alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered July 5, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-16-00632-CV

MELANIE E. GRIMES, Appellant

V.

MYCHELE R. LORD, Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-15142



### ORDER Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Bridges and Lang

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to issue the mandate forthwith.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG
JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.35

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                            SALE-LEASEBACK AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT TO SALE-LEASEBACK AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made as
of December 31, 2001, by and between CFK Realty Partners, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company ("Buyer"), whose address is 20 North Wacker Drive,
Suite 2520, Chicago, Illinois 60606, and Mercury Air Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Seller"), whose address is 5456 McConnell Avenue, Los
Angeles, California 90066.

     WHEREAS, Buyer and Seller entered into a certain Sale-Leaseback Agreement,
dated December 15, 2001 (the "Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, Buyer and Seller desire to amend the Agreement, pursuant to the
terms hereof;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants
and provisions hereof, the parties agree as follows:

     1.   The second sentence of Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended
to provide as follows:

          The Purchase Price shall be paid at Closing as follows: (i) up to
     $3,200,000 in cash, and (ii) the remainder in the form of a recourse,
     unsecured promissory note bearing interest at the rate of 5% per annum,
     with principal and interest payable one year from the date of Closing.

     2.   All other terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement shall
remain unmodified and in full force and effect.

                            [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
<PAGE>
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Buyer have entered into this Agreement as of
the date first above written.

                                        BUYER:

                                        CFK Realty Partners, LLC, an Illinois
                                        limited liability company

                                        By: _________________________________

                                        SELLER:

                                        Mercury Air Group, Inc., a Delaware
                                        corporation

                                        By: _________________________________
                                            Name:
                                            Title:
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2024 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2023-04	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 2/15/23
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 1 

Order (2:04-cv-666 JAM KJM (PC)) 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARCUS R. ELLINGTON, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

E. S. ALAMEIDA, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:04-cv-666 JAM KJM (PC) 

ORDER 

On January 4, 2010, Defendants filed a request for a sixty-day extension of time to file a 

dispositive motion. 

For good cause shown, the Court grants Defendants’ motion (docket no. 222) and extends 

the deadline for filing dispositive motions to Tuesday, March 9, 2010. In addition, the court 

vacates the remaining dates in the scheduling order of June 24, 2009 (docket no. 204), to be reset 

if necessary following resolution of dispositive motions. Finally, defendants are directed to file a 

response to plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (docket no. 217) within thirty days of the date 

of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 7, 2010. 

 

Case 2:04-cv-00666-RSL-JLW Document 223 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 1
(Reap Dec. 10729)

#### Y. Hata & Company, Limited, et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2867, etc.

(Decided April 28, 1964)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

> 1. That this stipulation is limited to the items marked “A” and initialed RS (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiner Ronald Sakamoto (Examiner’s Name) on the invoices covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on Schedule “A” annexed, and is abandoned as to all other merchandise.

> 2. That the merchandise was imported prior to the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521).

> 3. That the merchandise consists of canned clams of the type made dutiable upon the basis of the American selling price of a like or similar domestic article, as such American selling price is defined in Section 402(g), Tariff Act of 1939 as it existed prior to said Customs Simplification Act, by the operation of Presidential Proclamation 2081, T.D. 47031.

> 4. That the merchandise and the issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Geo. 8. Bush & Co., Inc.,*v. *United, States,*A.R.D. 140, and that the record in the cited ease may be incorporated herein.

> 5. That the merchandise herein consists of packs of 5% and 5% ounce tins and that on or about the date of exportation, the American selling price of a “like” domestic clam, as defined in said Section 402(g), was $3.75 per two dozen tins, less *lVa*per centum cash discount, less one-tenth *of 1*per centum swell allowance, net packed.

> 6. The appeals listed on said Schedule “A” may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

*531On tbe agreed facts and following the cited decision on the law, we hold that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is American selling price, as defined in section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value therefor is $3.75 per 2 dozen tins, less 1 *y2*per centum cash discount, less one-tenth of 1 per centum swell allowance, net, packed.

