alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ARTHUR LOPEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2023-2431

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:23-cv-00620-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.

______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Arthur Lopez appeals from the United States Court of 

Federal Claims’s order denying his motion to reassign this 

case to another judge. Having considered Mr. Lopez’s response to this court’s show cause order, we dismiss. 

This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the 

Court of Federal Claims is generally limited to appeals 

“from a final decision,” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3), i.e., one that

“end[s] the litigation on the merits and leave[s] nothing for 

Case: 23-2431 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 02/22/2024
2 LOPEZ v. US

the court to do but execute the judgment.” Haggart v. 

United States, 943 F.3d 943, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation 

omitted). The order denying a motion to reassign did not 

end this litigation on the merits.

Nor do the general exceptions to the final judgment 

rule apply here. The collateral order doctrine does not apply because the order can effectively be reviewed on appeal 

after final judgment. See In re Preseault, Nos. 628 et al., 

2000 WL 1300418, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2000) (dismissing as premature); see also Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 

672 F.3d 1283, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reviewing issue on 

appeal after final judgment).* The trial court also did not 

enter a 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2) certification, which permits 

appeal from orders that the trial court finds to be controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground 

for difference of opinion and that immediate appeal may 

materially advance the termination of the litigation. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

* Because a post-judgment appeal is an adequate 

remedy for asserting a recusal challenge, mandamus relief 

would also not be available to Mr. Lopez here. See Preseault, 2000 WL 1300418, at *2 (denying mandamus relief). 

Case: 23-2431 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 02/22/2024
LOPEZ v. US 3

(2) All pending motions are denied.

 (3) Each party shall bear its own costs.

February 22, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

 

Case: 23-2431 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 02/22/2024
#### § 109-38.301 Authorized use.

The use of Government motor vehicles by officers and employees of the Government is governed by the provisions of 41 CFR 102-34 Subpart D and section 109-6.4 of this chapter.
### #10{)~ Q15D 

### D005 Q:J.c:21 

## Q9'5

.'

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT Of ENVIRONMENTAL QUAliTY BRAD HENRY STEVEN A. THOMPSON 

### OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Governor Executive Director September 20, 2007 Lafarge BuildingMaterials Attn: Ms. PamelaBennett 2609 N. 145th EastAvenue Tulsa, OK 74116 Subject: Best,Available Retro.fit Techno.lo.gy (BART) Waiver Lafarge TulsaCement Plant DearMs. Bennett:
'. '.: The Oklaho.ma Department o.fEnviro.nmental Quality (ODEQ) received a BART Waiver request fo.r the Lafarge Tulsa Cement Plant o.n December 1, 2006. The applicable e!p.issio.n rates to. use fo.r the Waivetprocess is the 24-ho.ur average actual emissio.ns fro.m the highest emitting day o.f the meteo.rolo.gica} ·perio.d mo.deled. The Waiver submittal, onpage 4-2, indicates the units o.perated continuo.uslyover a single 24­ ho.ur perio.d dUring the 2001-2005 time frame and**~hat** emissio.ns are based upo.n a full 24 ho.urs o.peratio.n, Based o.n a review o.frecent emissio.n invento.ry data, the PMlO mo.deled rate fo.r EP15 (Kiln #2) appears to. be lo.wer than repo.rted. 

### It also appears the PMlO mo.del input rate do.es no.tagree with thepro.po.sed 24-hr emissio.n rate fo.r EP15. 

### It sho.uld be no.ted that the invento.ry data is an annual average fo.r this Co.mpariso.n. Generally, it wo.uld be anticipated that the 24-hr average maximum daily rate wo.uld be higherthan the 2004 invento.ry data. In o.rder to. co.mplete this review, please provide clarificatio.n/justificatio.n co.ncerning the identified issues within 30 days. Thank yo.u fo.r yo.ur co.o.peratio.n in this matter. Ifwe maybe

