14-1 et seq., as that statute has been interpreted since its enactment. Additionally, the Open Records Law, OCGA § 50-18-70 et seq., would apply to the office of coroner. Because the trial court has not had the opportunity to consider this case in the light of those statutes and of our interpretations of them,3 the case must be remanded for further proceedings.

*Case remanded.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 Specifically, “[w]e express no opinion as to a coroner’s right to withhold a transcript of a closed inquest.” 257 Ga. at 179.

2

 See Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. I of the Constitution of Georgia of 1983, specifying the classes of courts; and OCGA §§ 45-16-35 through 45-16-41, and, more specifically, OCGA §§ 45-16-35 and 45-16-36, relating to inquests.

3

 See the discussion of on-going criminal investigations and the Open Records Act by Chief Justice Marshall in *Napper v. Ga. Television Co.,*257 Ga. 156, 162-165 (356 SE2d 640) (1987).
FORM 9A. Notice of Related Case Information Form 9A (p. 1)

March 2023

Instructions: Do not duplicate information. The notice must only be filed at the 

time of filing the first Certificate of Interest or, subsequently, if information 

changes during the pendency of the appeal. See Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b). Attach 

additional pages as needed. This notice must not be included in a motion, 

petition, related response, or brief; please only include the Certificate of Interest 

(Form 9) in those documents.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE INFORMATION

Case Number

Short Case Caption

Filing Party/Entity

1. Related or prior cases. Provide the case title, case number, and originating 

tribunal for each case. Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b)(1).

Additional pages attached
FORM 9A. Notice of Related Case Information Form 9A (p. 2)

March 2023

2. Names of all parties involved in the cases listed above. Do not duplicate 

the names of parties. Do not relist the case information. Fed. Cir. R. 

47.5(b)(2)(A).

Additional pages attached

3. Names of all law firms, partners, and associates in the cases listed above. 

Do not duplicate the names of law firms, partners, and associates. Do not relist 

case information and party names. Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b)(2)(B).

Additional pages attached

I certify the following information and any attached sheets are accurate and complete 

to the best of my knowledge.

Date: Signature:

Name:
No. 11-9555.

#### Brown *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5142.

#### Chaney *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
## v^iffin^^
. 

# 'rrj^ ^ PITTSBURG H INTERNATIONA L AIRPOR T Alleghen y Count y Airpor t Authorit y Landsid e Terminal , 4t h Floo r Mezz
. P.O
. Bo x 1237 0 Pittsburgh , P

A 15231-037 0 412-S72-350 0 

### flyPittsburgh' i Apri l 9 , 201 0

C D Denni s DeVaney , Chie f U S Departmen t

of Transportatio n Ofiic e o f th e Secretar y o f

Transportatio n Essentia l Ai r

Servic e Divisio n Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s "" ^ 12o o Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Mr
. DeVaney : Th e Alleghen y Count y Airpor t Authority , manager s o f Pittsburg hInternationa l Airport , encourag e th e selectio n o f th e service s fro mAltoon aan dJohnstow n t o b e designate d throug hKttsburg hInternationa l Airpor t a s th e chose n us e fo r Essentia l Air

Servic e Funding
. Wit hlimite dfedera l fundin g an dincrease dairlin e operatin g costs , th e Essentia l Air Servic e (EAS ) progra mi s unde r financial pressure . Th e goa l o f th e EA S Progra mi s t o develo p commerciall y useful , self-supportin g ai r service
. On e of

th e goal s of

th e Pennsylvani aAi r

Servic e Committe e an dPittsburg hInternationa l Airpor t ha s bee n t o develo p asyste mwhic hwi U provid e smalle r

communities ' singl e ticke t an dtransfe r acces s t o multipl e carrier s - legac y an dLC C - wit hasingl e screenin g an dbaggag e solutio n rathe r

tha n onl y th e singl e choic e connectio n offere db y contrac t carrier s throug hhubs
. Whil e EA S act s a s asafet y ne t t o carrier s servin g smal l communities , i t

ca n als o ac t

a s asafet y ne t

t o smal l an dmid-size dairport s wiUtn g t o develo p apla n fo r

a n ai r servic e solution
. A mor e substantia l partnershi p betwee n airport s an dairline s ca n b e achieve da s som e o f th e initia l ris k

fo r carrier s willin g t o partne r i n pilo t programs , intende dt o reduc e dependenc e of EA S suppor t

i s mitigated , b y th e EA S safel y progra mitself
. Althoug hCharte r offer s apartia l PIT program , ou r suppor t i s fo r GuUstream , aprove n carrie r tha t ha s agree dt o tak e o n thi s endeavo r wit hPIT an dwor k

wit hth e Pennsylvani aai r servic e committe e unde r Optio n 2
. oDenni s DeVane y

