alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GROUP ONE LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GTE GMBH, RALF WEIGEL,

Defendants

UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION, 

INCORPORATED,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2022-1602

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of New York in No. 1:20-cv-02205-MKBJRC, Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie.

______________________

Before DYK, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

Group One Ltd. seeks to appeal from the district court’s 

order denying its request to enforce a temporary restraining order and hold a non-party, the United States Tennis 

Association, Incorporated, in civil contempt. Having 

Case: 22-1602 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2022
2 GROUP ONE LTD. v. GTE GMBH

received Group One’s response to this court’s July 6, 2022 

show cause order, we now dismiss this appeal. 

Generally, this court has jurisdiction over only “final 

decision[s]” of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

The Supreme Court “long has stated that as a general rule 

a district court’s decision is appealable under [§ 1295(a)(1)] 

only when the decision ‘ends the litigation on the merits 

and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 

485 U.S. 271, 275 (1988) (quoting Catlin v. United States, 

324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)). A denial of a motion for contempt while the case is still ongoing generally fails to end 

the litigation on the merits and is not immediately appealable. Cf. Doyle v. London Guar. & Accident Co., 204 U.S. 

599, 603 (1907) (noting that a prejudgment civil contempt

order involving a party generally is not immediately appealable). 

Group One cites no contrary authority that allows a 

party to appeal (pre-judgment) from denial of civil contempt. It cites only decisions authorizing a non-party to

appeal (pre-judgment) from imposition of civil contempt. 

The rationale for allowing non-parties to appeal in such circumstances is that a non-party contemnor “has no right to 

appeal from the entry of final judgment,” FTC v. Zurixx, 26 

F.4th 1172, 1177 (10th Cir. 2022) (citing Bessette v. W.B. 

Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324, 329–30 (1904)), and “for the nonparty, the adjudication in contempt usually is the ‘final decision,’” Clev. Hair Clinic, Inc. v. Puig, 106 F.3d 165, 167 

(7th Cir. 1997). Group One has failed to show how that

underlying rationale would justify a pre-judgment appeal

from a party that may seek appellate review of the district 

court’s order after final judgment in the case. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

Case: 22-1602 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 09/26/2022
GROUP ONE LTD. v. GTE GMBH 3

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

 September 26, 2022 

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

 

Case: 22-1602 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 09/26/2022
Eades, Cassaundra 

From: Lewis, Josh 

Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 1:09 PM 

To: Eades, Cassaundra; Mims, Kathy 

Cc: Bailey, KevinJ 

Subject: FW: letter to Admin. 

Attachments: 14.05.22 - GHG rule.pdf 

For CMS

From: Vaught, Laura 

Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 6:16 PM 

To: Lewis, Josh; Distefano, Nichole 

Subject: FW: letter to Admin. 

New letter. 

From: Decker, Sara (Commerce) [ mailto:Sara Decker@commerce.senate.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 4:48 PM 

To: Vaught, Laura 

Subject: letter to Admin. 

Hi Laura — 

Attached, please find a letter spearheaded by Senator Rubio to Administrator McCarthy regarding the anticipated 

proposed rule on greenhouse gas emissions for existing power plants. A hard copy is in the mail. Please let me know if 

you have any questions. 

S. 

Sara E. Decker 

Professional Staff Member 

Office of Senator Marco Rubio 

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atrnosphere, 

Fisheries and Coast Guard 

(202) 224-3041

1 
llflitrd ^tjtu ^& Inatc 

`NLiSFiIntGTON. Dc 20510 

May 22, 2014 

'T'he Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Adrninistrator McCarthy: 

It is our understanding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be moving 

forward with a draft proposal to regulate greenhouse gases from existing power plants as soon as 

June l s'. Given the controversy and ongoing debate regarding the costs and benefits of this 

proposed regulation, we are respectfully writing that you do not move forward with the draft 

proposal at this tiine. 

Energy that is cost-effective and drawn from diverse resources is indisputably a positive 

input to any economically prosperous society. ln the United States, we have benefited from a 

diverse and abundant energy supply, one that includes coal and natural gas as well as nuclear and 

renewable energy. We have also prospered as a country because the costs of this energy have 

remained low, allowing businesses and families to use their income not to pay high electricity 

bills but to invest in their company or pay for college tuition. Unfortunately, while the overall 

benetits of any draft proposal are questionable, the economic and social costs of further 

regulating our electricity industry will undoubtedly increase costs for consumers and businesses. 

According to some estimates, such a proposal on existing power plants, when combined with 

other regulations already being ptit forth by the Administration, could cost 600,000 jobs and an 

aggregate decrease in gross domestic product by $2.23 trillion. Even more notably, it could cost 

a family of four more than $1,200 per year. 

As public officials, we have a duty to weigh the costs of any policy, -vvhether legislative 

or administrative, against the expected benefits. Unfortunately, we do not see a proper balance 

on the EPA's decision to move forward on regulating greenhouse gases from existing power 

plants and, for this reason, ask that you do not move forward with the draft proposal at this time. 

'Fhank you for your consideration of our request.
^^`' ®

p.;, - , ^	 ^^	

,^^^ .^^ .
No. 46689.

#### Protests 974392-G, etc., of F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed only on the net footage imported. The protests were sustained to that extent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                         1,213,636
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,701,444
<ALLOWANCES>                                   120,101
<INVENTORY>                                    13,824,189
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               21,327,291
<PP&E>                                         3,822,685
<DEPRECIATION>                                 777,988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 24,554,434
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,302,486
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          37,000
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     9,915,088
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   24,554,434
<SALES>                                        23,027,704
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               23,027,704
<CGS>                                          16,238,559
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,484,130
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               525,478
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (175,215)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,667,602
<INCOME-TAX>                                   588,318
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,079,284
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,079,284
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.29



</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-895 (Review)] 

      ( print page 10258)    

## Determination 

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain pure magnesium from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.[2] 

## Background 

The Commission instituted this review on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 58001) and determined on January 5, 2007 that it would conduct an expedited review (72 FR 3876, January 26, 2007). 

