alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED 

FEB 0 3 2022 

ELIZABETH A. BRami 

CUM OF 8UPROAE COMP' 

BY 

DEPUT6-1; 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

LINDSEY SHARRON 

LINDSEY LICARI, 

ANTEE, N/K/A No. 82887 

vs. 

BOBBY LEE ANTEE, 

DEE ANTEE, 

Appellant, 

A/K/A BOBBY 

Res ondent. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order. Eighth 

Judicial District Court, Clark County; Gerald W. Hardcastle, Judge. 

On May 12, 2021, the clerk of this court issued a notice directing 

appellant, among other things, to file and serve, by September 9, 2021, 

either (1) a brief that complies with NRAP 28(a) and NRAP 32 or (2) an 

informal brief for pro se parties on the form provided by the clerk. The 

notice cautioned that failure to timely file a brief could result in the 

dismissal of this appeal. When appellant did not comply, on September 27, 

2021, this court entered an order directing appellant, by October 11, 2021, 

to file and serve either (1) an opening brief that complies with NRAP 28(a) 

and NRAP 32 or (2) an informal brief for pro se parties on the form provided 

by the clerk of this court. The order cautioned that failure to comply could 

result in the dismissal of this appeal as abandoned. 

On October 12, 2021, appellant filed a motion requesting, 

among other things, an extension of time until November 15, 2021, to file 

the opening brief. The proof of service attached to the motion did not 

indicate that counsel for respondent was served with the motion. See NRAP 

-03 
25(b) ("Service on a party represented by counsel shall be made on the 

party's counsel."). Therefore, on November 2, 2021, this court entered an 

order directing appellant, by November 16, 2021, to provide proof of service 

of the October 12, 2021, motion on counsel for respondent. The order 

cautioned that if no proof of service was timely received, this court would 

take no action on the motion. See NRAP 25(d)(3) (stating that this court 

will not take action on documents filed without proof of service). Appellant 

disf not provide this court with proof of service of the motion on respondent's 

counsel. Accordingly, this court took no action on appellant's October 12, 

2021, motion. 

To date, appellant has not filed a brief or an informal brief or 

further communicated with this court. Accordingly, it appears that 

appellant has abandoned this appeal, and this court 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. 

Hardesty 

(14irl J. 

Stighch Herndon 

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court 

Hon. Gerald W. Hardcastle, Senior Judge 

Lindsey Sharron Antee 

Shum way Van 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2
No. 58548

protest 225871-K (New York).

#### Transocean Commerce, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
**Exhibit 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements listed below ofIrwin Financial Corporation of our report dated March 8, 2005, except for the restatement describedin Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements and the matter described in the thirdand fourth paragraphs of Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting as towhich the date is January 5, 2006, relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment ofthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K/A./s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPNew York, New York
## MEMORANDUM

**DATE:** 12 / 1 /14 **FROM:** Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR – 2013 - 0602 **SUBJECT:** Discussi on of the Clean Power Plan at a R oundtable with S mall B usinesses in

Chattanooga, TN
**SUMMARY :**  

### Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to small business owners at a business roundtable focused on climate change and green energy options. The roundtable took place in Chattanooga, TN on July 28, 2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES: EPA**  Heather McTeer Toney /EPA R4 Brandi Jenkins /EPA R4 Bryan Myers/EPA R4 **External Stakeholders** Andy Berke/Mayor Chattanooga, TN 20 Small Business Owners
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 1000

 1500

 2000

 1000

18 12 06 00

06/26

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.56 N 76.20 W Meters AGL
I am chairman of several conservation groups and a very involved activist on conservation. I have only 

one main comment to make that is ENFORCEMENT of the regulations all ready on the books. The 

government has sold out every conservationist by not ENFORCEMENT of the regulations that they are 

advocating. Their is a lot of damage being done in the name of economical development and putting 

conservation on the back burner by not ENFORCEMENT of the regulations. It is going to take decades to 

correct the damage that not ENFORCEMENT has done. Look at the BP spill ENFORCEMENT would of 

prevented this

Ivan
No. 54049.

