alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CLD

- 212 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 21

- 1851

___________ IN RE: VICTOR B

. PERKINS , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Related to 1:19

- cv - 00491 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. July 1, 2021 Before: RESTREPO, MATEY, and SCIRICA , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : July 14, 2021 )

_

________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM Victor B. Perkins has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that we direct the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to “immediately adjudicate” a civil action that he filed in March 2019. For the following reasons, we will dismiss the petition as moot

.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 Perkins’ complaint alleg ed that he had been injured by the drug Prilosec

. (ECF 1.) The District Court sua sponte dismis sed the complaint on October 15, 2019. The order dismissed some claims with prejudice, dismissed others without prejudice, and gave Perkins leave to amend

. 1 (ECF 13 & 14.) Perkins filed an amended complaint. (ECF 25.) By order entered April 13, 2021, t he District Court dismissed the amended complaint as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) , concluding that further amendment would be futile

. (ECF 28 & 29.) On April 26, Perkins filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment as a Matter of Default.” ( ECF 30.) Shortly thereafter, he filed a notice of appeal ; that appeal is pending

. (ECF 33.) Perkins filed the mandamus petition in this Court on April 29, 2021. He asks that we order “the District of Delawa re to issue its decision upon his Civil Action Litigation which has been pending before that court for over 2 years ....” As described above, however, the District Court dismissed his complaint by order entered April 13, 2021. Accordingly, we will dismiss the mandamus petition as moot. 2 See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. , 77 F.3d 690, 698

- 99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome

1 Perkins appealed from this order, and we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Perkins v. Proctor & Gamble , C.A. No. 19

- 3512 (order entered June 8, 2020).

2 To the extent that Perkins asks us to direct the District Court to rule on his “Motion for Summary Judgment as a Matter of Default” (ECF 30), we conclude that mandamus relief is not warranted because it appears that his notice of appeal divested the District Court of jurisdiction over that motion

. See Venen v. Sweet , 758 F.2d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 1985)

.3 of a suit or prevent a court f rom being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”).
----

|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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      Registrant as of and for the periods presented in the    Report. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|              | /s/    | Lynda J.      Nahra                        |
|-------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|              |   | Lynda      J. Nahra                        |
|              |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|              |   |                                       |
|              | /s/    | Charles G.      Baltuskonis                |
|              |   | Charles      G. Baltuskonis                |
|              |   | Executive      Vice President and          |
|              |   | Chief      Financial Officer               |
| May      14, 2008 |   |                                       |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0476

IN THE MATTER OF: 

G.M., 

Respondent and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 25, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 18 2022

04/18/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0476
TTL
ALAMO eth Ne S

of TEXAS “"TM

August 23, 1999

Cynthia L. Johnson, Director

Cash Management Policy and Planning Division
Financial Management Service, Room 420

401 14th Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20227

Re: Proposed Amendment to TT&L Rate of Interest
Ms. Johnson:

This bank has historically maintained a TT&L balance account to help recover some of the costs
associated with collecting (employee time, processing, etc.) TT&L payments for the Treasury.
The 25 basis point spread to Fed Funds allowed us some relief from the burden of this task. Why
we are charged for providing this service for the Treasury in the first place has long been a
mystery to me. The amendment that Financial Management Services is proposing will take away
the only relief from these expenses that we have, the ability to make a small spread on the
account balance. I ask that Financial Management Services please re-think this amendment and
try to keep in mind who is providing services for whom.

Respectfully submitted,
James
Senior Vice President/

Chief Financial Officer

JEL/l

956/781-2471 FAX 956/702-6698 809 Main Street P.0.Box546 Alamo, Texas 78516
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TROY SLEMMER, and JACK W. :

KUHNS, SR., and JOSHUA W. :

KUHNS, : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiffs, :

 :

 v. : NO. 02-4349

:

MCCARTHY MASONRY & CONCRETE, :

INC., and JAMES MCCARTHY, and :

ALICE MCCARTHY, :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this ___ day of October, 2002, it is hereby

ORDERED that a pre-trial conference in the above-captioned matter

shall be held on November 5, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. in Room #17614,

United States Courthouse.

BY THE COURT:

________________________

JAMES T. GILES C.J.

copies by FAX on

to

Case 2:02-cv-04349-JG Document 7 Filed 10/07/2002 Page 1 of 1
November 23, 2015 

Dear Mr. Odom: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−3850). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) to process your petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the 

maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the 

aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 12/7/15. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
#35 TI¢l 058

t ¥ pT
(eh ca * im

‘added convenience of

MAIN BANK

wallcup windows
316 North State Street Litchfield National oaniQ\ 704 North State Street

Phone: 217-324-6161 Toll Free: 888-324-2265 (Bank) Fax: 217-324-3817 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 309, Litchfield, Illinois 62056-0309

September 28, 1999

Cynthia L. Johnson

Director

Cash Management Policy & Planning Division
Financial Management Service

Room 420

401 14th St. SW

Washington, D.C. 20227

RE: TT&L Depositaries
Dear Director Johnson:

In reference to the proposed change in the interest rate that is paid to
depositary banks, | believe it should remain the same if not be increased
by 25 basis points regarding the amount that is paid to the depositary
banks. This is a very thin margin for the amount of work that our bank
does for these treasury tax and loan accounts. | would also like to point
out that when we get an earnings credit, we only get about one-fourth
percent (1/4%) more on earnings from the Federal Reserve Bank.
Therefore, please leave the same basis points or increase it to 50 basis

