alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 55232.

#### Leonard Freedman & Sons et al. *v.*United States,

protests 133619-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
1. The court does not wish to be arbitrary, but the early conference is often useful. If more time

for discovery is needed, it will be provided at the conference.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

DR. MARTIN I. FRY, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP, et al.,

 Defendants.

 

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2780

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2002, upon consideration of the attached request

dated July 25, it is hereby ORDERED that the said request is DENIED with leave to renew at the

pretrial conference on July 31, 2002, at 9:00 a.m.1

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

MARVIN KATZ, J.

Case 2:02-cv-02780-MK Document 3 Filed 07/26/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 66797.

#### Trans-Atlantic Company *v.*United States,

protests 59/25802, etc. (Philadelphia).

*465Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that tbe merchandise consists of brackets for door closers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Trans Atlantic Company*v. *United States*(48 C.C.P.A. 30, C.A.D. 758), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 50400.

#### Protests 113043-K, etc., of Danish Consulate General—Greenland Section et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Abdul AZIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Albert A. ROSA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-1352.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 25, 2001.

Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Abdul Aziz appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to remand the underlying case to state court. Because the district court dismissed this case in December of 1999 and plaintiff failed to appeal from that order, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff filed a complaint in tort against defendant Rosa in federal district court. After initial service on defendant was quashed as insufficient under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e), plaintiff failed to effect service within the 120-day time period set out in Fed. R.Civ.P. 4(m). The district court issued an order allowing plaintiff an opportunity to demonstrate good cause for the failure to effect service, to which he did not respond. On December 22, 1999, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. On January 28, 2000, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court.1 However, he did not appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his case. The district court denied the motion to remand as moot in an order dated August 15, 2000. It is from this order that plaintiff now seeks to appeal.

*743On appeal, plaintiff continues to argue the merits of his underlying claims, and appears to believe that the district court granted summary judgment to defendant or dismissed the case for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Neither of those characterizations is correct. The district court dismissed plaintiff’s case without prejudice because he did not respond to the court’s show cause order regarding his failure to effect proper service on defendant.

Because plaintiff failed to appeal the district court’s final order in this case, and because his motion to remand was not a post-judgment motion which would toll the time for taking an appeal, we conclude that we lack appellate jurisdiction over this case. *See Rodgers v. Wyo. Atty. Gen.,*205 F.3d 1201, 1204 (10th Cir.2000) (“This court cannot exercise jurisdiction absent a timely notice of appeal.”) (quotation omitted). The appeal is DISMISSED. All pending motions are DENIED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.

1

. Defendant's response to this motion notes that Aziz had confused this case with another case filed in state *court in*which Aziz asserted the same claims against defendant. That case, No. 99-D-2216, was removed to federal court.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO WOOTEN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0816 DFL JFM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On April 11, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b). Local Rule 78-230(m) requires that opposition to motions filed in prisoner cases be

filed within twenty-one days and further provides: “Failure of the responding party to file written

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

the granting of the motion . . . .” By order filed July 26, 2004, plaintiff was advised of the

requirements of Local Rule 78-230(m). On May 16, 2005, plaintiff was ordered to file an

opposition within thirty days. The thirty day period has now elapsed and plaintiff has not filed an

opposition to the motion or otherwise responded to the court’s order. For these reasons,

plaintiff's failure to oppose should be deemed a waiver of opposition to the granting of the

motion. 

Case 2:04-cv-00816-DFL -JFM Document 36 Filed 07/22/05 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants' April 11, 2005 motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 21, 2005.

/001; woot0816.46f

Case 2:04-cv-00816-DFL -JFM Document 36 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on this 17th day of May, 2013, a copy of the foregoing was served via 

electronic mail on the parties named below: 

________________________________ 

Vanessa C. Krasniewicz 

russell.bailey@alpa.org robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com 

rsilverberg@sgbdc.com patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com 

mgoldman@sgbdc.com jhill@dowlohnes.com 

msinick@ssd.com perkmann@dowlohnes.com 

esauer@ssd.com robert.land@jetblue.com 

cdonley@ssd.com efaberman@wileyrein.com 

robert.wirick@aa.com kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com 

francis.heil@aa.com bob.kneisley@wnco.com 

james.kaleigh@aa.com dan.weiss@united.com 

gmurphy@crowell.com steve.morrissey@united.com 

lhalloway@crowell.com jonathan.linde@united.com 

rpommer@atlasair.com karine.faden@united.com 

sametta.c.barnett@delta.com thomas.bolling@united.com 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com 