The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation to the Secretary of Commerce on March 1, 2007. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3908 (March 2007), entitled Pure Magnesium from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-895 (Review). 

Issued: March 1, 2007. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman and Irving A. Williamson not participating. Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert was not a member of the Commission at the time of the vote.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. E7-4012 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                        K N ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                                     -----------------------
                                                     1997         1996         1995         1994         1993
                                                     ----         ----         ----         ----         ----
                                                                      (Dollars in Thousands)
<S>                                                <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>     
Earnings:
    Income From Continuing Operations
    per Statements of Income                       $ 77,497     $ 63,819     $ 52,522     $ 15,321     $ 30,869
    Add:
        Interest and Debt Expense                    51,248       37,760       34,316       32,009       31,478
        Income Taxes                                 35,661       35,897       29,050        9,500       18,599
        Portion of Rents Representative
           of the Interest Factor                    12,473        7,417        5,082        3,492        2,863
Less:
       Undistributed Earnings of less than 50%
          Owned Unconsolidated Subsidiaries           3,875           --           --           --           --
                                                   --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
        Income as Adjusted                         $173,004     $144,893     $120,970     $ 60,322     $ 83,809
                                                   ========     ========     ========     ========     ========
Fixed Charges:
    Interest and Debt Expense per
        Statements of Income
        (Includes Amortization of Debt
        Discount, Premium and Expense)             $ 43,495     $ 35,933     $ 34,211     $ 31,815     $ 30,909
    Add:
        Interest Capitalized                          7,753        1,827          105          338          965
        Portion of  Rents Representative
            of  the Interest Factor                  12,473        7,417        5,082        3,492        2,863


        Preferred  Stock Dividends of
           Subsidiary                                    --           --           --           --           69
                                                   --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
     Fixed Charges                                 $ 63,721     $ 45,177     $ 39,398     $ 35,645     $ 34,806
                                                   ========     ========     ========     ========     ========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                     2.72         3.21         3.07         1.69         2.41
                                                   ========     ========     ========     ========     ========

</TABLE>
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 L. DAVIS a.k.a. 

MICHAEL L. HOLMES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1390 LKK PAN P

vs.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action for relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 7, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled “Traverse in

Opposition to Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion or Motion for Dismissal. ” The court

construes this document as a reply to defendant’s answer filed June 26, 2006.. Rule 7 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

There shall be a complaint and an answer; a reply to a counterclaim

denominated as such; an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a

cross-claim; a third-party complaint, if a person who was not an original

party is summoned under the provisions of Rule 14; and a third-party

answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No other pleading shall be

allowed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a thirdparty answer. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (emphasis added). The court has not ordered plaintiff to reply to defendant’s

answer and declines to make such an order.

Case 2:04-cv-01390-LKK -EFB Document 31 Filed 07/28/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's July 7, 2006 reply to

defendant’s June 26, 2006 answer shall be disregarded. 

DATED: July 27, 2006.

12/mp

davi1390.77e

Case 2:04-cv-01390-LKK -EFB Document 31 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 6591.

#### STATE, EX REL., EUGENE TENPLAIN vs. DEMOCRATIC PARISH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, ET ALS.

Appeal from the 28th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. John the Baptist, No. 477. Honorable John E. Fleury, Judge.

Guión, Lambremont and Chenet, for- plaintiff and appellant.

P. E. Edrington, Jr., L. M. Beynaud, for defendant and ' appellee.

Per Curiam.

This case presents the same question involved in the matter of State, ex rel., Elfer vs. Parish Democratic Executive Committee, et als., No. 6590 of our docket, this day decided, and for the reasons therein set forth,

*269Opinion and decree, December 22nd, 1915.

The judgment herein is annulled and reversed and it is now decreed that there be judgment in favor of relator herein ordering and commanding the respondents herein to print and cause to be printed the name -of relator upon all ballots to- be used .and cast at the primary election to be held in the'Parish of St. John the Baptist on January 25, 1916, as a candidate of the Democratic Party for nomination to the office of Constable, Ward 4, of said Parish, and to certify relator’s name .as such candidate to- the Secretary of State of Louisiana; and it is further decreed that respondents pay the costs of both Courts.

Reversed.
Exhibit 99.10


                            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 Annual Report of Jaco  Electronics,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-K  for the  fiscal  year  ending  June 30,  2002 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
D. Gash,  Executive  Vice  President,  Finance  and  Secretary  of the  Company,
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 result of operations of the Company.





                                       /s/ Jeffrey D. Gash
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Jeffrey D. Gash
                                       Executive Vice President, Finance and
                                       Secretary
                                       September 27, 2002
No. 54047.

#### Allen Forwarding Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 780924-G, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.A
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Lisa A. Stewart, certify that:
1. I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of El Paso Exploration& Production Company;
2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this Report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisReport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this Report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisReport based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: May 5, 2006          /s/ Lisa A. Stewart    Lisa A. Stewart    President(Principal Executive Officer)El Paso Exploration & Production Company
**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 of European Micro Holdings, Inc. (the
      “ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.


Date:
                October
                16,2006
            By:
            */s/
              Jay P.
              Nash*Name:Jay
                P. Nash
              Title:Chief
                  Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to European Micro Holdings, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by European Micro Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.