Pag e Tw o Apri l 9 , 201 0 Pittsburg hInternationa l Airpor t support s th e goal s o f carrier s willin g t o brin g trafH c bac k throug hPI T an dwi

U partne r

wit hthe mt o buil damulti-carrie r connectio n networ k solution
. We feel tha t whe n th e travelin g publi c i s give n atrave l cormectio n choice , i t wi U resul t i n economi c stimulatio n resultin g i n anatura l marke t growt hfo r smalle r communities
. Sincerely ,

le y D
. Penrod , A.A.E. \ Executiv e Director/CE O BDP/pa r
cc ; Michae l Marti n U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s Essentia l Air

Servic e (EAS ) & Domesti c Analysis , X-5 3
435P15-2

#### State v. Sulyaman Alisla Wasalaam

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court of Scotland County

1. Dismissed

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

2. Allowed

*3.*Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

3. Dismissed as moot

4. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Preparation of a Stenographic Transcript

4. Dismissed as moot
No. 10-11060.

#### Jones *v.*Harrison, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### Issues on Commercial Water Heaters, Hot Water Supply Boilers and Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks as Discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

### Definitions and Scope of Coverage
Instantaneous Water Heaters DOE proposes that instantaneous water heaters that are designed to heatwaterto 180 

### of or higherare subjectto applicable standards and test procedures for commercial water heaters.

### Definitions and Scope of Coverage
HotWater Supply Boilers • ASHRAE 90.1-1989 Addendum n, provides in essence thatthis product shall meetthe efficiency requirements that apply to water heaters. • DOE proposes provisions to implementthe approach in Addendum n.

### Definitions and Scope of Coverage
Heat Pump Water Heaters • DOE did not propose a test procedure within this rulemaking; • DOE anticipates consideration of a revised version ofASHRAE Standard 118.1. 

### Waste Heat Recovery Water Heaters • Not addressed within the proposed rule; • EPCA does not provide energy conservation standards ortest procedures forthese products.

### Test Procedures
Gas-Fired Water Heaters DOE proposes ANSI Z21.10.3-1998. Oil-Fired Water Heaters DOE proposes ANSI Z21.10.3-1998 with adaptations provided in footnote e to Table 11.1 ofASHRAE 90.1-1989 (Addendum n). Electric Water Heaters DOE proposes ANSI Z21.10.3-1998 with adaptations provided in footnote e to Table 11.1 ofASHRAE 90.1-1989 (Addendum n) as well as a method ofadjusting multiple thermostats.

.

### Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks
Maximum Heat Loss Requirement • DOE proposes that losses be calculated per square foot of "nominal surface area" based on the measurement oftotal losses. • DOE also addresses interpretation ofthe statutory exemption from this requirement. Test Procedure DOE proposes use ofthe standby loss test ofANSI Z21.10.3- 1998, performed on an "equivalent" electric storage tank. 

# · .**~**
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

** **

**MOSSIMO, INC.**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIALOFFICER**

** **

I, Vicken Festekjian, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant,certify that:

 

1.                  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A ofMossimo, Inc.;

 

2.                  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

3.                  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.                  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

 

(a)            Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to usby others, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)            Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)            All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
| /s/ VICKEN FESTEKJIAN     |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Vicken Festekjian         |
| *Chief Financial Officer* |
| April 28, 2006            |

 

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1642: CARAVAN CANOPY INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. Z-SHADE CO., LTD. [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"fTlA8UafGf\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/01-20-2023-22-1642-caravan-canopy-international-inc-v-z-shade-co-ltd-order-22-1642-order-1-20-2023_2066533\/\">22-1642: CARAVAN CANOPY INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. Z-SHADE CO., LTD. [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/01-20-2023-22-1642-caravan-canopy-international-inc-v-z-shade-co-ltd-order-22-1642-order-1-20-2023_2066533\/embed\/#?secret=fTlA8UafGf\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1642: CARAVAN CANOPY INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. Z-SHADE CO., LTD. [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"fTlA8UafGf\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: CARAVAN CANOPY INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. Z-SHADE CO., LTD. [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1642 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}