alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Civ. No. 49682.

Second Dist., Div. Five.

Nov. 29, 1976.]

#### LAUTRUP, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TRANS-WEST DISCOUNT CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents.

*317Counsel

David Nobel & Harold Greenberg for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Leland, Hoffman, Kalik & Klein and N. Stanley Leland for Defendants and Respondents.

Opinion

KAUS, P. J.

Appellants filed two actions in Riverside and Los Angeles counties against defendants and respondents Trans-West Discount Corporation, et al. Appellants petitioned the Los Angeles Superior Court to coordinate the actions. The petition was denied on August 10, 1976. Notice of appeal from the order of August 10, 1976, was filed on September 14, 1976.

Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1 which lists all appealable superior court judgments and orders, does not mention orders denying petitions for coordination. Section 404.6, however, an integral part of the coordination statute enacted in 1972 (Stats. 1972, ch. 1162, p. 2287, § 2) provides as follows: “Within 10 days after service upon him of a written notice of entry of an order of the court under this chapter, any party may petition the appropriate reviewing court for a writ of mandate to require the court to make such order as the reviewing court finds appropriate.”

Quite obviously the 1972 Legislature considered the reviewability of orders made in connection with coordination proceedings and decided that mandate rather than appeal was appropriate. Had the Legislature *318contemplated that such orders should be appealable, it would have been a simple matter to amend section 904.1.

Appellants’ argument that appeals from orders denying coordination are somehow included in the provision of section 904. i, subdivision (c), permitting appeals from stays or dismissals “on the ground of inconvenient forum” has no merit. First: the direct reference is obviously to orders made under section 410.30. Second: such orders are not even analogous to orders denying coordination, since they stop the lawsuit temporarily or permanently, permitting an appeal to wind its stately way through the appellate courts. An order denying coordination, on the other hand, merely directs that two actions sharing common questions of fact or law shall each proceed in the court where .they are pending. The policy reasons for not permitting their orderly processing to be delayed by lengthy intermediate appeals are obvious.

The appeal is dismissed.

Ashby, J., and Hastings, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied December 13, 1976.

1

All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 14-13018

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On April 7, 2014, the parties informed the court in an informal communication

that Plaintiff had agreed to dismiss all remaining claims against the Toyota Defendants.

Despite an assurance that a dismissal would be forthcoming, no stipulation has thus far

been presented. Accordingly, on the strength of counsels’ representations, 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any

party may reopen this matter for any reason prior to June 30, 2015 by filing a “Notice of

Reopening,” and the case will be reinstated, with all rights and remedies preserved. 

Additionally, any time before June 30, 2015, the parties may substitute this order with

their own stipulated order of dismissal. After June 30, 2015, the dismissal will become

with prejudice. 

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 30, 2015

2:14-cv-13018-RHC-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 04/30/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 306
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, April 30, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

C:\Users\wagner\AppData\Local\Temp\notesDF63F8\14-13018.AVS.Dismissal.chd.wpd

2

2:14-cv-13018-RHC-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 04/30/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 307
#### § 111.54-3 Remote control.

Remotely controlled circuit breakers must have local manual means of operation.

[CGD 81-030, 53 FR 17847, May 18, 1988]
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rings To Dine For, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jason Yabut, Treasurer 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,
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 results of operations of the
Company.

