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

13-18-00275-CV

Law Office of Thomas J. Henry

v.

Priscilla Ann Garcia

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No 3 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2017CCV-60770-3

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the order of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the order of the trial court REVERSED 

and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the 

appeal are adjudged against appellee, Priscilla Ann Garcia. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 21, 2019
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                       TO
                                   VANS, INC.
                         2000 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

        The purpose of this Amendment is to increase the maximum number of
shares of the Company's Common Stock, par value $.001 per share ("Common
Stock"), that may be issued upon the exercise of options or pursuant to
restricted stock awards granted under the Plan. Section 8.1 of the Plan is
hereby amended to change the number in the fourth line thereof to "One Million
Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand (1,750,000)."

        Except as provided herein, the Plan shall be unmodified and remain in
full force and effect.

Date:   June 29, 2001
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 71342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22824]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, October 18, 2023--10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Decisional Matter: Safety Standard Addressing 
Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws.
    A live webcast of the meeting can be viewed at the following link: 
https://cpsc.webex.com/weblink/register/r88f341de3262d93f0deb0453a6e10f43.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Alberta E. Mills, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 
(Cell).

    Dated: October 11, 2023.
Alberta E. Mills,
Commission Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22824 Filed 10-12-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
Before the Third Division,

October 6, 1955

No. 59328.

protest 249097-K (New York).

#### W. R. Grace & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to th'e collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10671 Su m m ar y Cal endar
ANTONI O FUERT E, J R Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. RI SS IOW EN S; H OW ARD A THRASH ER, SR; ELVI S HI GH TO W E R ; JU A N I TA G O N ZAL EZ D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- C V

- 695
B ef ore R E AV L E Y , W IE N E R , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * A n to n io F u e r te , J r ., T e x a s in m a te #0 1 3 4 1 7 0 2 , a p p e a ls th e d is m is s a l o f h is p r o s e , i n f

o r m ap a u p e r i s , civ i lr i g h t s c o m p l a i n tf i l e dp u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S
. C. § 198 3 aga i n st i n divi du alm em bers of t h e T exas B oard of

P ardon s and P arol es (th e B oa rd). T h e d i stri ct cou rt dism i sse dF u erte’ s com p l a i n t f or fail u re to state a c l ai m f

o rw hi c h r e l i e f

c an be g r ant e d. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 24, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10671

2 F u ert e’ s argu m en t t h at he i s entit l ed to i nj u n ct ive an d d ecl arator y rel i ef on cl ai m s s u rroun di n g t h e B oard’ s ru l i n g t h at h e w as n otenti t l ed to m an da t ory s u p e rv is io n re le a s e fa ils to s ta te ad u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n . S ee G reen h ol tz v. Inm ate s of

Nebraska Pena lan dCorr. Complex , 4 4 2 U .S . 1 , 1 5 -1 6 (1 9 7 9 ); B os s v. Q uar t e r m an , 5 5 2 F .3 d4 2 5 , 4 2 8 -2 9 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Cole m an v. D r e t ke , 395 F. 3d 2 1 6 , 2 2 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A c c o r d i n g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d idn o t e r rw h e n it d is m is s e dh is co m p la in t fo r fa ilu r e to s ta te acla im
. S ee Cornis h v. Corr. S ervs . Cor p. , 4 0 2 F .3d 5 4 5 , 5 4 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). AF F I RMED.
No. 59839.

#### Cleveland Worsted Mills Co. *v.*United States,

protests 149664-K and 157108-K (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159, which was issued following *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492). In that ease, it was held that the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content Under T. D. 53159” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
TELEPHONE CONTACT SUMMARY

Clay Ceramics

FROM : Gabrielle Raymond

RTI International

DATE OF CONTACT: July 2, 2009

ORGANIZATION CONTACTED: Stonepeak Ceramics, Inc.

238 Porcelain Tile Drive Crossville, TN 38555

PERSON CONTACTED:

William Smith

931

- 4 59

- 2509 office

931

- 510

- 2083 cell

PURPOSE OF CONTACT: For information on the kilns tested during the 10/12/05 stack test report.

SUMMARY OF CONTACT: Mr. Smith stated that he was not working at the facility when the 10/12/2005 testing took place , and that everyone who did work there at the time does not now. He indicated that there is physical evidence on Kiln 1 and Kiln 2 that show that they have been tested in the past, but he isn’t sure which one or if both were tested on 10/12/2005. After looking at the production rate for the test he determined that most likely only one kiln was being tested at the time. When asked to denote a kiln for the test he choose

Kiln 1. Mr. Smith also clarified that each kiln (Kiln 1, Kiln 2, and Kiln 3) have their own

b aghouse and bypass system. He stated that the three baghouses all duct to two emission stacks, but because of the bypass system, emissions from the kilns can be routed to either stacks. He said that they normally only operate two kilns at a time.

Mr. Smi th also asked that all production data be treated as Confidential Business Information (CBI).
J2 Marketing, LLC 

4609 Grape Road 

Mishawaka, IN 46545 

Phone: 574-292-0503 

Email: Info@GoJ2.com 

July 20, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave.

