alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-02-260-CV

PEGGY LEE PENLEY 	APPELLANT

	V.

CROSSLAND COMMUNITY BIBLE	APPELLEES

CHURCH, C.L. WESTBROOK, JR., 

JOHN YOUNG, M.D., MIKE THATCHER,

AND AARON JOHNSON	

	----------

	FROM THE 67TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered “Unopposed Motion To Dismiss Of Appellees CrossLand Community Bible Church, John Young, M.D., Mike Thatcher, And Aaron Johnson.”   The motion indicates that in her brief, appellant states that she “does not appeal the dismissal of her claims against” the appellees named in the motion.  .  In addition, the certificate of conference attached to the motion indicates that appellant's attorney and the remaining appellee's attorney do not oppose the motion.  Thus, it is the court's opinion that the motion should be granted.  We dismiss appellees CrossLand Community Bible Church, John Young, M.D., Mike Thatcher, and Aaron Johnson.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f).  This case shall hereafter be styled “Peggy Lee Penley v. C.L. Westbrook, Jr.”

	Costs of this appeal incurred by appellees CrossLand Community Bible Church, John Young, M.D., Mike Thatcher, and Aaron Johnson shall be taxed against the party incurring such costs, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM	

PANEL D:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

[DELIVERED FEBRUARY 6, 320303.”]
- 3907
- 3908
- 3909
- 3910
§ 2550.40 How does a State obtain Corporation authorization and approval for the entity it has chosen? ( a ) To receive approval of a State Commission or AAE, a State must formally establish an entity that meets the corresponding composition, membership, authority, and duty requirements of this part. (For the AAE, a State must demonstrate why it is impossible or unreasonable to estalbish a State Commission; an approved AAE, however, has the same rights and responsibilities as a State Commission.) Once the entity is established, the State must provide written notice—in a format to be prescribed by the Corporation—to the chief executive officer of the Corporation of the composition, membership, and authorities of the State Commission or AAE and explain how the entity will perform its duties and functions. Further, the State must agree to, first, request approval from the Corporation for any subsequent changes in the composition or duties of a State Commission or AAE the State may wish to make, and, second, to comply with any future changes in Corporation requirements with regard to the composition or duties of a State Commission or AAE. If a State meets the applicable requirements, the Corporation will approve the State Commission or AAE.
( b ) If the Corporation rejects a State application for approval of a State Commission or AAE because that application does not meet one or more of the requirements of §§ 2250.50 or 2550.60, it will notify the State of the reasons for rejection and offer assistance to make any necessary changes. The Corporation will reconsider revised applications within 14 working days of resubmission.
[58 FR 60981, Nov. 18, 1993, as amended at 70 FR 39607, July 8, 2005]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10-cv-1155-J-37JRK

SAM KAZRAN a/k/a SAM KHAZRAWAN, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff Federal Election Committee’s Motion for 

Default Judgment Against Defendant 11-2001 LLC d/b/a Hyundai of North Jacksonville

(“Motion”) (Doc. No. 14), filed on May 27, 2011. On August 29, 2011, the United States

Magistrate Judge submitted a report recommending that the Motion be granted. (Doc. No.

27.) On September 30, 2011, this Court held a hearing in which it directed Mr. Kazran to

hire counsel, and have counsel file any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. 27) on behalf of Defendant 11-2001 LLC on or before

September 27, 2011. 

Mr. Kazran hired counsel, who appeared on his behalf on September 27, 2011.

(See Doc. No. 42.) His counsel did not appear on behalf of Defendant 11-2001 LLC d/b/a 1

Hyundai of North Jacksonville.

After an independent de novo review of the record in this matter, and noting that no

objections were timely filed, the Court agrees entirely with the findings of fact and

conclusions of law in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 27). Therefore, it is

ORDERED as follows:

The Court struck counsel’s Notice of Appearance (Doc. No. 35) for various 1

reasons (see Doc. No. 39). Counsel filed an appropriate Notice of Appearance on

September 30, 2011 (Doc. No. 42). 

Case 3:10-cv-01155-RBD-JRK Document 45 Filed 10/13/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID 563
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 27), filed on August 29, 2011,

is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.

2. Plaintiff Federal Election Committee’s Motion for Default Judgment Against

Defendant 11-2001 LLC d/b/a Hyundai of North Jacksonville (Doc. No. 14),

filed on May 27, 2011, is GRANTED. 

3. Plaintiff Federal Election Committee is awarded $67,900 for Defendant 11-

2001 LLC d/b/a Hyundai of North Jacksonville’s violations of 2 U.S.C. §§

441a, 441f.

4. Defendant 11-2001 LLC d/b/a Hyundai of North Jacksonville is permanently

enjoined from making contributions to any candidate and his/her authorized

political committees with respect to any election for Federal office which, in

the aggregate, exceed the permissible amount, in violation of 2 U.S.C. §

441a.

5. Defendant 11-2001 LLC d/b/a Hyundai of North Jacksonville is permanently 

enjoined from making a contribution in the name of another person or

knowingly permitting its name to be used to effect such a contribution with

respect to any election for Federal office, in violation of 2 U.S.C. § 441f.

6. Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant 11-2001 LLC d/b/a Hyundai of North Jacksonville in the amount of

$67,900.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on October 12th, 2011. 

Case 3:10-cv-01155-RBD-JRK Document 45 Filed 10/13/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID 564
Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Case 3:10-cv-01155-RBD-JRK Document 45 Filed 10/13/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID 565
2
Docket No. FAA· 

## ZOIO-/2 

## 72 Record ofExParte Cdntacts .2010 -A/M- 

### 2.'2.'-' -AD Directorate Identifier: ·AD

I With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been dischssed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMX. ete)? (You might need tosubmit aseparate record to the Rules Dockel. TheAD Manual defines "Ex Parte Co~tacts. '') '.- I ORGANIZA nON PERSON CONTACTED I DATE RESPONSE 

### ATA Mr. Joe White 09·20·2010 Other. List below.

, I

Other!Additional Information: TBD
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                           3,950
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,394
<ALLOWANCES>                                       917
<INVENTORY>                                     42,030
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,759
<PP&E>                                          41,447
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,198)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,690
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           127
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,861
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,086
<SALES>                                        349,722
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               363,399
<CGS>                                          240,356
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  328,232
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,399
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,423
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,655)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,636)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       981
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07


</TABLE>
#### Teller v. Sanders, appellant.

*Verdict—when it will be set aside.*

It is only when the preponderance of the evidence is so clearly against the verdict as to indicate bias, corruption, prejudice or mistake, that a court will set aside such verdict. *Bwrlew*v. *Huhbell,*1 N. Y. Sup. 235.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the verdict of a jury. The action was brought in Schenectady county by William if. Teller against Jacob G. Sanders, to recover for services in constructing a dam.

*S. W. Jackson,*for appellant.

*K W Paige,*for respondent.

Boardmae, J.

The opinion is devoted to a consideration of the facts. The headnote contains the only point of any importance passed upon.

*Judgment affirmed.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARTHUR BLANK,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORIZON HEALTHCARE OF MICHIGAN,

KEITH PAPENDICK, TERRENCE

WHITEMAN, and CHARLES JAMSEN,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 14-13235

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN TIME TO FILE APPEAL [46]

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the time to file an

appeal. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

On March 22, 2016, the Court accepted and adopted a report and recommendation

granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing the case. Copies were

mailed to Plaintiff and were not returned as undeliverable. In April, after receiving notice

that his subsequent motion for leave to amend his objections had been denied as moot

because the case had already been dismissed, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Court stating

that he had not received the March 22 order and judgment. Additional courtesy copies were

mailed to Plaintiff, which he admits he received on May 26, 2016. (Dkt. 46, at 2.) On July

26, 2016, Plaintiff mailed the present motion requesting that the Court reopen the time to

file an appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6).1

 1The motion was received by the Clerk’s office and filed on August 4.

2:14-cv-13235-NGE-PTM Doc # 47 Filed 08/10/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 826
After the entry of final judgment, a party generally has 30 days to file a notice of

appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). Under Rule 4(a)(6), however, a

district court may reopen the time to file an appeal for a period of 14 days if certain

conditions are satisfied.2

 Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Relevant here, the motion to reopen the

time to file an appeal must be filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is entered

or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice of the entry, whichever is earlier.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) (emphasis added). Here, the earlier of these two events would be

14 days after Plaintiff received notice of the entry of the March 22 order. Plaintiff received

notice of the order granting summary judgment and judgment order dismissing the case by

May 26, 2016 (at the latest). Plaintiff filed this motion two months later. Because the

present motion was filed more than 14 days after Plaintiff received notice, the motion is

untimely and the Court is without jurisdiction to reopen the time to file appeal. Accordingly,

the motion is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: August 10, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on August 10, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Carol J. Bethel 

Case Manager

 2Rule 4(a)(6) carries 28 U.S.C. § 2107 into practice; because the time limits in the rule

are codified by statute, they are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.

205, 208-13 (2007). 

2

2:14-cv-13235-NGE-PTM Doc # 47 Filed 08/10/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 827
#### § 120.392 Radiotelephone installations.

A separate circuit, with overcurrent protection at the main distribution panel, must be provided for each radiotelephone installation.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 

12866 and EO 13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

EO 12866 Interagency Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft final 

rule titled, “Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and 

Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2017,” RIN 2060-AS22

 As mentioned above, the short timeframe provided for the annual renewable fuel rule process 

does not allow sufficient time for EPA to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the benefits of the 

2015 and 2016 standards and the statute does not require it. Moreover, as discussed in the final 

rule establishing the 1.28 billion gallon requirement for BBD in 2013, the costs and benefits of 

the RFS program as a whole are best assessed when the program is fully mature in 2022 and 

beyond.1 We continue to believe that this is the case, as the annual standard-setting process 

encourages consideration of the program on a piecemeal (i.e., year-to-year) basis, which may not 

reflect the long-term economic effects of the program. Therefore, for the purpose of this annual 

rulemaking, we have not quantified benefits for the 2015 and 2016 final standards. We do not 

have a quantified estimate of the GHG impacts for the single year (e.g., 2015, 2016). When the 

RFS program is fully phased in, the program will result in considerable volumes of renewable 

fuels that will reduce GHG emissions in comparison to the fossil fuels which they replace. EPA 

estimated GHG, energy security, and air quality impacts and benefits for the 2010 RFS2 final 

rule for 2022. These arguments; however, are clearly most applicable to annual volume 

rulemakings: the costs but also the potential benefits of the standards being finalized would be 

an important consideration in any future reassessment of the RFS program. 