As to all other merchandise, not heretofore identified, included on the invoices covered by the entries involved herein, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

SAMUEL BROWN III, NATURAL 

PERSON, AND AS JOINT TENANT 

TRUSTEE WITH THE RIGHT OF 

SURVIVORSHIP, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BUREAU 

OF INDIVIDUAL TAXES, MEGAN 

SWISHER, AND DANIEL P. MEUSER, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 66 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 9th day of May, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


October 13, 2016


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 271


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
Securities as of close of business on October 12, 2016, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms
and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing
the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-212824) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                              


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
# **Exhibit 99.02**

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

## **OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Click2learn, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the period ended March31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, John D. Atherly, Chief Financial Officer ofClick2learn, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Form 10-Q fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Click2learn, Inc.

 
| Dated:  May 14, 2003 |
|---------------------------|
|                      |
| /s/ John D. Atherly       |   |
| John D. Atherly           |
| Chief Financial Officer   |

 

----
<PAGE>   1





                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                 SUNAMERICA INC. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

List of subsidiaries and certain other affiliates with percentage of voting
securities owned by SunAmerica Inc. or SunAmerica Inc.'s subsidiary which is
the immediate parent.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   PERCENTAGE OF VOTING
                                                   SECURITIES OWNED BY
                                                   COMPANY OR COMPANY'S
                                                   SUBSIDIARY WHICH IS THE
NAME OF COMPANY                                    IMMEDIATE PARENT         
----------------                                   -------------------------
<S>                                                      <C>
ARIZONA CORPORATIONS:                                       %
   Anchor National Life Insurance Company                   100
   SunAmerica Life Insurance Company of America             100
   SunAmerica National Life Insurance Company               100

CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS:
   CalFarm Life Insurance Company                           100
   Imperial Premium Finance of California, Inc.             100

COLORADO CORPORATION:
   Resources Trust Company                                  100

DELAWARE CORPORATIONS:
   Royal Alliance Associates, Inc.                          100
   SunAmerica Asset Management Corp.                        100
   SunAmerica Capital Services, Inc.                        100
   SunAmerica Capital Trust I                               100
   SunAmerica Capital Trust II                              100
   SunAmerica Capital Trust III                             100
   SunAmerica Capital Trust IV                              100
   SunAmerica Capital Trust V                               100
   SunAmerica Capital Trust VI                              100
   SunAmerica Fund Services, Inc.                           100
   Imperial Premium Finance, Inc.                           100
   SunAmerica Securities, Inc.                              100

GEORGIA CORPORATION:
   SunAmerica Financial, Inc.                               100

MICHIGAN CORPORATION:
   Ford Life Insurance Company                              100

NEW YORK CORPORATIONS:
   Advantage Capital Corporation                            100
   First SunAmerica Life Insurance Company                  100
</TABLE>
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 1 of 25

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 55 Att. 14

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 2 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 3 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 4 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 5 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 6 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 7 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 8 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 9 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 10 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 11 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 12 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 13 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 14 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 15 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 16 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 17 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 18 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 19 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 20 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 21 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 22 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 23 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 24 of 25
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 55-15 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 25 of 25
Letter to Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge

From Kenneth Santodomingo

Dated July 23, 2014

Plus Attachment

Is Located at the FAA Hearing Docket,

600 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591

Vicki S. Leemon

Mgr., Adjudication Branch, AGC

- 430

Federal Aviation Administration
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go

to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 20

- BG

- 45

IN RE OL A DIPO AKIN

- DEKO

20 19 D DN 306

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg istration No. 98 3020

BEFORE: Glickman and Thompson

, Associate Judge s , and Washington , Senior

Judge

. O R D E R

(FILED

- July 30, 2020)

On consideration of the certified order from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of

law in that jurisdiction ; this court’s January 29 , 2020

, order suspending respondent pending resolution of t his matter and directing h im to show cause why equivalent reciprocal discipline in the form of an indefinite suspension with a fitness requirement and the right to seek reinstatement after five years or reinstate ment by

the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , whichever occurs first, should not be imposed and the r esponse thereto requesting that no discipline be imposed and that his re sponse be filed under seal ; the statement of Disciplinary

Counsel ; and it appearing respondent has not filed his D.C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that the Clerk shall file respondent’s response to the court’s show

cause order under seal. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Ol a Dipo Akin