SE Washington DC 20590 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

I received a letter from the FAA, dated July 13, 2015 regarding my request for 

exemption requiring further information. The following paragraphs are to meet the 

requirements of that letter for my May 19, 2015 exemption request for J2 Marketing, 

LLC for the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1706). The information is to meet the 

requirements of § 11.81 (d), as to how granting our request would benefit the public as a 

whole, as well as additional information and arguments that support our request. 

We believe that the granting of our request for exemption would be in the public interest 

because we have already had requests from various not-for-profit and public organizations, 

specifically the City of South Bend, Indiana, which is the largest city in our area, to form a kind 

of partnership for aerial videography. We have also already formed a relationship with the St. 

Joseph County Health Department to work with their Drinking Water Protection Plan to inform 

county residents of the unsafe drinking wanter in their area. The County and other organizations 

would greatly benefit from the addition of aerial videography to future projects like this one to get 

a better scope of the unsafe areas in question.

Many of these organizations, especially the City of South Bend and St. Joseph County, cannot 

afford to create a full commercial video, but have so many great services to share with our 

community. By the granting of our request, we would be able to partner with these organizations 

and City departments to fulfill a need of promotion and visibility by offering them videography 

services with specialized payment options from other community partners. With this process, we 

are able to provide these organizations with their video footage at a low or zero cost to them. 

We have this opportunity because of our immense involvement and care of our community, by 

which, we have formed these relationships and were therefore approached as a partner. The 

public as a whole would then benefit by learning about the great community that we live and be 

informed of important updates, information, and various services that they might not otherwise 

have known about, and we would save tax payer dollars by offering a lower cost service to the 

public entities.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RODOLFO VELAZQUEZ, 

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 NO. C06-5284RJB

ORDER TO TRANSPORT 

FEDERAL PRISONER 

__________________________________ )

The Court, having considered Petitioner’s Agreed Motion to Transport

Federal Prisoner, hereby enters the following order:

The United States Marshals Service shall immediately transport federal

prisoner Sergio Munoz-Munoz, BOP #32374-086, from the Federal Detention

Center in SeaTac, Washington, back to the Taft Correctional Institution in Taft,

California. 

Dated this 28th day of March, 2007.

ARobert J Bryan

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05284-RJB Document 25 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 1
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 PharmChem, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David
A. Lattanzio, Chief Financial 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 results of operations
of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 14, 2003/s/ David A. LattanzioDavid A. Lattanzio
Chief Executive Officer
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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CELERINO CARRASCO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5084RJB

ORDER TO PROVIDE PROOF

OF SERVICE OR SHOW CAUSE

 After careful review of the record, the court hereby ORDERS:

(1) In relevant part, FRCP 4(m) provides:

Time limit for service. If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a

defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or upon

its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to

that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the

plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an

appropriate period.

The complaint in this matter was submitted on or about January 30, 2006. Plaintiff submitted an

application to proceed in forma pauperis a few days later, on February 9, 2006. At that time he submitted

these pleadings, Plaintiff was in custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agency at

the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma. The record reflects that Plaintiff not been in custody of the

ICE since February 28, 2006, when he was deported to Mexico. Based on his release, Plaintiff filed an

updated application to proceed in forma pauperis as directed by the court, and the court granted the

Case 3:06-cv-05084-RJB Document 27 Filed 10/30/06 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

Page - 2

application on July 20, 2006. On the same date, Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint to the clerk of

the court. According to Rule 4(m) noted above, plaintiff is required to properly serve defendants with a

copy of the original complaint and amended complaint along with a summons and file the required proof of

service by not later than November 21, 2006. 

After reviewing the record, the court noted defendants have not filed an answer to Complaint. On

further review the court finds plaintiff has not filed proof of service of the original complaint or

summonses. Accordingly, it appears plaintiff may not have properly served the complaint in this matter.

Plaintiff shall file proof of service or show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for lack of

prosecution by not later than November 22, 2006

DATED this 30th day of October, 2006.

 /s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05084-RJB Document 27 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                         [PEDERSEN & HOUPT letterhead]




                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1


                            FORM OF LEGAL OPINION OF
                             PEDERSEN & HOUPT, P.C.


   
                                                    October 20, 1998
    


   
    




SpinCycle, Inc.
15990 North Greenway
Hayden Loop
Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

            You have requested our opinion regarding the discussion of the
material United States federal income tax considerations under the heading
"Federal Income Tax Consequences" in the Prospectus (the "Prospectus") which
will be included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the "Registration
Statement") filed by SpinCycle, Inc. (the "Issuer") on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"). The Prospectus relates to the offer,
made by the Issuer, to exchange an aggregate amount at maturity of up to
$144,990,000 of 12 3/4% Senior Discount Notes Due 2005 (the "New Notes") of the
Issuer, for a like principal amount of the issued and outstanding 12 3/4% Senior
Discount Notes Due 2005 (the "Old Notes") of the Issuers from the holders
thereof. This opinion is delivered in accordance with the requirements of Item
601(b)(8) of Regulation S-K under the Securities Act.