Date: November 13, 2006

                                        By: /s/ Jason Yabut
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Jason Yabut
                                            Treasurer
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 29
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 2 of 20 Pg ID 30
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 3 of 20 Pg ID 31
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 4 of 20 Pg ID 32
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 5 of 20 Pg ID 33
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 6 of 20 Pg ID 34
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 7 of 20 Pg ID 35
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 8 of 20 Pg ID 36
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 9 of 20 Pg ID 37
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 10 of 20 Pg ID 38
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 11 of 20 Pg ID 39
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 12 of 20 Pg ID 40
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 13 of 20 Pg ID 41
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 14 of 20 Pg ID 42
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 15 of 20 Pg ID 43
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 16 of 20 Pg ID 44
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 17 of 20 Pg ID 45
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 18 of 20 Pg ID 46
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 19 of 20 Pg ID 47
2:14-cr-20559-GCS-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 04/23/15 Pg 20 of 20 Pg ID 48
§ 111.30-19 Buses and wiring. ( a ) *General.* Each bus must meet the requirements of either— ( 1 ) Section 5.10 of IEEE 45.7-2012 (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter); or
( 2 ) IEC 60092-302:1997 (clause 7) (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter).
( b ) *Wiring.* Instrumentation and control wiring must be— ( 1 ) Suitable for installation within in a switchboard enclosure and be rated at 90 °C or higher;
( 2 ) Stranded copper;
( 3 ) No. 14 AWG (2.10 mm2) or larger or must be ribbon cable or similar conductor size cable recommended for use in low-power instrumentation, monitoring, or control circuits by the equipment manufacturer;
( 4 ) Flame-retardant meeting test VW-1 of ANSI/UL 2556 or IEC 60332-1-1:2015 and IEC 60332-1-2:2015 (all incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter); and
( 5 ) Extra flexible, if used on a hinged panel.
[CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28278, June 4, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 23908, May 1, 1997; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65197, Oct. 31, 2008; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60153, Sept. 30, 2013; USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16361, Mar. 16, 2023]
Exhibit 23.1





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement numbers 333-52460 and 333-37790 of Patina Oil & Gas Corporation and its subsidiaries on Form S-8 of our report dated September 20, 2002, (which expresses an unqualified opinion
and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activites, and the restatements described in Note 1) appearing in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Patina Oil & Gas Corporation and its subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2001.





DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP





Denver, Colorado


October 4, 2002
§ 11.703 Service requirements. ( a ) The minimum service required to qualify an applicant for an endorsement as first-class pilot is predicated upon the nature of the waters for which pilotage is desired. ( 1 ) *General routes (routes not restricted to rivers, canals and small lakes.* The applicant must have at least 36 months of service in the deck department of self-propelled vessels navigating on oceans, coastwise, and Great Lakes, or bays, sounds, and lakes other than the Great Lakes, as follows: ( i ) Eighteen months of the 36 months of service must be performing bridge watchkeeping duties under the supervision of the master or a qualified officer.
( ii ) At least 12 months of the 18 months of service required in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section must be on vessels operating on the class of waters for which pilotage is desired.
( 2 ) *River routes.* The applicant must have at least 36 months of service in the deck department of any vessel including at least 12 months of service on vessels operating on the waters of rivers while the applicant is performing bridge watchkeeping duties under the supervision of the master or a qualified officer.
( 3 ) *Canal and small lakes routes.* The applicant must have at least 24 months of service in the deck department of any vessel including at least 8 months of service on vessels operating on canals or small lakes.
( b ) A graduate of the Great Lakes Maritime Academy in the deck class meets the service requirements of this section for an endorsement as first-class pilot on the Great Lakes.
( c ) Completion of an approved or accepted pilot training course may be substituted for a portion of the service requirements of this section in accordance with § 10.404 of this subchapter. Additionally, roundtrips made during this training may apply toward the route familiarization requirements of § 11.705 of this subpart. An individual using substituted service must have at least 9 months of shipboard service.
( d ) An individual holding a license or MMC endorsement as master or mate of inspected self-propelled vessels of more than 1,600 GRT meets the service requirements of this section for an endorsement as first-class pilot.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

YOLANDA GORDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ENHANCED ACQUISITIONS LLC,

RODNEY A. GIOVE, SCOTT RICHMOND,

and LISA SMITH,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 14-13839

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

JUDGMENT

The Court having reviewed and fully considered the pleadings filed by the parties, the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiff's documentation of

attorney's fees and costs, which the Court finds reasonable and necessary; and for the

reasons set forth in an Order dated June 1, 2017;

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby accepted and

adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that (1) default judgment is entered

against Defendant Rodney Giove;1

 (2) Plaintiff is entitled to recover statutory damages of

$1,000.00 and emotional distress damages of $3,000.00; and (3) Plaintiff is entitled to the

full amount of attorney's fees and costs granted in the prior Judgment against Defendant

Enhanced Acquisitions ($3,876.50), as well as an additional $1,400 in fees and $1 in costs

incurred since then.

 1 Giove's name frequently appears as Giovi throughout the docket. 
SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: June 6, 2017

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

on June 6, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Bethel 

Case Manager

2
# Founding Member Organizations

Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce Dallas Regional Chamber
North Central Texas Council of Governments
North Texas Commission



# 2010 Executive Board

Richard Maxwell, Chairman Fort Worth Transportation Authority

Rusty Hodapp, Chair-Elect DFW Airport

Tony McQuary, Secretary Peterbilt Motors Company Denton County

Dr. Tim Barth, Business Outreach Committee Chair Texas Christian University
Councilmember North Richland Hills

Cathy Lilford Altman, Immediate Past Chair Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, LLP Eastern County Sub-Region

Dennis Mochon Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Brinton Payne
Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce

Jay Barksdale Dallas Regional Chamber

Mindy Mize
North Central Texas Council of Governments

Kim Walton
North Texas Commission

Jerry W. Allen
Burleson Chamber of Commerce Johnson County

Kristina Brevard Denton County Transportation Authority

D.D. Currie

Lockheed Martin

Howard L. Gilberg Guida, Slavich & Flores, P.C. Dallas County

Leah King Chesapeake Energy

Nathan Loftice
FedEx Office

Kathy Doyle Thomas
Half Price Books Collin County

Allen Wallach
Concussion

Jennifer W. Cohen Project Director
North Texas Clean Air Coalition 

# Our region. Our air. Our business.

twitter.com/cleanairtx North Texas Clean Air Coalition North Texas Clean Air Coalition 

# Encouraging voluntary efforts to improve air qual ity in North Texas through educating, engaging and recognizing the business community.

North Texas Clean Air Coalition ● 

## P.O. Box 610246 ● 

## DFW Airport, Texas 75261 ● 

## 817.690.1921 ● 

## www.workingforcleanair.org 

# July 29, 2010

Mr. Nick Parsons Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Environmental Protection Agency

109 T. W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle, NC 27711

RE: Oil & Natural Gas Sector Public Hearing; Comment for Public

Record

Mr. Parsons,

The North Texas Clean Air Coalition is the only 501c3 nonprofit in North Texas dedicated solely to encouraging voluntary efforts to improve air quality in North Texas through educating, engaging, and recognizing the business community. The Coalition works with the business community to achieve best practices in clean air

initiatives.

Since 1993 the Clean Air Coalition has provided tools and resources to employers so we can work toge ther for cleaner air and to meet the changing standards set by the EPA. These efforts have worked in conjunction with other organizations, public entities, Chambers of Commerce and the private sector programs attempting to reach

attainment.

The air quality has improved in North Texas but more needs to be done to meet the proposed standard and we must consider all options for sustainable solutions, including natural gas. The abundance of natural gas in this region gives North Texas an excellent opportunity to reduce NOx emissions from transportation and other sources and lower the impact on our environment by using this important locally available fu el source. Businesses working together can make a difference when we all do our share for cleaner

air.

Respectfully Submitted

Richard Maxwell

NTCAC Chairman
<PAGE>

                        Exhibit 23.0 Consent of BKD, LLP

                              [BKD,LLP LETTERHEAD]

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Citizens First Financial Corp.

We have issued our report dated January 30, 2002 on the consolidated financial
statements of Citizens First Financial Corp. and Subsidiary appearing in the
Company's 2001 Annual Report to Stockholders. We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements of Citizens First Financial Corp. on
Form S-8 (Registration Statement Nos. 333-79389, 333-37925 and 333-41615) and in
this Form 10-K of the aforementioned report.

BKD, LLP

Decatur, Illinois
March 27, 2002

                                      -27-
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

West Coast Franchising Company
West Coast Licensing Corporation (subsidiary of West Coast Franchising Company)
West Coast Financing Corporation
Palmer West Coast Corporation Palmer Video
Corporation (subsidiary of Palmer West Coast Corporation)
Casablanca Distributing Corporation (subsidiary of Palmer Video Corporation
Palmer Investment Corporation (subsidiary of Palmer West Coast Corporation)
142nd Retail Associates (a New Jersey general partnership - 51% owned by Palmer
     Investment Corporation)
38th Retail Associates (a New York limited partnership - 50% owned by Palmer
     Investment Corporation)
Showtime, Inc.
Video Giant Inc.
Videosmith Incorporated
RKT Merger Co.
Video King of Broome County, Inc.
King Video Enterprises, Inc.
West Coast Video (Australia) Pty. Ltd.
West Coast Entertainment (Australia) Pty. Ltd. (subsidiary of West Coast
     Franchising Company)


                                      - 5 -
# Cancer Control Month, 2007

Cancer Control Month is an opportunity to educate all Americans about cancer, to raise awareness about treatments, and to renew our commitment to fighting this deadly disease.

