alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 17, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 05-60836

Summary Calendar

_______________________

HOLCIM (US), INC.,

Petitioner,

versus

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order 

of the Benefits Review Board

No. 2:07-168295

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Holcim (US), Inc. (“Holcim”) argues that the

Benefits Review Board (“Board”) erroneously denied its motion for

a stay of an award pending appeal. Holcim contends that, because

it does not have a legal remedy to recoup benefits paid in the

event the award is later overturned on appeal, see Lennon v.

Waterfront Transp., 20 F.3d 658, 661-62 (5th Cir. 1994), it will

suffer irreparable injury. Holcim’s contention is foreclosed by

Rivere v. Offshore Painting Contractors, 872 F.2d 1187 (5th Cir.
2

1989). “Irreparable injury is demonstrated only when the compensation award may be too heavy for the employer [or insurer] to pay

without practically taking all his property or rendering him

incapable of carrying on his business, or . . . by reason of age,

sickness, or other circumstances [of the payer], a condition is

created which would amount to irreparable injury.” Id. (citation

and quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “[t]hat payment of

compensation might pose a problem, or even cause serious difficulty

is not enough to support a stay. Neither is the fact that the

amount paid might be lost if the award is reversed on appeal.” Id.

Realizing that under the current caselaw, it cannot

prevail, Holcim asks this court to overturn Rivere, or

alternatively to overturn our precedent and allow recoupment of

benefits in the event the award is later overturned on appeal. We

find no merit in Holcim’s requests; accordingly, the decision of

the Board denying a stay pending appeal is AFFIRMED.
(Reap. Dec. 10817)

#### Patrick & Graves *v.*United States

Entry No. 6284-H.

(Decided August 31, 1964)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant

*401Rao, Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement listed above has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

> That the merchandise covered by the above named appeal for reappraisement consists of 5 Goggomobile sedans, 6 Goggomobile coupes and 4 Goggomobile sunroofs;

> That the involved merchandise was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after February 27, 1958 and is identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521) as automobiles and tires and tubes;

> That at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein there was no foreign, export or United States value as defined in Sections 402a (c), 402a(d) or 402a (e), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended;

> That at the time of exportation of the merchandise herein, the cost of production as defined in Section 402a (f), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, for the 5 Goggomobile sedans involved herein, is the unit invoice price of $525.00 each, plus .624%; the cost of production as defined by said Section 402a (f) for the 6 Goggomobile coupes involved herein is the unit price of $650.00 each, plus .624%, and the cost of production as defined by said Section 402a (f) fo rthe 4 Goggomo-bile sunroofs is the unit price of $535.00 each, plus .624%.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal to Reap-praisement enumerated above may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by this appeal for reappraisement and that such values are as follows:

> For the 5 Goggomobile sedans $525 each, plus .624%

> For the 6 Goggomobile coupes $650 each, plus .624%

> For the 4 Goggomobile sunroofs $535 each, plus .624%

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 31.2 

**CERTIFICATION**

I, James Stirbis, Chief Financial Officer of Local Insight Regatta Holdings, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Local Insight Regatta Holdings, Inc.; 

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

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

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

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely 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 the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 31, 2009
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order to Seal — 1

U.S. v. Dunigan/CR05-5823RBL

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 700

TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402

(253) 428-3800

Judge Ronald B. Leighton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) CR05-5823RBL

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER TO SEAL

)

THOMAS EVANS DUNIGAN, )

)

Defendant. ) )

Having read the government’s Motion for Downward Departure and Government’s

Sentencing Memorandum pursuant to USSG § 5K1.1 in the above-captioned case, which

were filed under seal, and the government’s Motion to Seal, requesting that the motions

remain under seal,

It is hereby ORDERED that the government’s Motion for Downward Departure 

and Government’s Sentencing Memorandum pursuant to USSG § 5K1.1 in this matter

remain sealed.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of June 2007. ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Digitally Signed upon oral authorization (JAB) Proposed by:

s/ Kent Y. Liu 

KENT Y. LIU

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 253 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 1
State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

NOTICE OF POSTPONEMENT

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE INCORPORATION OF

FEDERAL EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS FOR 2008 AND LATER

MODEL-YEAR HEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE ENGINES AND THE ADOPTION OF

MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE LOW-EMISSION VEHICLE REGULATIONS

By Notice dated September 17, 2002, and published in the September 27, 2002,

California Notice Register, Register 2002, No. 39-Z, the Air Resources Board

(the Board or ARB) announced it would conduct a public hearing to consider

incorporation of federal exhaust emission standards for 2008 and later modelyear heavy-duty gasoline engines and minor administrative amendments to the

exhaust emission regulations for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and

engines. The hearing was scheduled for November 14, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., at the

California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, 1001 “I”

Street, Auditorium, Second Floor, Sacramento, California.