 

1 77 FR 59477, September 27, 2012.

Deleted: While it would be instructive to show not only the 

costs but also the potential benefits of the standards being 

finalized and understanding analyzing both would will be an 

important consideration in any future reassessment of the 

RFS program

Deleted: If, at some point in the future, the agency needs 

to issue a rulemaking to modify the applicable volumes set 

forth in the statute as a result of lowering the applicable 

statutory volumes by at least 20 percent for two consecutive 

years or at least 50 percent for a single year, then the agency 

will conduct a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis of the 

revised volumes at that time.
§ 115.400 General. ( a ) An inspection is required before the issuance of a Certificate of Inspection. Such an inspection for certification is not made until after receipt of the application for inspection required by § 115.105 of this part.
( b ) Upon receipt of a written application for inspection, the cognizant OCMI assigns a marine inspector to inspect the vessel for compliance with this subchapter at a time and place mutually agreed upon by the OCMI and the owner, managing operator, or representative thereof.
( c ) The owner, managing operator, or a representative thereof shall be present during the inspection.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9982]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION


Investigation Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 
325-327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 
582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review): Certain Carbon Steel 
Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, 
Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, 
and the United Kingdom

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of determination.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) is 
withdrawing the notice of determination in Investigation Nos. AA1921-
197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350 (Second 
Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 
(Second Review). This action is being taken because the notice was 
released in error.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 28, 2006 (71 FR 78222), the 
Commission published a notice in the Federal Register detailing its 
determination in Investigation Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-
319, 320, 325-327, 348 and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 
576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review): Certain Carbon 
Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, 
France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, 
Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. The Federal Register notice was issued 
inadvertently, prior to notification of the U.S. Department of Commerce 
by the Commission of the Commission's determination. A notice detailing 
the Commission's determination will be published at a later date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Szustakowski (202-205-3188) or 
Douglas Corkran (202-205-3057).

    By order of the Commission.
    Issued: December 28, 2006.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-9982 Filed 12-28-06; 4:10 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7774

DONNELL S. BYRD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SHERIFF MCCABE; JOHN DOE, Doctor,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

NORFOLK CITY JAIL, Medical Department; MR.

LATNEY, Administrator of the Norfolk City Jail

Medical Staff,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-97-758-AM)

Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
* Although the district court’s order is date stamped November

2, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on

the docket sheet on November 5, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and

79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that

the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson

v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

Donnell S. Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Deborah Sue Prince, HEILIG, MCKENRY, FRAIM

& LOLLAR, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Donnell Byrd appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Byrd v. McCabe, No. CA-97-758-AM (E.D. Va.

Nov. 5, 1998).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Senate Floor Activity - Tuesday, July 8, 2014

**

----

## The Journal

## Certain Procedures Dispensed With

## Transaction of Morning Business

## Legislative Business (Tuesday, July  8)

S. 2363

S.Res. 447

## Adjournment

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Floor Activity Summaries 

View previous floor activity files.Stream live Senate floor proceedings while a meeting is in progress.View past floor proceedings on CSPAN

### Additional Information 

Use this site's search or visit the Senate Index to find pages by topic.

To learn about the history of the Senate visit the About the Senate section of Senate.gov.

### Contact Your Senators 

Follow this guide on how to contact your senators by phone, postal mail, or on the web.
Exhibit 99.01

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Harry Masuda, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of
Human BioSystems. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, to which this
certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m); and

(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.


Dated: November 14, 2003


/s/ Harry Masuda
-----------------
Harry Masuda
Chief Executive Officer and
Acting Chief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-163]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Open Commission Meeting: Wednesday, January 
17, 2007

Date: January 10, 2007.
    The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on 
the subjects listed below on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, which is 
scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC. The Meeting will focus on presentations by senior 
agency officials regarding implementations of the agency's strategic 
plan and a comprehensive review of FCC policies and procedures.
    Presentations will be made in four panels:
    Panel One will feature the Managing Director and the Chief of the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau.
    Panel Two will feature the Chiefs of the Enforcement Bureau and 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
    Panel Three will feature the Chiefs of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and 
the International Bureau.
    Panel Four will feature the Chiefs of the Media Bureau, and 
Wireline Competition Bureau.
    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from 
Audrey Spivack or David Fiske, Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-
0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be 
broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC's 
Audio/Video Events web page at http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio.
    For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason 
University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry 
the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services call 
(703) 993-3100 or go to http://www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-163 Filed 1-12-07; 11:49 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```