#### Frazar & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 832066-G, etc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM   Document 25    Filed 01/10/06   Page 1 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM   Document 25    Filed 01/10/06   Page 2 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM   Document 25    Filed 01/10/06   Page 3 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM   Document 25    Filed 01/10/06   Page 4 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02291-FCD-KJM   Document 25    Filed 01/10/06   Page 5 of 5

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-26T20:47:31-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our reports dated December 11, 2008 with respect to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement
schedules and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Griffon Corporation and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30,
2008. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Griffon Corporation on Form S-3 (File No. 333-153089,
effective August 28, 2008) and Forms S-8 (File No. 33-39090, effective February 22, 1991, File No. 33-62966, effective
May 19, 1993, File No. 33-52319, effective February 18, 1994, File No. 333-21503, effective February 10, 1997, File
No. 333-62319, effective August 26, 1998, File No. 333-84409, effective August 3, 1999, File No. 333-67760, effective
August 17, 2001, File No. 333-88422, effective May 16, 2002, File No. 333-102742, effective January 27, 2003, File
No. 333-131737, effective February 10, 2006, File No. 333-133833, effective May 5, 2006, and File No. 333-149811, effective
March 19, 2008).

/s/
GRANT THORNTON LLP

Melville,
New York
December 11, 2008

---



QuickLinks
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

TIMOTHY M. JENNINGS,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-2131-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

T. FAULKER, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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 January 27, 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 days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02131-GEB-GGH Document 29 Filed 05/05/06 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 27, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ October 12, 2005, motion to dismiss is granted; and

3. This action is dismissed.

Dated: May 4, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02131-GEB-GGH Document 29 Filed 05/05/06 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

ALONZO REED,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1822 LKK DAD P

vs.

S. PETERSON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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 31, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has 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.

Case 2:04-cv-01822-LKK -DAD Document 17 Filed 08/15/05 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 ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 31, 2005, are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s due process, defamation, slander, and libel claims are dismissed;

and

3. Plaintiff’s April 27, 2005 motion for temporary restraining order and

preliminary injunction is denied. 

DATED: August 15, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/reed1822.804a

Case 2:04-cv-01822-LKK -DAD Document 17 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 2
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0 20 7 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 1 -NM - 071 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
Before the Second Division,

May 9, 1960

No. 64143.

protest 321203-K (Baltimore).

#### Berry Pink Industries, Inc. *v.*United States,

Ford, Judge:

This case is now before us on rehearing, after oral argument, having originally been decided in *Berry Pink Industries, Inc.*v. *United States,*42 Cust. Ct. 405, Abstract 63138. The merchandise consists of certain cloth drawstring bags, which were classified by the collector of customs under the provisions of paragraph 1529(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Tor-quay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 86 Treas. Dec. 121, T.D. 52739.

It was the contention of plaintiff in the case, as originally before us, that said bags, although admittedly in part of braid, were properly dutiable at the rate of 35 per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 1513 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by said Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, *supra,*for other toys, not specially provided for. This was based upon the premise that, by virtue of the limiting provision contained in paragraph 1529, items ordinarily dutiable thereunder may be classified under paragraph 1513 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It is now the position of plaintiff herein that, by virtue of the provision for “toy containers” in paragraph 1513 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Protocol of Terms of Accession by Japan to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 90 Treas. Dee. 234, T.D. 53865, the involved cloth bags are properly dutiable atythe rate of 35 per centum ad valorem under said provision.

At the oral argument, counsel for plaintiff admitted that, in order for the involved merchandise to be properly dutiable as a toy container, it must be, in fact, a toy. We are of the opinion that this is in fact the law as stated in the cases of *United States*v. *The Halle Bros. Co.,*20 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 281, T.D. 46077, and *S. E. Laszlo*v. *United States,*27 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 152, C.A.D. 76.