PLEASE BE ADVISED that the hearing has been postponed to the following

date, time and place:

DATE: December 12, 2002

TIME: 9:00 a.m.

PLACE: California Environmental Protection Agency

Central Valley Auditorium, 2nd Floor

1001 “I” Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

This item will be considered at a two-day meeting of the Board, which will

commence at 9:00 a.m., December 12, 2002, and may continue at 8:30 a.m.,

December 13, 2002. This item may not be considered until December 13, 2002.

Please consult the agenda for the meeting, which will be available at least 10

days before December 12, 2002, to determine the day on which this item will be

considered.

This facility is accessible to persons with disabilities. If accommodation is

needed, please contact the ARB’s Clerk of the Board by November 27, 2002, at

(916) 322-5594, or Telephone Device for the Deaf (TDD) (916) 324-9531 or

(800) 700-8326 for TDD calls from outside the Sacramento area, to ensure

accommodation.

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Michael P. Kenny

Executive Officer

Date:
SERVED: JULY 15, 2013 

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF BEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0050 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

These proceedings arose from a Complaint: filed by Complainant Federal Aviation 

Administration ("Complainant") served April23, ~013. Respondent Southwest Airlines, Inc. 

("Respondent") had earlier filed a Request for Hea,ring. Respondent filed an Answer to the 

Complaint which was served on May 23, 2013. : 

Respondent on July 12, 2013 filed a writte* request to withdraw its Request for Hearing 

and its Answer. i 

i 

I 

14 C.P.R.§ 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney 

may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw 1a request for a hearing without the consent of 

the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws 

the request for a hearing and the answer, the admirtistrative law judge shall dismiss the 

proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." 

Wherefore, the within filed withdrawal of Request for Hearing and Answer having been 

read and considered, it is ordered as follows: 
; 

1. Respondent's Request for Hearing pe and is hereby dismissed; and ! 

2. These proceedings be and are here~y dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment(s)- Service List 

i 

I 

' 

t·Ldc~/h Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 
i 

SERVIC~ LIST I 

ORIGINAL & :ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 I 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Dane B. Jaques, Respondent's Counsel 

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 

1676 International Drive, PH 

McLean, VA 221 02 

TEL: 703-336-8800 

FAX: 703-336-8750 

ONE COPY 

EMAIL: djaques@mckennalong.com 

Jeffrey Novata, Respondent's Counsel 

Attorney, Southwest Airlines Co. 

Love Field 

P.O. Box 36611 

Dallas, TX 75235-1611 

TEL: 214-792-4263 

Yolanda Ayala Bernal, Complainant's Counsel 

Senior Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel I 

Safety Enforcement Branch, Southwest Region, ASW-7E2 

Federal Aviation Administration · 

2601 Meacham Boulevard, Room 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5070 

FAX: 817-222-5945 or 5092 

EMAIL: Y olanda.A.Bernal@faa.gov 

FDMS No. F AA-20 13-0050 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

I Service was by u.s. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington,· 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14
                                AMENDMENT No. 10

                                       to

                       AMETEK RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN

         WHEREAS, there was adopted and made effective as of October 1, 1984,
the AMETEK Retirement and Savings Plan (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated in its entirety, effective
January 1, 1997; and

         WHEREAS, Section 10.1 of the Plan provides that AMETEK, Inc. ("AMETEK")
may amend the Plan at any time, and from time to time; and

         WHEREAS, AMETEK now desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         FIRST: A new Appendix VI is hereby added to the Plan, to read in its
entirety as follows:

                                   APPENDIX VI

                     SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN
                 EMPLOYEES TRANSFERRING TO THE NATIONAL CONTROLS
                      CORPORATION DIVISION OF AMETEK, INC.

                  1. The provisions of this Appendix VI shall apply only to the
         following employees of the National Controls Corporation Division of
         AMETEK, Inc. ("NCC"), Roger Piegza, Shawn Cabin, Arlin Demerer, William
         Gladfelter, Richard Grudzien, Dorothy Jones, Frank Kay, Insoon Kim,
         Stephan Kunca, Charles Laufer, Thomas Ryan, Charles Sheridan, John
         Thacker and Ervin Whitfield, who directly transferred their employment
         from the Panalarm Division of AMETEK, Inc. ("Panalarm") to NCC upon the
         dissolution of Panalarm by the Company.

                  2. Roger Piegza shall remain eligible to participate in the
         Plan upon his transfer to NCC.

                  3. Shawn Cabin, Arlin Demerer, William Gladfelter, Richard
         Grudzien, Dorothy Jones, Frank Kay, Insoon Kim, Stephan Kunca, Charles
         Laufer, Thomas Ryan, Charles Sheridan, John Thacker and Ervin Whitfield


<PAGE>   2

         shall remain eligible to participate in 401(k) feature of the Plan upon
         their transfer to NCC.