### o.ffurth~r service, please

### co.ntac~Phil1ip**Fi~405)** 702-4100.

# Sinc~

awso.n sse\1er, ChiefEngineer AIR**QU~ITY** DIVISION

707 NORTH ROBINSON, P.O. BOX 1677, OKLAHOMACITY, OKLAHOMA 73101·1677 printed on recycled paper with soy ink 

# o
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1413 Complaints by incumbent local exchange carriers. ( a ) A complaint by an incumbent local exchange carrier (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 251(h)) or an association of incumbent local exchange carriers alleging that it has been denied access to a pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by a local exchange carrier or that a utility's rate, term, or condition for a pole attachment is not just and reasonable shall follow the same complaint procedures specified for other pole attachment complaints in this part.
( b ) In complaint proceedings challenging utility pole attachment rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachment contracts entered into or renewed after the effective date of this section, there is a presumption that an incumbent local exchange carrier (or an association of incumbent local exchange carriers) is similarly situated to an attacher that is a telecommunications carrier (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 251(a)(5)) or a cable television system providing telecommunications services for purposes of obtaining comparable rates, terms, or conditions. In such complaint proceedings challenging pole attachment rates, there is a presumption that incumbent local exchange carriers (or an association of incumbent local exchange carriers) may be charged no higher than the rate determined in accordance with § 1.1406(d)(2). A utility can rebut either or both of the two presumptions in this paragraph (b) with clear and convincing evidence that the incumbent local exchange carrier receives benefits under its pole attachment agreement with a utility that materially advantages the incumbent local exchange carrier over other telecommunications carriers or cable television systems providing telecommunications services on the same poles.
[83 FR 46840, Sept. 14, 2018, as amended at 85 FR 64061, Oct. 9, 2020]
§ 102-117.95 What transportation documents must I use to acquire freight, household goods or other related transportation services? ( a ) Bills of lading and purchase orders are the transportation documents you use to acquire freight, household goods shipments, and other transportation services. Terms and conditions in § 102-117.65 and the “U.S. Government Freight Transportation Handbook” are still required. For further information on payment methods, see part 102-118 of this chapter (41 CFR part 102-118).
( b ) Government bills of lading (GBLs) are optional transportation documents for international shipments (including domestic offshore shipments).
[75 FR 31394, Aug. 20, 2010]
#### § 109-27.5102 Policy.

DOE organizations and contractors shall establish effective procedures and practices for the administrative and physical control of precious metals in accordance with the provisions of this subpart.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00681-CR

Richard Nesmith, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 427TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-07-904100, HONORABLE MELISSA YOUNG GOODWIN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Richard Nesmith was convicted, based on guilty pleas, of one count of aggravated

sexual assault of a child, five counts of indecency with a child by contact, and one count of

indecency with a child by exposure. According to the judgments on each count, he was sentenced

consistent with his plea bargain to twenty-five years in prison, with all sentences to be served

concurrently. The trial court signed a certification that Nesmith waived his right to appeal, and

Nesmith and his attorney both signed the certification. By rule, we must dismiss this appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed

Filed: December 12, 2008

Do Not Publish
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

      ( print page 41512)    

# ACTION:

Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         notifying the public that the agency has made such a submission.                    

# DATES:

Submit comments on or before August 4, 2000. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.

*Copies:*                         Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Title:*                     Statement of Personal History.                

*No:*                     912.                

*Frequency:*                     On Occasion.                

*Description of Respondents:*                     Applicants for loan and other forms of SBA assistance.                

*Annual Responses:*                     55,000.                

*Annual Burden:*                     13,750.                

Jacqueline White,

Chief, Administrative Information Branch.

[FR Doc. 00-16800 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
No. 11-8995.

#### Walker *v.*Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00284-CV

KNIGHT OIL TOOLS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

RIPPY OIL COMPANY, RIPPY INTEREST LLC,

THE GENECOV GROUP, INC., AND

JOHN D. PROCTOR,

Appellees

From the 278th District Court

Leon County, Texas

Trial Court No. O-10-498

A B A T E M E N T ORDER

On April 11, 2019, the parties filed an Agreed Motion to Correct Reporter’s Record. 

The parties request this Court to correct the reporter’s record to include deposition 

excerpts which were played to the jury, but were not completely transcribed by the court 

reporter. The motion indicates that the testimony of certain witnesses was presented to 

the jury by video deposition excerpts. Each party prepared a printed report from the 
Knight v. Rippy Oil Company, et al. Page 2

deposition transcript consisting of the testimony that had been presented and those 

reports were provided to the court reporter. Those reports were not included as exhibits 

or made a part of the appellate record. The parties provided the transcripts to this Court 

and ask this Court to make the transcripts a part of the appellate record. 

Rule 34.6 (e) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides for the correction 

of inaccuracies in the reporter’s record. If the dispute arises after the reporter’s record 

has been filed in the appellate court, that court may submit the dispute to the trial court 

for resolution. TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6 (e) (3). We conclude that this appeal should be abated 

and that the trial court should hold a hearing to address this issue and, if so determined, 

receive the transcripts as an exhibit to be filed in a supplemental reporter’s record.

The hearing shall be held within 21 days from the date of this order, and a 

supplemental reporter’s record, if any, shall be filed no later than 14 days after the date 

of the hearing.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Order issued and filed April 24, 2019
No. 11-9685.

#### Welch *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### LAWRENCE DRAKE, Respondent, *v.*JOHN HENRY SMITH and BENJAMIN S. NELSON, Appellants.

*Cause of action for cowo&i'sion of personal property*— *assignment of.*

*A*cause of action arising from the conversion of personal property is capable oí assignment, and the assignee thereof may maintain an action to recover dam ages therefor in his own name.

*533Appeal from an order made at Special Term denying motions made by tbe defendants respectively to. vacate orders directing their arrest. The action was brought to recover damages for the conversion by the defendants of a horse belonging to one Barremore. Barremore had, subsequent to the conversion, and after he had demanded the horse from the defendants, assigned to the plaintiff his claim and demand against the said defendants for damages for the conversion. The principal question was as to whether or not such a cause, of action was assignable.

*M. C.*Place, for the appellants.

*James F.*Chandler, for the respondent.

Daniels, J.:

It has been urged in support of this appeal, that a cause of action for damages for the conversion of personal property cannot be so effectually assigned, as to allow the assignee to maintain a suit for their recovery in his own name. In the case of *Zabriskie*v. *Smith*(3 Kernan, 322), which was for damages for deceit, it was conceded to be the law, on a very thorough examination of the authorities, that causes of action which would survive to the personal representatives of a deceased person were assignable. (Id., 334.) A demand for the conversion of personal property is one of that description, and has been declared to be so by statute, and the only exception made to the generality of the provision upon this subject is that it shall not extend to actions for slander, libel, assault and battery, false imprisonment or for injuries to the person of the plaintiff or of the testator or intestate, or of any executor or administrator. (3 B. S. [5th ed.], 146, §§ 1, 2.) The result is that this demaud vas assignable within that rule, for it was for a wrong only to the property of the assignor, as that term has been used in this statute, and in case of the decease of the assignee it would have survived to his personal representative. *(McKee*v. Judd, 2 Kernan, 622; *McBride*v. Farmers’ Bank, 26 N. Y., 450.) Whatever question oí» doubt formerly existed upon this subject has finally been settled against the position now taken in favor of the defendant. *Ward*v. *Benson*(31 How., 411), cited by their counsel, is really an *534authority against their present position. The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements on appeal.

Davis, P. J., and Brady, J., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
EX-10.23



 Exhibit 10.23 

DELIVERED BY HAND 
  

			
	 STRICTLY PERSONAL AND

CONFIDENTIAL
	  	 January 10, 2017
  

WITHOUT PREJUDICE


 Paul Riddlestone 
 Subject:
Notice of termination of your employment 
 Dear Paul: 

Further to our meeting of this day in the presence of Dani Reiss and Kara MacKillop, the present letter confirms the termination of your
employment with Canada Goose Inc. (the “Company”) effective immediately on January 10, 2017 (the “Separation Date”). 

As discussed, in connection with such termination, the Company shall provide you with the amounts and benefits set out in the attached
Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”). Except as provided therein, all other benefits shall terminate on the Separation Date. You may be able to exercise a conversion privilege with respect to your life insurance benefits to
the extent such insurance policy provides such privilege. We recommend that you contact the insurance carrier in this regard as soon as possible. However, you have thirty-one (31) days after the date of termination of your life insurance
coverage to exercise such a conversion privilege, if applicable. 
 We ask that you kindly sign the attached copy of the Agreement, and
return it to the Company no later than January 17, 2017. 
 Finally, the present is to remind you of your legal and contractual
obligations towards the Company which continue to apply following the termination of your employment. For greater clarity, these obligations include, without limitation, a duty not use or disclose confidential information pertaining to the Company,
acquired during the course of your employment, an obligation not to make any disparaging or critical comments about the Company or its services, products, employees or business relationships and an obligation of non-competition and non-solicitation
as set out in each of your employment letter dated October 21, 2010 and your option agreement dated April 17, 2014. 
 Should you
have any questions concerning the present letter, please do not hesitate to communicate with the undersigned. 







 We thank you for your contribution to our organization and we wish you success in your future
endeavours. 
  

	
	CANADA GOOSE INC.
	
	/s/ Dani Reiss
	Per: Dani Reiss – President & CEO


  

	
	/s/ Kara MacKillop
	Per: Kara MacKillop – SVP, Human Resources


 Encl.
#### Gary M. TOWNSEND, Petitioner, v. CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 04-3051.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 12, 2004.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**MOSSIMO, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Edwin Lewis, Vice Chairman and Co-ChiefExecutive Officer of the registrant, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 10-K of Mossimo, Inc.;

2.                 Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report.

3.                 Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(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 certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrols over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

(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 or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| /s/ EDWIN LEWIS                                                  |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Edwin Lewis                                                      |
| *Vice-Chairman, President   and Co-Chief Executive Officer* |
| April 27, 2005                                                   |

 

----
§ 15.239 Operation in the band 88-108 MHz. ( a ) Emissions from the intentional radiator shall be confined within a band 200 kHz wide centered on the operating frequency. The 200 kHz band shall lie wholly within the frequency range of 88-108 MHz.
( b ) The field strength of any emissions within the permitted 200 kHz band shall not exceed 250 microvolts/meter at 3 meters. The emission limit in this paragraph is based on measurement instrumentation employing an average detector. The provisions in § 15.35 for limiting peak emissions apply.
( c ) The field strength of any emissions radiated on any frequency outside of the specified 200 kHz band shall not exceed the general radiated emission limits in § 15.209.
( d ) A custom built telemetry intentional radiator operating in the frequency band 88-108 MHz and used for experimentation by an educational institute need not be certified provided the device complies with the standards in this part and the educational institution notifies the Office of Engineering and Technology, in writing, in advance of operation, providing the following information: ( 1 ) The dates and places where the device will be operated;
( 2 ) The purpose for which the device will be used;
( 3 ) A description of the device, including the operating frequency, RF power output, and antenna; and,
( 4 ) A statement that the device complies with the technical provisions of this part.
[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989; 54 FR 32340, Aug. 7, 1989; 80 FR 53750, Sept. 8, 2015]
No. 10-11254.

#### Colwell *v.*Stevenson, Warden.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.