- De k o is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia with reinstatement contingent upon a showing of fitness. Respondent can seek reinstatement after five years or after reinstatement by the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland , whichever occurs first

. To the extent respondent argues mitigating

circumstances should be considered , he failed to either raise these circumstances in the originating court o r accept the offer to change his membership to inactive status. Reciprocal disciplinary proceedings are the improper forum to raise this mitigation

defense

, see In re Zdravkovich , 831 A.2d 964 , 969 (D.C. 2003) (“Pu t simpl y
, reciprocal discipline proceedings are not a forum to reargue the foreign discipline

. ”)

. To the extent respondent states he is seeking reinstatement by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, that fact does not impact the imposition of reciprocal discipli ne, only when reinstatement may be sought. Because respondent failed to rebut the presumption that reciprocal discipline should be imposed, we impose reciprocal discipline. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010), and In re Fuller , 930 A.2d 194, 198 ( D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies unless one of the exceptions is established).

It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he fil es an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

PER CURIAM
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EL COMITE PARA EL BIENESTAR DE

EARLIMART, an unincorporated

association; ASSOCIATION OF

IRRITATE RESIDENTS, an NO. CIV. S-04-882 LKK/KJM

unincorporated association;

COMMUNITY AND CHILDREN’S

ADVOCATES AGAINST PESTICIDE 

POISONING, a California non-profit

corporation; WISHTOYO FOUNDATION,

a California non-profit corporation;

and VENTURA COASTKEEPER, a California

non-profit corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PAUL HELLIKER, in his official O R D E R

capacity as Director, Department

of Pesticide Regulation; TERRY

TAMMINEN, in his official capacity

as Secretary, California Environmental

Protection Agency; CATHERINE 

WITHERSPOON, in her official capacity

as Executive Officer, Air Resources

Board; ALAN LLOYD, in his official

capacity as Chairman, Air Resources

Board; and WILLIAM BURKE, JOSEPH CALHOUN,

DORENE D’ADAMO, MARK DESAULNIER, C. HUGH

FRIEDMAN, WILLIAM F. FRIEDMAN, MATTHEW

McKINNON, BARBARA PATRICK, BARBARA RIORDAN

and RON ROBERTS, in their official 

capacities as members, Air Resources Board,

Defendants.

 /

Case 2:04-cv-00882-LKK -KJM Document 52 Filed 04/28/05 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

The court stayed all discovery in the above-captioned case 

pending resolution of the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Having resolved the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court

hereby ORDERS that:

1. The stay on discovery is LIFTED; and

2. A Status Conference is SET for May 31, 2005 at 2:30 p.m.

The parties are reminded of their obligation to file status reports

ten (10) prior to the conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 25, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00882-LKK -KJM Document 52 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES TAYLOR MURRAY, No. 2:04-cv-1367-MCE-GGH-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

H.D.S.P. MEDICAL CARE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No.

262.

On May 4, 2006, the magistrate judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. 

Case 2:04-cv-01367-MCE -GGH Document 54 Filed 07/12/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Defendants have filed Objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 4, 2006, are

adopted in full; and

2. Defendants’ September 15, 2005, Motion for Judgment on

the Pleadings is granted with respect to Plaintiff’s claims

against Defendants Jackson and Felker; Defendants’ Motion is

denied in all other respects.

DATED: July 11, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01367-MCE -GGH Document 54 Filed 07/12/06 Page 2 of 2
CASE DIGEST: U.S. Dep’t of the Army, U.S. Army Garrison, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.,

73 FLRA 827 (2024).

The Agency filed a motion for reconsideration of the Authority’s decision in 

U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Garrison, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey,

73 FLRA 700 (2023) (Picatinny). The motion did not demonstrate that the Authority 

erred, and attempted to relitigate the Authority’s conclusions, in Picatinny. Therefore, 

the Authority found the motion did not establish extraordinary circumstances warranting 

reconsideration and denied it.

This case digest is a summary of an order issued by the Federal Labor Relations 

Authority, with a short description of the issues and facts of the case. Descriptions 

contained in this case digest are for informational purposes only, do not constitute legal 

precedent, and are not intended to be a substitute for the opinion of the Authority.