Through developments in medical science, we continue to make advances in the prevention and treatment of cancer. Yet millions of our citizens continue to live with some form of this disease, and it remains the second leading cause of death in the United States. Individuals can reduce their risk of developing cancer by practicing healthy eating habits, exercising, limiting sun exposure, avoiding tobacco, knowing their family history, and getting regular screenings from the doctor.

My Administration remains committed to the fight against cancer. In 2005, the National Cancer Institute and the National Human Genome Research Institute launched the Cancer Genome Atlas, a revolutionary research project to help scientists understand the genetic sources of cancer. The discoveries from this project have the potential to bring about rapid advances in cancer research. And last year the National Institutes of Health invested more than $5 billion in cancer research.

 We are making progress. Cancer related deaths have declined for 2 consecutive years. Thirty years ago, there were only 3 million cancer survivors, and today there are more than 10 million.

 During Cancer Control Month, we remember those who have lost their lives to cancer. And we commend the determination, courage, and strength of cancer survivors. Our Nation is grateful for medical professionals, researchers, family members, and friends who support cancer patients. Their dedication to these individuals is a reflection of the true spirit of America. Our country will continue the fight against cancer until it is won.

In 1938, the Congress of the United States passed a joint resolution (52 Stat. 148; 36 U.S.C. 103) as amended, requesting the President to issue an annual proclamation declaring April as “Cancer Control Month.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 2007 as Cancer Control Month. I encourage citizens, government agencies, private businesses, nonprofit organizations, and other interested groups to join in activities that will increase awareness about the steps Americans can take to prevent and control cancer.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

[FR Doc. 07-1668

Billing code 3195-01-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 14, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00128

- CR

IN RE Eduardo TREVINO

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. A lvarez , Justice

On May 6, 2015, relator Eduardo Trevino filed a motion to object asking this court to

reconsider its order of April 22, 2015

, which denied relator’s motion to modify the trial court’s

order. The court has considered relator’s request to r econsider and it is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on May 14, 2015

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No s

. 1999CR4085

, 1999CR6204, and 1999C R6205, each styled The State of

Texas v. Eduardo Trevino , pending in the 144th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Lorina I. Rummel

presiding.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7151 ELMORE MCLEMORE, a/k/a Billy Molden, Petitioner - Appellant, versus P. PITZER, BOP Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.

No. 98-7152
ELMORE MCLEMORE, a/k/a William McGinnis, a/k/a Billy Molden, Petitioner - Appellant, versus P. PITZER, BOP Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA98-2183-S, CA-98-2204-S) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 6, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elmore McLemore, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM:In these consolidated cases, Elmore McLemore appeals from district court orders dismissing his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), as barred by the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1) (West Supp. 1998). In 98-7151, McLemore’s Maryland conviction for theft became final in 1988, when he did not note an appeal from his guilty plea. He filed his federal habeas petition on July 7, 1998. McLemore had until April 23, 1997 to file his § 2254 petition. See Brown v. Angelone , 150 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 1998). Even excluding the period tolled while McLemore pursued his state post-conviction remedies, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), his petition was time-barred. In 98-7152, McLemore’s Maryland conviction for battery became final in 1987, when he did not note an appeal from his guilty plea. The federal petition was filed on July 9, 1998. Again excluding the period during which McLemore pursued his state post-conviction remedies, this petition was time-barred. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. 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.

DISMISSED
#### § 110.01-2 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

(a) *Purpose.* This section collects and displays the control numbers assigned to information collection and recordkeeping requirements in this subchapter by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*). The Coast Guard intends that this section comply with the requirements of 44 U.S.C. 3507(f) which requires that agencies display a current control number assigned by the Director of the OMB for each approved agency information collection requirement.

(b) *Display.*

| 46 CFR part or section where identified or described | Current OMB control No. |
| --- | --- |
| Subpart 110.25 | 1625-0031 |

[49 FR 38121, Sept. 27, 1984, as amended by USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58348, Sept. 30, 2004]