                  4. Except to the extent set forth above, defined terms used in
         this Appendix VI shall have the same meaning as used in the Plan.

                  SECOND: The provisions of this Amendment No. 10 shall be
         effective as of August 13, 1999.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, AMETEK has caused these presents to be
         executed, in its corporate name, by its duly authorized officer on this
         7th day of September, 1999.


                                         AMETEK, Inc.

                                         By: /s/ Donna F. Winquist
                                             -----------------------------

Attest:


/s/ Kathryn E. Londra
-----------------------
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER FOR SERVICE AND RETURN, 2254 PETITION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

NARCRISSUS SWANIGAN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF UTTECH,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5120FDB

 ORDER DIRECTING

SERVICE AND RETURN,

§ 2254 PETITION

The petitioner in this action is seeking federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. This case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.

§§ 636 (b) (1) (A) and 636 (b) (1) (B) and Local Magistrates’ Rules MJR 3 and MJR 4.

(1). The clerk shall arrange for service by certified mail upon respondent, a copy of the

petition, of all documents in support thereof, and of this Order. All costs of service shall be

advanced by the United States. The Clerk shall assemble the necessary documents to effect service. 

The Clerk shall send petitioner’s counsel a copy of this Order, the General Order. The clerk will

also send a courtesy copy of the petition to the Washington State Attorney General’s Office Criminal

Justice Division. 

(2) Within forty-five (45) days after such service, respondent shall file and serve an

 answer in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District

Case 3:06-cv-05120-FDB Document 7 Filed 06/01/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER FOR SERVICE AND RETURN, 2254 PETITION - 2

Courts. As part of such answer, respondents should state whether petitioner has exhausted available

state remedies, whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, and whether there is any issue of abuse

of delay under Rule 9. Respondent shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without

first showing cause as to why an answer is inadequate. Respondent shall file the answer with the

Clerk of Court and serve a copy of the answer upon petitioner.

(3) The answer will be treated in accordance with Local Rule CR 7. Accordingly, upon

 receipt of the Answer the Clerk will note the matter for consideration on the fourth Friday after the

answer is filed, petitioner, through counsel, may file and serve a response not later than on the

Monday immediately preceding the Friday appointed for consideration of the matter, and respondent

may file and serve a reply brief not later than on the Thursday immediately preceding the Friday

designated for consideration of the matter.

DATED this 31day of May, 2006. 

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05120-FDB Document 7 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.2









Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Management of Protective Life Insurance Company and The Bank of New York, as Indenture Trustee of Protective
Life Secured Trust 2005-15, (collectively the "Management")
and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee of Protective Life Secured Trust 2005-15 (the "Trust"):

We have examined Management's assertion, included in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)," that the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to the noteholders has occurred as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee during the year ended December 31, 2005.  Management is responsible for the assertion.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting management's assertion and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, Management's assertion referred to above is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria defined in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)."



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, AlabamaMarch 31, 2006











Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust
Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)





Management of the Trust asserts that it has collected payments on the funding agreements and distributed payments to the noteholders as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee for the year ended December 31, 2005.  This assertion is based on the following criteria:

1. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2005, are included in Protective Life's Secured Trusts P & I Payments: 1/1/05 through 12/31/05 (P & I Payments report).
2. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2005, are included in the Indenture Trustee's History of Transactions List.
3. The amounts due on the Notes are reported as a component of the charges from Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company, on the Indenture Trustee's Payment Obligation Report System (PORS Report).
4. Charges from Cede & Co. are included in the Indenture Trustee's screen prints titled The Depository Trust Company Activity History Details, which represent the charge confirmations to Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company.
No. 69308.

#### Unicord, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/21895 (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of chord organs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Excelsior Accordions, Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 148, C.D. 2328), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DANIEL BLANCHARD, by his parents,

CHERYL BLANCHARD and JERRY

BLANCHARD; CHERYL BLANCHARD and

JERRY BLANCHARD,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MORTON SCHOOL DISTRICT; JOHN

FLAHERTY; JOSH BROOKS; DAVE

CRAYK,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5166 FDB

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

Plaintiff Cheryl Blanchard has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis in the aboveentitled matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff asserts her total monthly income is

$1,700, which is derived from her husband’s employment. Plaintiff asserts her total monthly

expenses are $1,643. The assets of the other named plaintiffs have not been disclosed, nor have they

joined in this application. In a related proceeding, Blanchard v. Morton School Dist., Slip Copy,

2006 WL 1075222 (W.D.Wash., 2006), this Court denied Cheryl Blanchard’s request to proceed in

forma pauperis.

Given Plaintiff’s financial status, an inability to pay the expenses required to proceed with this

Case 3:06-cv-05166-JKA Document 34 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

action has not been established.

ACCORDINGLY,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

Plaintiff Cheryl Blanchard’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. #27] is DENIED.

DATED this 16th day of August, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05166-JKA Document 34 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2