alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued, and submitted January 31,

convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing February 28, 1996

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*JOHN KENNETH BEISER, *Appellant.*

(10-94-06426; CA A86768)

911 P2d 976

Ingrid A MacFarlane, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Kaye E. Sunderland, 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 Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Haselton, Judges.

DEITS, P. J.

*342DEITS, P. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence. We remand for resentencing.

Defendant was charged with arson in the second degree, ORS 164.315, aggravated theft in the first degree, ORS 164.057, three counts of criminal mischief in the first degree, ORS 164.365, and initiating a false report, ORS 162.375. He pleaded guilty to arson in the second degree, aggravated theft in the first degree, and initiating a false report. He was then tried on stipulated facts and found guilty of committing three counts of criminal mischief. Defendant was sentenced to a period of incarceration not to exceed 36 months for the arson conviction, 60 days for the theft conviction, 11 months for each criminal mischief conviction, and 60 days for the false report conviction. All of the sentences were to run consecutive to each other.

Defendant first asserts that the trial court erred in imposing three separate sentences with respect to his criminal mischief convictions. That assignment of error lacks merit and warrants no discussion.

Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to 60 days incarceration on his conviction for initiating a false report.1 Initiating a false report is a Class C misdemeanor. ORS 162.375(2). The maximum term of incarceration for a Class C misdemeanor is 30 days. ORS 161.615. The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing a 60 day term of incarceration. We accept the state’s concession and remand for resentencing on defendant’s conviction for initiating a false report.2

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

1

 The trial court orally sentenced defendant to 30-days’ incarceration on his conviction for initiating a false report. However, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed a period of 60 days incarceration.

2

 Because ORS 138.222(5) pertains only to our review of sentences imposed on felony convictions, we are not required to remand the entire case for resentencing.
§ 174.310 General. ( a ) Each hopper dredge under this subpart must be shown by design calculations based on the assumptions under paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this section, that it meets— ( 1 ) The requirements in §§ 170.170, 170.173, and 170.300 of this chapter in each condition of loading and operation; and
( 2 ) The survival conditions of § 174.320 in each condition of loading and operation assuming the character and extent of damage specified in § 174.315.
( b ) The calculations required by paragraph (a) of this section must assume: ( 1 ) The hoppers are full of seawater;
( 2 ) The permeability of flooded spaces is as provided by Table 174.310;
( 3 ) The equalization provisions of § 174.325; and
( 4 ) The jettisoning provisions of § 174.330.
( c ) The calculations required by this section must take into account a sufficient number of loading conditions to identify the condition in which the vessel is least stable, including, but not limited to, the most severe loading condition, and the: ( 1 ) Specific gravity of the dredge spoil, from 1.02 up to and including the maximum required by paragraph (e)(1) of this section; and
( 2 ) Draft, up to and including the draft corresponding to the working freeboard for the full range of trim.
( d ) The calculations required by this section for a dredge with open hoppers may include spillage of spoil from the hopper resulting from changing the angle of heel and trim.
( e ) The following assumptions must be made when doing the calculations required by this section: ( 1 ) Dredged spoil in the hopper is a homogeneous liquid with a maximum specific gravity for the areas of operation.
( 2 ) When calculating the vessel's righting arm, it is assumed at each angle of heel that the vessel trims free and the trimming moment is zero.
Table 174.310—Permeability of Floodable Spaces
Spaces and tanks
Permeability Storerooms
0.60 Accommodation spaces
0.95 Consumable liquid tanks
0.00 or 0.95—whichever results in the more disabling condition. Machinery space
0.85—unless otherwise supported by calculations. Cargo tanks
Determined from the actual density and amount of liquid carried in the tank.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Bobby Yazdani, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of the Board of Saba Software, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify, as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2009 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: October 7, 2009



By:

/s/    BOBBY
YAZDANIBobby Yazdani Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BIG GUY’S PINBALL, LLC

Case No. 2:14-CV-14185-VAR-RSW

Plaintiff,

Honorable VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v. U.S. District Judge, Presiding

JIMMY LIPHAM, Honorable R. STEVEN WHALEN

U.S. Magistrate Judge, Referral

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________________/

STIPULATION TO TEMPORARILY STAY PROCEEDINGS

Counsel for the parties jointly represent to the Court (pursuant to obligations as officers of

this Court and the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P.11) and hereby certify (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746,

under penalty of perjury that the statements herein are truthful) that they have engaged in regular and

ongoing negotiations pursuant to two previous Orders (ECF#26 and ECF#28). Such negotiations

have and continue to be productive, and counsel believe that additional time for such negotiations

(temporarily in lieu of additional briefing related to Defendant’s motion, ECF#21/22) will be a more

productive utilization of finite legal resources. A temporary stay will reduce the burden on this

Court’s similarly limited judicial resources. At this still early point in the case and before a

scheduling order has been entered, a brief stay in the manner proposed will not materially impact the

rights of the parties or the progress of this matter. 

