alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released the week prior to March 13, 2018)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

A-17-650 Goodwin v. Goodwin

A-17-883 In re Interest of Michael M.

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

ADVANCED SURGICAL CONCEPTS, NO. 2021 CW 1497

L. L. C. 

VERSUS

ALPESH D. PATEL, M. D. FEBRUARY 14, 2022

In Re: Aipesh D. Patel, M. D., applying for supervisory writs, 

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton

Rouge, No. 705, 782. 

BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

PMc

JEW

MRT

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY C ERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
No. 41812.

#### Protest 62903-G of Salem Shawiry (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel certain items consisting of Normandy laces similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40) were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39601

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

THOMAS MICHAEL CHEW ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 348

Filed: January 29, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell , District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed

.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, At torney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Thomas Michael Chew was convicted of stalking in the first d egree, Idaho Code § 18

- 7905. The district court imposed a five

- year determinate sentence and retained jurisdiction. At
the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction program, the district court relinquished jurisdiction

and ordered execution of Chew’s sente nce, sua sponte reducing it to a unified five

- year term with
four years determinate

. Chew appeals the district court’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction.
The decision as to whether to place a defendant on probation or, instead, to relinquish
jurisdictio n is committed to the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Lee , 117 Idaho 203,

205

- 06, 786 P.2d 594, 596

- 97 (Ct. App. 1990). It follows that a decision to relinquish
jurisdiction will not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion. State v. Chapman

,2 120 Idaho 466, 472, 816 P.2d 1023, 1029 (Ct. App. 1991). Idaho Code § 19

- 2521 sets out the
criteria a court must consider when deciding whether to grant probation or impose imprisonment.
A decision to deny probation will not be held to represent an abuse of discretion if the decision is

consistent with the Section 19

- 2521 standards. State v. Merwin , 131 Idaho 642, 962 P.2d 1026
(1998). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information

before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. Therefore, we hold that the district

court did not abuse its discretion.
The order relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

          - [AAG/A Order No. 006-2007] 

      ( print page 12196)    
                    Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Department of Justice (DOJ) is removing the published notice of a Privacy Act system of records: the Deputy Attorney General's (DAG) “Summer Intern Program Records System, JUSTICE/DAG-009,” last published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 21, 1985 at 50 FR 42611.                 

                    This system notice is unnecessary because the records are adequately covered both by: the Government-wide system of records notice published by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), “OPM/GOVT-5, Recruiting, Examining, and Placement Records,” last published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 19, 2006 at 71 FR 35342, 35351; and the Department of Justice system of records, “DOJ-006, Personnel Investigation and Security Clearance Records for the Department of Justice, ” last published in the                     **Federal Register**                     in full text on September 24, 2002 at 67 FR 59864, and amended in part on November 10, 2004 at 69 FR 65224.                 

                    Therefore, the notice of “Summer Intern Program Records System, JUSTICE/DAG-009,” is removed from the Department's listing of Privacy Act systems of records notices, effective on the date of publication of this notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

Dated: March 6, 2007. 

Lee J. Lofthus, 

Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

[FR Doc. E7-4779 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-PB-P
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

FURTHER STIPULATION TO EXTEND DATE TO FILE AND TO RESPOND TO

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION; AND ORDER THEREON

CASE NO. CIV. S-04-2573 DFL GGH 

THOMAS M. HERLIHY (SBN 83615)

THOMAS K. HOCKEL (SBN 172367)

KELLY, HERLIHY & KLEIN LLP

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2500

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 951-0535 OK/HAV

Facsimile: (415) 391-7808

Attorneys for Defendant

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH PILGRIM,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and

DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 

Defendants.

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CIV. S-04-2573 DFL GGH

FURTHER STIPULATION TO

EXTEND DATES TO FILE AND

RESPOND TO MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 

AND ORDER THEREON

Case 2:04-cv-02573-JAM-GGH Document 17 Filed 09/19/05 Page 1 of 3
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

FURTHER STIPULATION TO EXTEND DATE TO FILE AND TO RESPOND TO

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION; AND ORDER THEREON

CASE NO. CIV. S-04-2573 DFL GGH 

The parties herein, by and through their respective counsel, stipulate to a further extension of

the Court’s Pre-trial Scheduling Order as follows:

Last Day for Defendant to File Summary Judgment Motion September 28, 2005

Last day for Plaintiff to file his Opposition to Summary

Judgment and Cross-Motion October 26, 2005

Last day for Defendant to file its Reply to Plaintiff’s

Opposition to Summary Judgment and Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion November 16, 2005

Last day for Plaintiff to file his Reply Brief in support

of Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion November 30, 2005

Hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

and Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion December 7, 2005

10:00 A.M.

It is so stipulated.

KELLY, HERLIHY & KLEIN LLP

Dated: August ___, 2005 By__________________________________

 Thomas K. Hockel

 Attorneys for Defendant

 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. HENDERSON

Dated: August ___, 2005 By__________________________________

 John P. Henderson

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 RALPH PILGRIM

 

Case 2:04-cv-02573-JAM-GGH Document 17 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 3
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

FURTHER STIPULATION TO EXTEND DATE TO FILE AND TO RESPOND TO

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION; AND ORDER THEREON

CASE NO. CIV. S-04-2573 DFL GGH 

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, which is hereby approved, the foregoing is hereby

ordered.

