alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James E. PALMER; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KLAMATH COUNTY; et al, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-35253.

D.C. No. CV-98-03089-ALH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

James E. Palmer and Maryanne Palmer appeal pro se the judgment dismissing *570their complaint with prejudice for failure to set forth a short, clear and concise statement of the claim, and the district court’s order requiring pre-filing review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for a violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (“Rule 8”). *See McHenry v. Renne,*84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Palmers’ amended complaint with prejudice because the Palmers: (1) were permitted to amend their complaint; (2) were given adequate notice of the complaint’s deficiencies with respect to Rule 8; and (3) nevertheless, failed to file an amended complaint that complied with Rule 8. *See Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co.,*651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir.1981).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the recusal motion, *see United States v. Hernandez,*109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir.1997), or declining to enter default judgments, *see Pau v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co.,*928 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir.1991).

The magistrate judge acted within the scope of his authority in issuing non-dis-positive orders. *U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff,*768 F.2d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir.1985).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the order requiring pre-filing review filed on February 28, 2000. *See DeLong v. Hennessey,*912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.1990).

We deny the Palmers’ remaining contentions.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *570courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27.01     FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated  condensed balance sheets and consolidated  condensed  statement of
operations  of the  Company and the notes  thereto set forth in the  Prospectus.
This  information  is qualified  in its entirety by reference to such  financial
information.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001052914
<NAME>                        EUROPEAN MICRO HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         937
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                   70
<INVENTORY>                                    7,471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               22,983
<PP&E>                                         4,930
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,111
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 29,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          16,558
<BONDS>                                        2,235
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       49
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,976
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   29,818
<SALES>                                        29,068
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               29,068
<CGS>                                          25,912
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,883
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               109
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             311
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (23)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   45
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (68)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (68)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick Vincent REDD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6152.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 18, 2001.

Derrick Vincent Redd, pro se. Robert Andrew Spencer, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for ap-pellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Derrick Vincent Redd seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000) and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Redd,*Nos. CR-97-6; CA-00-642 (E.D.Va. filed Oct. 12, 2000, entered Oct. 13, 2000; Nov. 3, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Sun Tze Whang, certify that:

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Interdyne Company;

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

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

The registrant'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 registrant and have:

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 report is being prepared;

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

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

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

All significant  deficiencies and material weaknesses 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

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.

Dated: September 10, 2007

                                             By: /s/ Sun Tze Whang
                                                     Sun Tze Whang
                                                     Chief Executive Officer

                                       15
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-137197 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 1, 2007,(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of a new accounting standard) relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Interstate Power and Light Company and subsidiaries, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Interstate Power and Light Company for the year ended December 31, 2006.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

March 1, 2007
**Part 2, Section V: USSGL Crosswalks to Standard External Reports**

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2019 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with current reporting guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service).

Each report crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or column on the reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This subsidiary information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional information on attributes.

All crosswalks require pre-closing USSGL account balances.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by OMB and Fiscal Service:

Page 1 of 1

# image1.png
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5                                      
<CIK>                            0001052636                             
<NAME>                           MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    OTHER                                  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                           DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                             SEP-25-1998
<CASH>                                                             0
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   0
<PP&E>                                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              0
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       0
<SALES>                                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                   0
<CGS>                                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0
        


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0411. MASCORRO v. MONJARAZ,

In this appeal, Bianca Flor Mascorro seeks review of the trial court’s order

legitimating her children and awarding visitation to their father, Raul Javier

Monjaraz. On appeal, Mascorro arguesthat the trial court erred in allowing the father

to legitimate the children and in failing to give specific findings of fact and legal

conclusions to support the decision. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the

appeal.

1

The record showsthat Mascorro and Monjaraz are the parents of two children. 

In 2019, Mascorro’s husband filed a petition to adopt the children. Thereafter,

Monjaraz filed a petition to legitimate both children, seeking joint legal custody and

visitation. Following a temporary hearing, the trial court granted the petition to

legitimate the children; awarded legal and physical custody to Mascorro; granted

Monjaraz visitation; and ordered him to pay child support. In her appeal, Mascorro

challenges only the legitimation. 

We are obligated to inquire into our jurisdiction in any case in which our

jurisdiction may be lacking. Ford v. Ford, 347 Ga. App. 233 (818 SE2d 690) (2018).

Although OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) permits a direct appeal from all judgments or

orders in “child custody cases,” the issue raised on appeal governs whether an order

may be appealed directly, and here the issue is not custody but the trial court’s

1

In an order dated November 3, 2020, we dismissed this appeal. Mascorro filed

a motion for reconsideration, which led to the reinstatement of her appeal. For the

reasons outlined below, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

July 06, 2021
legitimation ruling. See Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 47 (799 SE2d 160) (2017)

(appeal in a domestic relations case in which custody is not an issue must be brought

by discretionary application). In her brief, Mascorro challenges only the basis for the

grant ofMonjaraz’slegitimation petition. A legitimation action is a domestic relations

case, and an appeal therefrom must be initiated by filing an application for

discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b); Numanovic v. Jones, 321 Ga.

App. 763, 764 (743 SE2d 450) (2013); Cloud v. Norwood, 321 Ga. App. 218 (739

SE2d 93) (2013); Brown v. Williams, 174 Ga. App. 604 (332 SE2d 48) (1985).

“[C]ompliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Fabe v.

Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322, 332 (1) (405 SE2d 265) (1991); see also Ford, 347 Ga.

App. at 234. Thus, Mascorro’s failure to follow the discretionary appeal procedure

deprives us of jurisdiction over this case. Numanovic, 321 Ga. App. at 764.

Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/06/2021
June 17, 1941

No. 46113.