CHARLOTTE A. LOWE, Assistant Vico-President (217) 324-5588

points.
Very truly yours,
"Z) fk NATIONAL BANK
fi Cc
BL Ffroues
a L. Fleming
President
FLF:mds
FRANK L. FLEMING, Chatman of the Board and President
VERNA F. PORTER, Vice-President and Cashier JOYCE L. BERGEN, Assistant Cashier and Orve-In Branch Manager
RONALD D. NORAIS, Vice-President BONNIE S, SMITH, Assistant Cashier —
MICHAEL F. FLEMING, Vice-President PAMELA M. HULL, Assistant Cashier +
SUSAN K. EBERLE, Vice-President ALBERTA L. FLEMING, Inornat Autor LNB AnyTime Access Fi
KEVIN A. NIEMANN, Vice-President and Farm Loan Officer EDWARD J. COLLINS, Appraisor
Before the Third Division,

May 3, 1962

No. 66741.

#### Air Express International Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/20705 (Tampa).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

An examination of the official papers showing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
# C_2016145EN.01003702.xml

| 25.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/37

---

Action brought on 24 January 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-5/16)

(2016/C 145/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to reclassify the applicant’s contract as that of a temporary agent or, in the alternative, compensation for the material damage suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Commission of 9 April 2015 on the reclassification of the applicant’s contract and — where required — the decision of 13 October 2015 (R/513/15) rejecting the complaint of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Commission of 9 April 2015 on the reclassification of the applicant’s contract and — where required — the decision of 13 October 2015 (R/513/15) rejecting the complaint of the applicant;

| — | In the alternative, order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the damage he suffered by the refusal of his reclassification request; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the damage he suffered by the refusal of his reclassification request;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOAN DUFFY HEALY

:

 vs. : Civil Action

: No. 2002-4329

BOROUGH OF EDDYSTONE

ROBERT T. BARRY

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2003, it having been reported that the issues

between the parties have been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule

41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court (effective January 1, 1970), it is

ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement

of counsel without costs, as to the above named parties.

ATTEST:

BY: or BY THE COURT:

 

Lenora Kashner Michael M. Baylson, J.

Deputy Clerk

cc: Chris M. Jamison, Esquire

Borough of Eddystone

Civ 12 (7/95)

41(b)pty.frm

O:\Kashner\Scheduling - Judge Baylson\Healy 41b Order.wpd

Case 2:02-cv-04329-MMB Document 3 Filed 02/25/2003 Page 1 of 2
BOROUGH OF EDDYSTONE 

1300 E. 12TH STREET 

EDDYSTONE, PA 19022 

 

CHRIS M. JAMISON 

12 S.MONROE ST 

POBX 2005 

MEDIA, PA 19063 

Case 2:02-cv-04329-MMB Document 3 Filed 02/25/2003 Page 2 of 2
# C_2016383EN.01000801.xml

| 17.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 2 September 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Ruslanas Kovalkovas

(Case C-477/16)

(2016/C 383/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Applicant:

Defendant: Ruslanas Kovalkovas

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the expressions ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) and ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, autonomous terms of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the expressions ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) and ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, autonomous terms of EU law?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: what are the criteria for determining whether an authority of the issuing Member Stateis is such a ‘judicial authority’ and whether the EAW issued by it is consequently such a ‘judicial decision’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: what are the criteria for determining whether an authority of the issuing Member Stateis is such a ‘judicial authority’ and whether the EAW issued by it is consequently such a ‘judicial decision’?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania covered by the term ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, and is the EAW issued by that authority consequently a ‘judicial decision’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania covered by the term ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, and is the EAW issued by that authority consequently a ‘judicial decision’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?

| 4. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: is the designation of an authority such as the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania as the issuing judicial authority in conformity with EU law? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: is the designation of an authority such as the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania as the issuing judicial authority in conformity with EU law?

---

(1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

1

---
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.50 N 76.81 W Meters AGL
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
      OF
      2002**





I,
      Daniel
      Vesco, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Texhoma
      Energy, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended September 30, 2005
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of Texhoma Energy, Inc.





By*:/s/
      Daniel Vesco*


Daniel
      Vesco


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Accounting Officer)




August
      21, 2007
# C_2016296EN.01002201.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lille (Regional Court, Lille) (France) lodged on 6 June 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Uber France SAS

(Case C-320/16)

(2016/C 296/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Lille

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Uber France SAS

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article L.3124-13 of the Code des transports, inserted by Law No 2014-1104 of 1 October 2014 on taxis and private hire vehicles, constitute a new technical regulation that is not implicit and that relates to one or more information society services, within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 (1), such that, pursuant to Article 8 of that directive, it had to be notified in advance to the European Commission, or does it fall within the scope of Directive 2006/123/EC (2) of 12 December 2006 on services, Article 2(d) of which excludes transport?

1

2

In the event that that question is answered in the affirmative, does a failure to satisfy the notification requirement laid down in Article 8 of the directive mean that Article L.3124-13 of the Code des transports is unenforceable against individuals?

---

(1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

1

(2)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36)

2

---
No. 52513.

protest 137146-K (New York).

#### Silverite Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cereal or baby dishes similar in all material respects to-those the subject of *Thorens, Inc.*v. *United States*(19 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 1069), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION I, Charles P. Huffman, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of EnergySouth, Inc. (the Registrant); 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
report; 4. The Registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such
evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal
control over financial reporting; 5. The Registrants other certifying officers 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 the Registrants board of directors: (a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control 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s internal control over financial reporting. Date:  May 9, 2005
    /s/  Charles P. HuffmanCharles P. HuffmanSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer