alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

ROBBINS MOTOR TRANSPORTATION, INC. : 

P.O. Box 38 : 

Essington, PA 19029 : 

 Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION 

 : 

 v. : 

 : NO.: 02-CV-4446 

TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO. : 

T/A TRISM D/B/A TRISM SPECIAL : 

SERVICES, INC. : 

 Defendant : 

STATUS REPORT

 Defendant, Tri State Motor Transit Company filed a Voluntary Petition under Chapter 

11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Missouri on December 18, 2001. 

 Pursuant to §362 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, all proceedings against 

defendant, Tri State Motor Transit Company, are automatically stayed. 

 As defendant is still protected by the automatic stay, we cannot proceed any further in 

the matter before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

at this time. 

 Plaintiff’s attorney contacted Defendant’s counsel, Mark G. Stingley, Esquire 

regarding the status of the bankruptcy proceeding and confirmed that status has not 

changed. 

 __________________________ 

 JOHN F. PEOPLES, ESQUIRE 

 Identification #19361 

 2701 West Chester Pike, Suite 104 

 Broomall, PA 19008 

 (610) 356-2711 

Date: 

Case 2:02-cv-04446-JD Document 9 Filed 09/07/2004 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBBINS MOTOR TRANSPORTATION, INC. : 

P.O. Box 38 : 

Essington, PA 19029 : 

 : 

 Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION 

 v. : 

 : NO.: 02-CV-4446 

TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO. : 

T/A TRISM D/B/A TRISM SPECIAL : 

SERVICES, INC. : 

 Defendant : 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, JOHN F. PEOPLES, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Status Report 

has been served upon counsel for Defendant, Tri-State Motor Transit Co. t/a Trism d/b/a 

Trism Special Services, Inc. and The Honorable Jan E. DuBois whose address appears 

below, on September 1, 2004 by first class mail, postage prepaid. 

 Mark G. Stingley, Esquire 

 Bryan Cave, L.L.P. 

 3500 One Kansas City Place 

 1200 Main Street 

 Kansas City, MO 64105-2100 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 The Honorable Jan E. Dubois 

 United States District Court 

 Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

 United States Courthouse 

 Independence Mall West 

 601 Market Street 

 Chambers, Room 12613 

 Philadelphia, PA 19106 

 __________________________ 

 JOHN F. PEOPLES, ESQUIRE 

Date: Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case 2:02-cv-04446-JD Document 9 Filed 09/07/2004 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RONALD E. and LESLIE A. :

CHAMBERS, as GUARDIANS of : CIVIL ACTION

FERREN CHAMBERS an incapacitated :

person and RONALD E. and LESLIE : 

A. CHAMBERS, in their own right, : 

 :

Plaintiffs, :

v. :

 :

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF : No. 05-2535

PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF :

EDUCATION, :

Defendant. : 

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 10 day of August, 2012, following the Court’s October 24, 2011 th

Memorandum and Order (Doc. No.131-132), and upon consideration of the Chambers Plaintiffs’

Motion to Supplement/Reconsider (Doc. No. 141) and other various post-summary judgment

filings (Doc. No. 136, 137, 139, 145, 146, 147, 149), as well as the School District’s responses

thereto (Doc. Nos. 144, 148), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Affidavit of Mr. Ronald Chambers and all supporting exhibits not part of the

summary judgment record as of October 24, 2011 (Doc. Nos. 136, 146, 147) are

STRICKEN from the record. 

2. The Motion to Supplement/Reconsider filed by the Chambers Plaintiffs (Docket

No. 141) is DENIED. 

1

Case 2:05-cv-02535-GP Document 151 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 2
3. The Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor of the Defendant School

District of Philadelphia Board of Education, and against the Chambers

Plaintiffs.

4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.

 

BY THE COURT:

 

 /s/ Gene E.K. Pratter 

GENE E.K. PRATTER

United States District Judge

2

Case 2:05-cv-02535-GP Document 151 Filed 08/13/12 Page 2 of 2
No. 52934.

#### British American Importation Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 130095-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. The protest- was overruled in all other respects.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF ANCHOR GLASS CONTAINER INCLUDED IN FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             866
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,475
<ALLOWANCES>                                       961
<INVENTORY>                                    112,805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               212,582
<PP&E>                                         462,169
<DEPRECIATION>                                 154,025
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 608,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,709
<BONDS>                                        209,336
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           73,606
<PREFERRED>                                         34
<COMMON>                                           216
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,611
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   608,258
<SALES>                                        328,983
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               328,983
<CGS>                                          302,852
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  302,852
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,450
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,450
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,450
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.86)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LENA ONEAL, : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : NO. 05-4242

:

GREENBLATT & LIBERMAN, et al., :

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with federal rules concerning pleadings and

is very difficult to read. Moreover, it does not appear that venue would lie in this court in any

case. Most importantly, in its present state, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state

any recognizable cause of action over which this court would have jurisdiction.

An order follows:

AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 2005, it is hereby ORDERED that the

motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, but the Complaint is DISMISSED.

This case is CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

 

 RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.

Case 2:05-cv-04242-RB Document 2 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Maureen D. Howley, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Managing Owner, Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing
Owner), of World Monitor Trust  Series A (Series A), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Series As Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 24, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly
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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Series A.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Maureen D. Howley                            
|Maureen D. Howley                                
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|August 8, 2005
From: "Littaua, Renee@ARB" <rlittaua@arb.ca.gov>

To: Jeffrey Buss/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Fletcher, Bob@ARB" <rfletche@arb.ca.gov>, "Simeroth, Dean@ARB" <dsimerot@arb.ca.gov>, "Cayabyab, Adrian @ <acayabya@arb.ca.gov>

Date: 10/20/2009 02:13 PM Subject: FW: CaRFG 3 and the AERP

Hi Jeffrey – No refineries have submitted an AERP, we expect that all refinerie s will be complying with the RFG3 amendments in 2010. We do not have a report on that – look for update next spring. Kinder Morgan has set a pipeline spec for RFG3 for Jan 2010 such that all RFG3 entering the Kinder Morgan pipeline will be capable of accepting 10% ethanol. So between the Kinder Morgan spec, and the federal RFS2 blending requirements, and the RFG3 amendment s, we expect almost all gasoline in California (pipeline or not) to be capable of accepting 10% et hanol. (It is possible to make an E0, E10, or anywhere in between blend that complies with the new RFG3 amendments, it is possible to put a <E10 blend in a proprietary pipeline, and I am wary of absolutes, but for planning purposes would assume E10.)

Hope that helps. Call if you have questions.

Renee Littaua, P.E. Manager, Fuels Section

California Air Resources Board (916) 322-6019



### mailto:rlittaua@arb.ca.gov

From: Vergara, Floyd@ARB

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:17 PM

To: Littaua, Renee@ARB Subject: FW: CaRFG 3 and the AERP



### Renee,

Do you know anything about this ? Should this go to Brisby?

Floyd

From: Jenne, Bob@ARB

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:49 PM

To: Simeroth, Dean@ARB; Vergara, Floyd@ARB

Cc: Nagy, Claudia@ARB Subject: RE: CaRFG 3 and the AERP

Dean and Floyd: Could you please forward the email below to the appropriate staff person to respond to this person from US EPA Region IX? Thanks.

From: Buss.Jeffrey@epamail.epa.gov [mailt o:Buss.Jeffrey@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 10:02 AM

To: Jenne, Bob@ARB Subject: CaRFG 3 and the AERPGood morning Mr. Jenne,

Last April several of my colleagues and I met with you, Tom Jennings and ARB staff about the California fuels programs . I wanted to follow up with a comment that was made during that discussion. As I understand it, all gasoline entering California pipelines will be capable of accepting 10% ethanol and meeting the CaRFG 3 standard by 2010. However, a refinery could submit an alternative emissions reduction plan (AERP), which would postpone compliance until 2012. From out conversation last April, I recall hearing that refineries had just a few months to submit such an AERP and that none were expected to do so. Further, CARB and CEC would be reporting CaRFG 3 compliance to their Board later this year. My question is whether any refine ry in fact submitted an AERP and whether there is now a report or other document to confirm this.

If you have any questions about this message or need more information, please reply by e-mail to this message or call the number listed below.

Best,

Jeffrey Buss U.S. EPA Region 9

415-947-4152
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 18 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 1 of 6

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 18

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 18 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 18 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 18 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 18 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 18 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on
Form S-8 (No.  333-87973)  and Form S-3 (No.  333-82128),  of our  report  dated
February 7, 2002 on our audit of the financial  statements  included in the 2001
annual report on Form 10-KSB of I.D. Systems, Inc.

We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption experts in the
Form S-3.


/s/ Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP

New York, New York
March 25, 2002
CERTIFICATIONS
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

         I, Linda Perry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of RTG Ventures, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

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

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer 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)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

         Date: January 13, 2005                /s/ Linda Perry
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Linda Perry
                                               Principal Executive Officer
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

IN RE: IMMODIUM ADVANCED

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

CIVIL ACTION Nos. 

02-4105

02-4149

02-4180

02-4197

02-4362

02-4386

02-4387

02-4476

02-4530

02-6797

02-6993

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2003, upon consideration of the attached request

dated June 25, 2003, it is hereby ORDERED that the eleven cases listed above shall be 

consolidated with Civil Action Number 02-4093 and every pleading filed in the consolidated

Immodium Advanced Class Action shall bear the following caption: “In Re: Immodium Advanced

Antitrust Litigation.

BY THE COURT:

 

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04387-MK Document 10 Filed 06/26/2003 Page 1 of 1
Part 2 Fiscal Year 2023 Reporting

SUPPLEMENT Section III

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Account Transaction Categories

TRANSACTION

CODE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION

Bulletin No. 2022-12 III AC - 1 June 2022

A. Funding

100 - 399 Budgetary Resources Other Than Collections

400 - 699 Authority Transfers

700 - 799 Reimbursables and Other Income

B. Disbursements and Payables

100 - 299 Payments/Purchases

300 - 399 Commitments/Undelivered Orders/Expended Authority - Unpaid

400 - 599 Payables/Accrued Liabilities

600 - 699 Advances and Prepayments

C. Collections and Receivables

100 - 399 Receipts

400 - 599 Receivables/Accrued Revenue

600 - 799 Asset Sale and Disposition (Gains and Losses)

D. Adjustments/Write-offs/Reclassification

100 - 299 Upward and Downward Adjustments

300 - 399 Prior-Period Adjustments

400 - 499 Write-offs

500 - 799 Reclassification/Revaluation

E. Accruals/Nonbudgetary Transfers Other Than Disbursements and Collections

100 - 399 Accrual, Depreciation, Amortization, and Depletion

400 - 499 Accumulated and Allocated Costs Not in Categories Above

500 - 799 Transfers Without Budgetary Impact

F. Yearend

100 - 299 Preclosing Entries

300 - 499 Closing Entries

G. Memorandum Entries

100 - 299 All Memorandum Entries (Excluding Closing Memorandum Entries)

H. Other Specialized Transaction Entries

100 - 799 Other
#### Mayer & Ullman *vs.*Coley.

1. Where the facts are ripe for suit as toa part of the cause of action but not as to the whole, an injunction may be granted to prevent multiplicity of suits, though the defendants in the bill are solvent.

*2082. Such a case is presented where a course of dealing has been had by the defendants in the bill with a husband who promised to pay the wife’s money for goods purchased by him, but has paid only a part, and mortgaged or pledged her assets for the balance.

3. Though there be other necessary parties to the bill, they may be made by amendment after injunction granted.

March 3, 1888.

Injunction. Husband and wife. Debtor and creditor. Parties. Amendment. Before Judge Bower. Dougherty county. At chambers, November 9,1887.

Reported in the decision.

D. IT. Pope, for plaintiffs in error.

Walters *&*Arnheim, *contra.*

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

1-2. The court, on the application of Mrs. Coley, granted an injunction against Mayer & Ullman as to the enforcement of a certain mortgage deed which they held from her husband, and appointed them as receivers in their own case as to a certain other mortgage deed which he had assigned to them as collateral security. The hearing was had upon her bill alone. They answered, but did not ask that the answer be considered. Coley, the husband, being in trade, applied to them to purchase goods, and promised to pay for them out of her money when it should come into her hands. They sold goods on this agreement, and continued to sell for some time, and he paid to them the larger part of the money which he received from her guardian. Some of this money, however, he used in purchasing a house and lot, which he bought in his own name, giving his notes therefor as to all the price not paid with her money, and taking a bond for titles to himself; and this lot he mortgaged to them. He also lent some of her money to another person, and took a mortgage upon cer*209tain lots to secure the payment of that money. This mortgage and the note which it secured, he assigned to them as collateral security. The case made by the bill, as all these things were done with notice to Mayer & Ullman, is one in which Mrs. Ooley might sue them and' recover so much of her money as they have already received; and were this the sole case, there would be an ample remedy at common law, there being no allegation of their insolvency, and this bill could not be maintained. But the bare legal remedy would not adjust all the matters in controversy between the parties; it would leave outstanding and unsettled both of the mortgages. It is, therefore, a case where the facts are ripe for suit as to a part of the cause of action, but not as to the whole; and to prevent multiplicity of suits, the injunction could be properly granted.

3. The only parties defendant to the bill are Mayer *&*Ullman. No doubt Mr. Ooley is a necessary party; and both the maker of the bond for titles and the mortgagor, whose loan was secured by mortgage, are proper, if not necessary, parties to the bill; but all these can be added by amendment, and doubtless will be before the hearing of the case for final decree.

Judgment affirmed.
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

Fiscal Year 2015 Reporting

Section V

Bulletin No. 2015-XX Draft V SF 133 - 1 IRC Handout August 6, 2015 

Line

No.

USSGL

Acct. USSGL Account Title Begin/

End

Debit/

Credit

Reimb 

Flag

Apport 

Cat

Auth 

Type 

Code

Avail 

Time

BEA 

Cat

Borrow 

Source

Fed/ 

Non 

Fed

Year 

of BA

PY Adj Reduction 

Type

TAS 

Status

Trans. 

Code

Fund Type Financing 

Account 

Code

Debit Credit Addl. 

Info.

1080

1080 438300 Temporary Reduction - Prior-Year Balances E D/C S D/M P OTR/SEQ E K/N EP/ER N + -

1080 438300 Temporary Reduction - Prior-Year Balances E D/C D/M P OTR/SEQ E K/N ES/ET N + -

1080 438300 Temporary Reduction - Prior-Year Balances E D/C P D/M P OTR/SEQ E K/N ES/ET N + -

1080 438300 Temporary Reduction - Prior-Year Balances E D/C S M P OTR/SEQ E K/N EG/TR N + -

1080 438300 Temporary Reduction - Prior-Year Balances E D/C P D P SEQ E K/N EP/ER N + -

1203

1203 415700 Authority Made Available From Receipt or Appropriation 

Balances Previously Precluded From Obligation

E D/C P X U X/K/N EG/ES/ET N + - 2

1234

1234 439700 Receipts and Appropriations Temporarily Precluded From 

Obligation

E D/C P M X U X/K/N EG/ES/ET N + - 1

1234 439700 Receipts and Appropriations Temporarily Precluded From 

Obligation

B D/C P M X U X/K/N EG/ES/ET N - + 1

Adjustment of expired unobligated balance brought forward, 

Oct 1 (+ or -)

USSGL Crosswalk - SF 133: Report on Budget Execution and 

Appropriation (previously unavailable)

Appropriations precluded from obligation (-)
Before the First Division,

March 18, 1954

No. 57919.

protest 189143-K (New York).

#### G. Fox & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of children’s knit wool outerwear, wholly or in chief value of wool, valued at over $5 per pound, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.