#### Protest 21267-K (A) of Stone & Downer Co.

Abstract 45908. Application by plaintiff for rehearing granted.
Danielle Lewis - EPA request for sampling of carbon capture wastewater at Mountaineer 

 

Ron, here is some additional information regarding the carbon capture process at the AEP Mountaineer Plant. 

We have confirmed that you would like us to collect samples from the hose leading to the PVF bleed stream frac 

tank. You may also want us to collect samples from the fly gas condensed condensate (FGCC) tank discharge, 

however, this process water is not unique to the carbon capture process. This water is condensate from the flue 

gas stream as it is cooled from 80 to 40 F. It is relatively "clean" water that is directed to the main plant cooling 

tower to help provide cooling make-up water. 

A flow diagram that illustrates each process flow stream in sufficient detail to allow you to determine if you want 

the FGCC tank to be sampled has been prepared and will be sent to TJ Finseth at ERG later today. The PVF 

bleed stream sampling location has also been indicated on the drawing. This drawing is considered to be 

"Confidential Business Information" for the purposes of this study and we request that it not be distributed outside 

of EPA or the agency contractors directly involved with this study. 

The PVF bleed stream is not treated, but is hauled off-site for disposal into deep injection wells. During our call, 

you asked why the waste water was injected rather than treated. Originally, this waste water was given to a 

farmer's coop for use as a fertilizer. However, we did not anticipate that the water would have high selenium 

levels and could be classified as "hazardous" (failed TCLP). We also didn't anticipate that we would generate the 

high volume of waste water. The farmer's coop will still accept the waste water, as the selenium levels do not

prevent its beneficial reuse as a fertilizer, however, our legal staff have recommended that we discontinue this 

practice to reduce any future legal liabilities for AEP. Due to the short-term nature of this project, deep well 

injection by a third party is an effective method of handling the waste water. Such disposal will not be used for the 

planned commercial scale carbon capture and storage project. For that installation, the waste water will be 

treated to a solid phase for use as a fertilizer. 

We are still scheduled to collect the EPA samples during the week of January 24th. 

Tim 

From: <twlohner@aep.com>

To: Jordan.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov

Date: 12/6/2010 2:45 PM

Subject: EPA request for sampling of carbon capture wastewater at Mountaineer

CC: Thomas.Finseth@erg.com

Attachments: Part.002

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\DLewis\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4F97F9FDDOM... 5/7/2012
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                      ANNUITY AND LIFE RE (HOLDINGS), LTD.

            STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                                   UNAUDITED
         (EXPRESSED IN UNITED STATES DOLLARS EXCEPT FOR SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    3 MONTHS ENDED             9 MONTHS ENDED
                                                     SEPTEMBER 30,              SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                -----------------------   -------------------------
                                                   1999         1998         1999          1998
                                                ----------   ----------   -----------   -----------
<S>                                             <C>          <C>          <C>           <C>
Net Income:...................................  $8,715,060   $6,660,166   $25,943,583   $10,235,177
Net average number of common shareholders
outstanding...................................  25,499,999   25,499,999    25,499,999    23,270,491
Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding including shares issuable from
  exercise of options and warrants............  27,218,541   26,629,834    27,177,007    24,574,727
Earnings per share............................  $     0.34   $     0.26   $      1.02   $      0.44
Earnings per share assuming dilution..........  $     0.32   $     0.25   $      0.95   $      0.42
</TABLE>

                                       16
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/22/2023 1

Refusal to Interfere with State-Court Litigation 

Over Control of a Minor Party 

Essenberg v. Berman 

(Thomas J. McAvoy, N.D.N.Y. 1:00-cv-317) 

Applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, in light of pending statecourt litigation over control of a minor party, the district judge 

dismissed a complaint challenging the exclusion of a candidate 

from the party’s primary election. The court of appeals dismissed as 

moot an appeal filed after the election. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

matters for state courts; primary election; party procedures. 

Supporters of Donald Trump filed a federal complaint in the Northern District of New York on February 22, 2000, seeking an order placing Trump on 

the Independence Party ballot for the March 7 presidential primary election.1

The Independence Party, the name for the Reform Party in New York, 

was experiencing internal conflict between supporters of Trump and supporters of Pat Buchanan.2

Judge Thomas J. McAvoy dismissed the complaint on March 2.3 Under 

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, among federal courts only the Supreme Court 

has appellate jurisdiction over state-court proceedings.4

The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, which was filed on April 10, 

2000, as moot.5

1. Docket Sheet, Essenberg v. Berman, No. 1:00-cv-317 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2000) [hereinafter N.D.N.Y. Docket Sheet] (D.E. 1); see Appellant Brief at 2–4, Essenberg v. Berman, No. 

00-7406 (2d Cir. May 31, 2000), 2000 WL 33983234. But see Frank Bruni, McCain, Bush 

Renew Assaults, Albany Times Union, Feb. 14, 2000, at A1 (reporting that Trump decided 

against running for President in 2000); Donald J. Trump, Op-Ed, What I Saw at the Revolution, N.Y. Times, Feb. 19, 2000, at A15 (“I . . . saw the underside of the Reform Party.”). 

2. See Eric Herman, Rumblings in Reform Party, N.Y. Daily News, Jan. 30, 2000, at 55. 

3. N.D.N.Y. Docket Sheet, supra note 1 (D.E. 11); see Appellant Brief, supra note 1, at 2–

3 (identifying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as an issue on appeal). 

4. D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 

413 (1923); see Martin A. Schwartz, Section 1983 Litigation 21–24 (Federal Judicial Center 

3d ed. 2014). 

5. Essenberg v. Berman, 234 F.3d 1261 (2d Cir. 2000) (table), summary order available at

2000 WL 1551278.
# sec5_scnp_2023

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2023-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SCNP - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BDecember 2022