            We have reviewed the Prospectus and such other materials as we have
deemed necessary or appropriate as a basis for our opinion described herein, and
have considered the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended, Treasury regulations promulgated thereunder, pertinent judicial
authorities, interpretive rulings of the Internal
<PAGE>   2
[Pedersen & Houpt Logo]


Page 2


Revenue Service and such other authorities as we have considered relevant all as
in effect on the date hereof. It should be noted that statutes, regulations,
judicial decisions and administrative interpretations are subject to change at
any time and, in some circumstances, with retroactive effect. A change in the
authorities upon which our opinion is based could affect our conclusions.

         Based upon the foregoing, it is our opinion that the statements made
under the heading "Federal Income Tax Consequences" in the Prospectus, to the
extent that they constitute matters of law or legal conclusions, are correct in
all material respects.

   
         We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement. In giving this consent, we do not thereby admit that we
are within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of
the Securities Act or the rules and regulations of the Commission promulgated
thereunder.
    


                                   Sincerely,

                                   /s/ Pedersen & Houpt, P.C.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologyand ore deposits of the Creede district, Colorado**
 
Report | Plates: OneTwo
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:718
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000957796
 
July 26, 2018
No. 65238.

#### Radio Corporation of America, RCA Victor Division, et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/3781, etc. (New York).

*363Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of recording tapes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Electric & Musical Industries (US), Ltd.,*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. *87,*C.D. 2070), the claim of the plaintiffs 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 SEATTLE

VERITAS OPERATING CORPORATION, a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington

corporation,

Defendant.

________________________________________

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington

corporation,

Counterclaim Plaintiff,

v.

VERITAS OPERATING CORPORATION, a

Delaware corporation, and VERITAS

SOFTWARE CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation,

 Counterclaim Defendants.

 CASE NO. C06-0703-JCC

ORDER

 

 

 

This matter comes before the Court for review of the Special Master’s Report and

Recommendation on Veritas Operating Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment that Microsoft is

Not Entitled to Recover Damages on its Claim for Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,888,147 (Dkt.

No. 393). The Court has reviewed de novo the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation (“‘147

Case 2:06-cv-00703-JCC Document 427 Filed 03/11/08 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

Damages R&R”), the parties’ respective objections and responses thereto (Dkt. Nos. 406, 411), the

briefing and exhibits presented to the Special Master in the first instance, and all other relevant documents

in the case file. The Court has determined that oral argument is not necessary. 

The Court hereby APPROVES and ADOPTS the Special Master’s ‘147 Damages R&R in its

entirety. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Veritas’ Motion for Summary Judgment That

Microsoft is Not Entitled to Recover Damages on Its Claim for Infringement of U.S. Patent No.

5,588,147 (Dkt. No. 215).

SO ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2008.AJohn C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00703-JCC Document 427 Filed 03/11/08 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT A

LETTER DATED DECEMBER 20, 2006 TO

PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FROM

DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 117-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 117 Att. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
SENT VIA EMAIL

December 20, 2006

Robert J. Siegel

Merkle Siegel & Friedrichsen, P.C.

1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 940

Seattle, WA 98101

Re: Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., United States District Court, W.

Dist. Wa., Case No. CV06-0204JCC

Dear Bob:

We are in receipt of your motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 53) in

the above-referenced matter. In that motion, you rely on the testimony of

several third party witnesses which had not been previously disclosed. 

Namely, you submitted the declarations of Anthony Potts (Dkt. # 56), Bonnie

Gordon (Dkt. # 57), Emily Abbey (Dkt. # 58), Jamila Gordon (Dkt. # 59), Jay

Gordon (Dkt. # 60), Jonathan Gordon (Dkt. # 61), and Russell Flye (Dkt. # 62).

Your reliance on these seven (7) witnesses is improper and prejudicial to

Defendants.

In your Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 initial disclosures (Dkt. # 25), you disclosed only

Plaintiff James S. Gordon Jr. and Defendants as witnesses in this case. You

have not supplemented your initial disclosures. Accordingly, it is unreasonable

and unfair for you to advance new witnesses after the December 15, 2006

discovery cutoff. Defendants have incurred substantial prejudice as a result of

your failure to timely disclose these witnesses. 

We are hopeful that you will realize the improper nature of relying on witnesses

in support of your case-in-chief and will voluntarily agree to make the seven

new witnesses available for depositions prior to January 15, 2006. Should you

deny our request to depose these witnesses, please provide us the legal and

factual support for your contention not later than Friday, December 22 at noon.

As always, please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions

or comments.

Regards,

NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

Roger M. Townsend

505 Fifth Avenue South

Suite 610

Seattle, Washington

98104

phone 206.274.2800

fax 206.274.2801

www.newmanlaw.com

info@newmanlaw.com

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 117-2 Filed 03/15/2007 Page 2 of 2