scott.mcclain@delta.com jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com 

nssparks@fedex.com howard.kass@usairways.com 

gbleopard@fedex.com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com 

cefelts@fedex.com dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil 

jyoung@yklaw.com william.stallings@usdoj.gov 

dkirstein@yklaw.com esta.rosenberg@dot.gov 

dmrosenthal@jamhoff.com paul.gretch@dot.gov 

dpdean@jamhoff.com todd.homan@dot.gov 

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com bob.goldner@dot.gov 

rdmathias@zsrlaw.com peter.irvine@dot.gov 

cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com reese.davidson@dot.gov 

dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com john.allen@faa.gov 

mroller@rollerbauer.com urskr@state.gov
No. 55228.

#### Sportswear Jewelry Co. *v.*United States,

protests 115105-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of shell strands similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Colonial Bead Co., Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 78, C. A. D. 401), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 51390.

#### Protest 59467-K of Needham’s Antiques, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protest was sustained to this extent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001052971
<NAME>                        Iron Horse Investors, L.L.C.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              28,204
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       65,234
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        292,663
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   392,127
<PP&E>                                             180,552
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,114,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              357,617
<BONDS>                                            200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                         116,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,114,522
<SALES>                                            314,804
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   314,804
<CGS>                                              280,335
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      334,479
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       285
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15,416
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (19,457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (20,457)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (20,457)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

December 3, 1958

No. 62531.

#### General Preserve Co. *v.*United States,

protest 327137-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bitter orange pulp the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 C. C. P. A. 60, C. A. D. 638), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2018042EN.01001501.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — Crédit mutuel Arkéa v ECB

(Case T-52/16) (1)

1

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Prudential supervision at the consolidated level - Group subject to prudential supervision - Institutions permanently affiliated to a central body - Article 2(21)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Capital requirements - Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(a) of Regulation No 1024/2013))

(2018/C 042/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Crédit mutuel Arkéa (Le Relecq Kerhuon, France) (represented by: H. Savoie and P. Mele, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: K, Lackhoff, R. Bax and C. Olivier, acting as Agents, and M. Pittie, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2015 — 9695000CG 7B84NLR5984/40 of the ECB of 4 December 2015 setting out the prudential requirements for the Crédit Mutuel group.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Crédit mutual Arkéa to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Crédit mutual Arkéa to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust IV and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kathleen Skero, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General
Partner of the Partnership, 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
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING IV, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: May 12, 2006
_____________________

*  Kathleen Skero functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Case 2:05-cv-05667-BWK Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 14
Case 2:05-cv-05667-BWK Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 14
Case 2:05-cv-05667-BWK Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 3 of 14
Case 2:05-cv-05667-BWK Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 4 of 14
Case 2:05-cv-05667-BWK Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 5 of 14
Case 2:05-cv-05667-BWK Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 6 of 14
Case 2:05-cv-05667-BWK Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 7 of 14
Case 2:05-cv-05667-BWK Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 8 of 14
Case 2:05-cv-05667-BWK Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 9 of 14
Case 2:05-cv-05667-BWK Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 10 of 14
Case 2:05-cv-05667-BWK Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 11 of 14
Case 2:05-cv-05667-BWK Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 12 of 14
Case 2:05-cv-05667-BWK Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 13 of 14
Case 2:05-cv-05667-BWK Document 1 Filed 10/26/05 Page 14 of 14
VehicleReflectedInertia 55.70 Delta OSS (rpm) Delta Time Decel rad/s Torque

Axle 4.10 82 0.41 20.9 1166

Tire 0.38 133 0.71 19.6 1093

Mass 6450 120 0.63 19.9 1111

71 0.329 22.6 1259

122 0.6 21.3 1186

86 0.5 18.0 1003 Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation

EVALUATION: Express Server

EVALUATION: Conversion Package
Force Grade

12552 11.5

11757 10.7

11955 10.9

13544 12.4

12762 11.7

10795 9.8Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation

EVALUATION: Express Server

EVALUATION: Conversion Package
VehicleReflectedInertia 55.70 Start RPM End RPM

Axle 4.10 270 176

Tire 0.38 300 199

Mass 6450 313 228

488 364

546 431

868 765

Assumptions 814 711

Diesel Energy 38.6 MJ/L 1363 1229

Diesel Engine Efficiency 33 % 1891 1822

417 359

shifts mL/Shift

800 3.189 Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation

EVALUATION: Express Server

EVALUATION: Conversion Package
Start KE (wh) End KE (wh) Natural KE LossDelta KE (wh) mL fuel wasted in Decel

6.18 2.63 3.56 1.005

7.63 3.36 4.27 1.208

8.31 4.41 3.90 1.102

20.20 11.24 8.96 2.533

25.29 15.76 9.53 2.693

63.91 49.64 14.27 4.032

56.20 42.88 13.32 3.765

157.58 128.12 29.46 8.326

303.31 281.58 21.73 6.142

14.75 10.93 3.82 1.079

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

0.00 0.00 0 0.000

Change

37.5%

21.6%

Hybrid On

Hybrid Off

Fuel Economy Effects

Baseline (L/100km)

Expected (L/100km)

Dyno Effects (L/100km)

12.6

10

16Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation Express Evaluation

EVALUATION: Express Server

EVALUATION: Conversion Package
**Exhibit 12.1**
**IRWIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION**
**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**                       **Year Ended December 31,****(In Thousands)** **2003** **2002** **2001** **2000** **1999****Including Interest on Deposits**                    Earnings:                    Earnings before income taxes $118,402  $86,231  $74,200  $59,342  $52,637 Fixed charges from below  99,099   97,795   121,083   93,539   59,491                      Earnings $217,501  $184,026  $195,283  $152,881  $112,128                      Fixed charges:                    Interest expense $99,099  $97,795  $121,083  $93,539  $59,491                      Ratio of earnings to fixed charges  2.19x  1.88x  1.61x  1.63x  1.88x                     **Excluding Interest on Deposits**                    Earnings:                    Earnings before income taxes $118,402  $86,231  $74,200  $59,342  $52,637 Fixed charges from below  56,734   43,434   47,743   40,719   34,271                      Earnings $175,136  $129,665  $121,943  $100,061  $86,908                      Fixed charges:                    Interest expense, excludinginterest on deposits $56,734  $43,434  $47,743  $40,719  $34,271                      Ratio of earnings to fixed charges  3.09x  2.99x  2.55x  2.46x  2.54x
No. 49150.

#### Protests 51596-K, etc., of Porter (Philadelphia), Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and schedule attached thereto, together with the record in *Perseverance Import Corp.*v. *United States*(T. D. 49290) which was incorporated herein, the protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 10.3


 





SECOND MODIFICATION TO THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN
AGREEMENT




 


 





 



 


	Borrower:	Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.	Lender:	East West Bank
	 	13139 Jess Pirtle Blvd.	 	Loan Servicing Department
	 	Sugar Land, TX 77478	 	9300 Flair Drive, 6th Floor
	 	 	 	El Monte, CA 91731


 





 



 


This SECOND MODIFICATION TO THE CONSTRUCTION
LOAN AGREEMENT is aftached to and by this reference is made a part of the Construction Loan Agreement (Loan #[***]) dated January
26, 2015, including all modifications thereto, and executed in connection with a loan or other financial accommodations between
Lender and Borrower.


 


The section entitled "Construction of the Project"
is hereby amended and restated as follows:


 


Construction of the Project. Commence
construction of the Project no later than February 3, 2015, and cause the Improvements to be constructed and equipped in a diligent
and orderly manner and in strict accordance with the Plans and Specifications approved by Lender, the Construction Contract, and
all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, regulators, and rights of adjoining or concurrent property owners. Borrower agrees to complete
the Project for purposes of final payment to the General Contractor on or before September 30, 2016, regardless of the reason
for any delay.


 


The section entitled "Cessation of Construction" is
hereby amended and restated as follows:


 


Cessation of Construction. Prior to
the completion of construction of the improvement and equipping of the Project, the construction of the improvements or the equipping
of the Project is abandoned or work thereon ceases for a period of more than ten (10) days for any reason, or the improvements
are not completed for purposes of the final payments to the General Contractor prior to September 30, 2016, regardless of
the reason for the delay."


 


The definition of "Completion Date" is hereby amended
and restated as follows:


Completion Date. The words "Completion Date" mean September 30, 2016.


 


THIS SECOND MODIFICATION TO THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN AGREEMENT IS
EXECUTED AS OF OCTOBER 5, 2016.


 


BORROWER:


 


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS, INC.


 


 


By: /s/ Stefan John Murry


Stefan John Murry, Vice President of Applied

Optoelectronics, Inc.


 


 


LENDER:


 


 


EAST WEST BANK


 


 


/s/ Steve LaFredo                              


  Authorized Signer