By: s/ Robert Farr (P61597) By: s/ Eric C. Grimm* (P58990) 

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant

(248) 703-0662 (734) 717-4900

rfarr@rfarrlaw.com ecgrimm@umich.edu

February 26, 2015 February 26, 2015

* By Robert Farr (P61597) with Mr. Grimm’s permission for the purpose of electronic filing.

2:14-cv-14185-VAR-RSW Doc # 29 Filed 02/26/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 249
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BIG GUY’S PINBALL, LLC

Case No. 2:14-CV-14185-VAR-RSW

Plaintiff,

Honorable VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v. U.S. District Judge, Presiding

JIMMY LIPHAM, Honorable R. STEVEN WHALEN

U.S. Magistrate Judge, Referral

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________________/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Robert Farr, attorney for Plaintiff, certifies that on February 26, 2015I filed copies of (1) the

parties’ Stipulation to Temporarily Stay Proceedings, and (2) this Certificate of Service with the

Court Clerk via the ECF system, which will provide notice and service of such documents upon all

parties by their counsel of record. 

ROBERT A. FARR, PLLC

By: s/ Robert Farr (P61597) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

1050 Shiawassee Circle 

Howell, Michigan 48843 

rfarr@rfarrlaw.com

February 26, 2015 (248) 703-0662 

2:14-cv-14185-VAR-RSW Doc # 29 Filed 02/26/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 250
§ 170.255 Class 1 doors; permissible locations. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, Class 1 doors within passenger, crew, and working spaces are permitted only above a deck, the molded line of which, at its lowest point at side, is at least 7 feet (2.14 meters) above the deepest load line.
( b ) Class 1 doors are permitted within passenger, crew, and working spaces, wherever located, if— ( 1 ) In the judgment of the OCMI, the door is in a location where it will be closed at all times except when actually in use; and
( 2 ) The vessel is less than 150 gross tons and will not proceed more than 20 nautical miles (37 kilometers) from shore; or
( 3 ) The vessel is in rivers or lakes, bays, and sounds service.
( c ) Class 1 doors are permitted in any location on a vessel that— ( 1 ) Is less than 100 gross tons; and
( 2 ) Will operate only in the offshore oil industry trade.
( d ) Quick-acting Class 1 doors are permitted in any location on a vessel that operates on the Great Lakes and is required to meet the damage stability standards of subpart H of part 172 of this chapter.
( e ) For vessels required to meet the damage stability standards of subpart H of this chapter, when Class 1 doors are installed below a deck the molded line of which at its lowest point at side is less than 7 feet (2.14 meters) above the deepest load line, an indicator light for each door which warns when the door is open must be installed on the bridge.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51010, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 80-159, 51 FR 33059, Sept. 18, 1986]
#### George G. Gantz and others, *Respondents, v.*John W. Holgate, *Appellant*.

Judgment reversed, with costs; motion to strike out answer denied, with ten dollars costs. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Capital, Inc. and Subsidiaries
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Michael C. Frederick, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer 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:

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

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


DATE: August 13, 2002                               BY: /s/ Michael C. Frederick
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Michael C. Frederick
                                                        Senior Vice President
                                                           and Treasurer
                                                        (Principal Financial and
                                                           Accounting Officer)
§ 139.140 Renewal of TPO approval. ( a ) To renew an approval, a TPO must submit a written request to the TVNCOE at the address listed in § 139.120.
( b ) For the request to be approved, the Coast Guard must be satisfied that the applicant continues to fully meet approval criteria.
( c ) The Coast Guard may request any additional information necessary to properly evaluate the request.
SECOND DEPARTMENT.

GENERAL TERM, DECEMBER, 1874

#### Porter v. Parks.

*Evidence*— *letters from agent to*principal— *Objection*— *when general sufficient.*

Letters from an agent to his principal cannot be given in evidence against a third person.

When evidence is necessarily and obviously improper a general objection is all that is required.

Motion by defendant for a new trial after a verdict for plaintiff directed by the court upon a case and exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance at the general term.

*684The action was brought by Mary 0. Porter against William M. Parks and another to recover the value of fifty shares of railroad stock alleged to have been converted by defendants.

*Van Winkle, Candler & Jay,*for plaintiff.

*F. F. Marbury, Jr.,*and *F. F. Marbury,*for defendants.

Barnard, P. J.

The only points of any importance passed upon in the opinion - are fully given in the head-note.

*Judgment reversed and new trial granted.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 161

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 161 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 161.002-17 Equivalents.

The Commandant may approve any arrangement, fitting, appliance, apparatus, equipment, calculation, information, or test that provides a level of safety equivalent to that established by specific provisions of this subpart. Requests for approval must be submitted to Commandant (CG-ENG). If necessary, the Commandant may require engineering evaluations and tests to demonstrate the equivalence of the substitute.

[CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28292, June 4, 1996]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00506-CV

Brenda KING,

Appellant

v.

CLARK, MALOUF & WHITE, LLP and Florida Fine Cars, Inc. (CARVIX),

Appellees

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2024CV03996

Honorable Cesar Garcia, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice 

Delivered and Filed: September 11, 2024

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

This is an attempted appeal from an interlocutory order. On July 22, 2024, appellant filed 

a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s order granting appellees’ motion to abate and motion 

to compel arbitration. Thereafter, the trial court clerk filed the clerk’s record, but it did not contain 

a final judgment.