In view of the foregoing, in order *for*plaintiff to prevail, the imported cloth bags, which the record establishes were utilized chiefly by children to hold their marbles, must be articles chiefly used for the amusement of children, as set forth in the definition of the term “toy,” contained in paragraph 1513 of the Tariff Act of 1930. In our original decision, *supra,*after citing the cases of *United States*v. *Calhoun, Robbins & Co.,*21 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 167, T.D. 46495, and *United States*v. *F. W. Woolworth Co.,*24 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 338, T.D. 48770, we held that it was not solely a question of “by” whom an *457article was chiefly used, but it was also necessary to consider “for” wbat ¡purpose it was used.

We adhere to our position in our original decision that the involved cloth bags are not toys within the purview of paragraph 1513 of the tariff act and, consequently, they cannot he toy containers within the purview of said paragraph 1513 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Protocol of Terms of Accession •by Japan to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, *supra.*

The protest is, accordingly, overruled. Judgment will be rendered accordingly,
**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 CHAAS Acquisitions, LLC (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald J.
Gardhouse, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/
RONALD J. GARDHOUSE
 Ronald J.
Gardhouse
 Chief
Financial Officer
 (Principal
Financial Officer)
 May 13,
2005
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

ROBERT ALLAN PETERSON,

NO. CIV. S-04-2226 LKK/GGH P

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

NATHAN BURNETTE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On August 16, 2005, the court issued an order in the abovecaptioned case directing the Clerk of the Court to serve defendants

with the amended complaint. The court amends 2:9-13 of that order

and instead inserts the following language:

2. The matter is remanded to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings consistent with this order. The magistrate judge is

directed to serve the amended complaint on defendants Burnette,

Deaux, and the County of Sacramento. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 16, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02226-LKK -GGH Document 27 Filed 08/17/05 Page 1 of 1
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 Plaintiff’s first motion was denied by order filed February 21, 2006. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2225 GEB PAN P

vs.

V. BORTOLAMEDI, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed a second motion for the appointment of counsel. The United 1

States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the

court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 26 Filed 06/14/06 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 May 31, 2006 motion for

the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: June 13, 2006.

/mp

whit2225.31(2)

Case 2:04-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 26 Filed 06/14/06 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH A. SHERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF DAVIS,

Defendant.

CIV. S-04-2320 LKK PAN PS

ORDER 

-o0oOn August 17, 2005, in response to plaintiff filing of an

“Addendum to Complaint” which this court construed as a motion

for leave to file a supplemental complaint, the court directed

plaintiff to serve and file one comprehensive complaint in

compliance with E. D. Cal. L. R. 15-220.

On August 30, plaintiff filed a “Motion for ‘Addendum’ to

be Construed [as a separate] Supplemental Complaint” pursuant

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d), due to plaintiff’s logistical limitations

during his present incarceration. Plaintiff states, for example, 

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 19 Filed 11/10/05 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

that he requested access to law library materials on August 17

which he has yet to obtain; that it took him three weeks to

obtain a pad of legal paper and envelopes; that he does not have

a copy of his original complaint; and that he anticipates a delay

of several weeks just to obtain legal paper.

On October 3, defendant filed a letter requesting

clarification. 

Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for this court’s

departure from the local requirement of Rule 15-220 that the

complaint and supplemental complaint be combined in one document.

Since the court has determined plaintiff’s supplemental complaint

meets the “subsequent events” requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(d), and plaintiff has served both his original and

supplemental complaints upon defendant, permitting this action to

now move forward promotes the goal of efficiency underlying Rule

15(d) (see Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir. 1988).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is granted. Defendant

shall serve and file one answer to both complaints within twenty

days after service of this order.

So ordered.

Dated: November 9, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 19 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 2
================================================================================


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 annual report of Patient Portal Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008  as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Thomas Hagan, Acting Financial Officer 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, to my knowledge, 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 Company.

Date: November 10, 2008


                                               /s/ Thomas Hagan
                                               ----------------
                                               Thomas Hagan
                                               Acting Chief Financial Officer






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 60836.

#### Trans-World Shipping Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 272646-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.