In general, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Sabre Travel Int’l, Ltd. v. 

Deutsche Lufthansa AG, 567 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. 2019). “Final judgment” is a term of art, and 

it means a judgment that disposes of all parties and all claims and is final for purposes of appeal.
04-24-00506-CV

- 2 -

See id. When an order does not dispose of all pending parties and claims, it remains interlocutory 

and unappealable until a final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Id.; Bally 

Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001). An order compelling arbitration 

is an interlocutory order, and neither the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA) nor the Federal Arbitration 

Act (FAA) provide for an interlocutory appeal from it. Chambers v. Quinn, 242 S.W.3d 30, 31–

32 (Tex. 2007) (providing the TAA is “one-sided, allowing interlocutory appeals solely from 

orders that deny arbitration” and the FAA “makes no provision for interlocutory appeals from an 

order compelling arbitration.”); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 171.098(a) (omitting 

orders granting motion to compel arbitration from list of appealable orders relating to arbitration). 

We therefore do not have jurisdiction to review a trial court’s order compelling arbitration until a 

final judgment is entered. Chambers, 242 S.W.3d at 32 (explaining order compelling arbitration 

may be reviewed on appeal from final judgment); Hum. Biostar, Inc. v. Celltex Therapeutics Corp., 

514 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (explaining court has 

jurisdiction to review order compelling arbitration after final judgment confirming arbitration 

award was entered).

Accordingly, because it appeared we did not have jurisdiction over this appeal, we ordered 

appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Appellant filed a response, but the response does not establish this court’s jurisdiction over her 

appeal. Instead, the response confirms appellant is attempting to pursue an appeal from an 

unappealable, interlocutory order. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Indian Health Service

# ACTION:

Correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Indian Health Service published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         on March 28, 2007. The document contained three errors. For further information Contact: Martha Redhouse, Grants Management Branch, Indian Health Service, Reyes Building, 801 Thompson Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852, Telephone (301) 443-5204. (This is not a toll-free number).                              ( print page 20348)    

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of March 28, 2007, in FR Doc. 07-1498, on page 14584, in the first column amend the Application Deadline to read May 25, 2007, the Application Review to read June 14, 2007, and the Application Notification to read June 27, 2007. In the second column, III. Eligibility Information, #1—Eligible Applicants should include the statement, “Only colleges or universities that offer a Ph.D in clinical programs accredited by the American Psychological Association will be eligible to apply for a grant. In the third column, delete the following sentence: “Documentation must be submitted from every Tribe involved in the grant program.” On page 14586, Project Budget, #5 subsection (d) should read: “Projects requiring a second and third year must include a program narrative and categorical budget and justification for each additional year of funding requested (this is not considered part of the 7-page narrative).                    

Dated: April 16, 2007.

Robert G. McSwain,

Deputy Director, Indian Health Service.

[FR Doc. 07-2013 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4165-16-M
# C_2011347EN.01001502.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 22 September 2011 — Laimonis Treimanis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-487/11)

2011/C 347/23

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Laimonis Treimanis

Applicant:

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 7(1) of Regulation No 918/83 (1) preclude the owner of a private car imported into the European Union from a third country from transferring the car, for use free of charge, to a family member who has actually moved his residence from that third country to the European Union and who formed part of a household with the owner of the car in that third country before the car was imported into the European Union, where the car owner has essentially remained in the third country since the vehicle was imported?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1).

1

---
Exhibit 99.5

GRAPHIC



Consent of Independent Auditors

We
hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Alliance Atlantis Communications Inc. of our auditors' report dated May 25, 2004 relating to the
consolidated financial statements, our auditors' report dated May 25, 2004, except for note (a) which is as of September 13, 2004, relating to the schedule of reconciliation to
generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America and our comments by auditors on Canada-U.S.A. reporting differences dated May 25, 2004 relating to the consolidated
financial statements.



GRAPHIC



September 13,
2004

PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to the Canadian firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International
Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.

40-F120

---



QuickLinks
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.042-5 Procedure for approval. ( a ) Life raft skids are not subject to formal approval by the Commandant, but for each merchant vessel on which Type A life rafts are to be installed, plans showing the construction and arrangement of the life raft stowage and launching device on the vessel are required to be submitted for approval to the Commandant through the Commander of the Coast Guard District prior to the actual installation. Life raft skids should comply with the requirements of this specification in order to be acceptable for use in such installations.
( b ) Correspondence pertaining to the subject matter of this specification should be addressed to the Commander of the Coast Guard District in which the skids are to be installed.
§ 97.16 What fiscal, matching and administrative requirements apply to grantees? ( a ) An insular area receiving a consolidated grant must comply with the statutes and regulations applicable to the programs under which the funds are to be used, except as otherwise provided in this part.
( b ) In regard to programs included in a consolidated grant, an insular area need not comply with any of the statutory or regulatory provisions requiring recipients to match federal funds with their own or other funds.
( c ) A single report may be submitted in lieu of any individual reports that may be required under the programs included in a consolidated grant.