Dated: 9/16/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02573-JAM-GGH Document 17 Filed 09/19/05 Page 3 of 3
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 3, 2018 *

Decided May 7, 2018

Before

J OEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge

No. 18-1128

J ILL OTIS, Plaintiff-Appellant

,

v

.

STATE OF WISCONSIN, et al., Defendants-Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 17-C-1767

Lynn Adelman,
J udge

.

O R D E R

Jill Otis appeals the dismissal at screen ing, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), of her complaint for lack of jurisdiction. She ch allenges a Wisconsin state-court decision terminating her parental rights and placing her child first with the child’s father and

later in foster care. She sued the State of Wisconsin, Racine County, the county’s Human Services Department, and a department em ployee. The district judge, adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, dismissed the case for lack of

* The appellees were not served with process in the district court and are not participating in this appeal. We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately pr esent the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1No. 18-1128 Page 2

subject-matter jurisdiction because the part ies are not diverse and Otis alleged an amount in controversy less than the jurisdictional minimum, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). After the judgment was entered, Otis filed a motion for reconsideration with the district court alleging $80,000 in damages, but the dist rict judge denied the motion because it did not “show grounds for setting aside the order or judgment.”

Otis’s appellate brief is difficult to parse but her complaint was properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdic tion. The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that it exists. Hertz Corp. v. Friend , 559 U.S. 77, 96 (2010). In her complaint Otis said that she is a ci tizen of Wisconsin. She did not allege the citizenship of the other parties unt il she received the magistrate judge’s recommendation to the district judge to dismi ss the case. At that point she asserted only that the state employee whom she sued was a citizen of Wi sconsin. Because the plaintiff must assert that adverse parties are citizens of different states in order to establish jurisdiction under the diversity statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), Otis has not cured the fatal jurisdictional defect.

AFFIRMED
Before the Second Division,

May 12, 1960

No. 64182.

protests 280719-K, etc. (New York).

#### D. H. Grant & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *D. H. Grant & Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 20, C.A.D. 723), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1716

JOSEPH F. GUTHRIE; KELLY PITTMAN GUTHRIE, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellees, 

 v. 

ANTHONY EMERSON FLANAGAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:07-cv-00479-REP) 

Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 31, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Anthony Emerson Flanagan, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph F. Guthrie, 

Kelly Pittman Guthrie, Appellees Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Anthony Flanagan seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders entering judgment in favor of the Appellees on their 

claims of legal malpractice and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) motion for relief from that judgment. We conclude that we 

lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order entering 

judgment against Flanagan and we affirm the court’s order 

denying Flanagan’s Rule 60(b) motion. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period 

is mandatory and jurisdictional. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 

205, 208-13 (2007); see also United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 

679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009). Moreover, a motion for 

reconsideration under Rule 60(b) does not bring up for review 

the merits of the underlying substantive judgment, nor does it 

toll the period for filing an appeal of the underlying judgment. 

Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978). 

Here, the district court’s judgment was entered on the 

docket on August 22, 2008. Although Flanagan initially filed a 

timely notice of appeal of that order, he voluntarily dismissed 

that appeal. Following the district court’s denial of 

2 
3 

Flanagan’s Rule 60(b) motion on May 20, 2009, Flanagan filed a 

notice of appeal on June 18, 2009. Although this notice is 

timely as to the district court’s May 20, 2009 order, it is well 

out of time as to the court’s August 22, 2008 judgment. 

Accordingly, as Flanagan failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal of the district court’s August 22, 2008 judgment, and 

failed to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, 

this court does not have jurisdiction over that order. 

With respect to the court’s order denying Flanagan’s 

Rule 60(b) motion, we confine our review to the issues raised in 

the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Flanagan’s brief 

alleges no error committed by the district court in denying his 

Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

order. 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. 

AFFIRMED
APPENDIX B 

T&B FIELD STUDY/MOBILE MONITORING PLOTS 

Before 6
6 - 8
After 8






Composite of All Hours
11/19

All D

ata
(Reap. Dec. 8528)

#### Globe Lighting Products, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 709604; 713278.

(Decided January 20, 1956)

*John D. JRode*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the merchandise and issues in the above entitled reappraisements are the same as in the case of *United States*v. *Nelson Bead Co.,*C. A. D. 590 and that the record in said case may be incorporated into the record herein.

> *516IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2007131EN.01000801.xml

| 13.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/8

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 131/06)

| Aid No | XE 15/07 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | France |
| Region | Alsace |
| Title of aid scheme | Aide régionale aux bassins en revitalisation économique — ARBRE |
| Legal basis | Règlement d'exemption (CE) no 2204/2002 prolongé par le règlement (CE) no 1976/2006 |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 3 million; Overall budget: — |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(5), 5 and 6 of the Regulation |
| Date of implementation | 1.3.2007 |
| Duration | 30.6.2008 |
| Objective | Article 4: Creation of employment; Article 5: Recruitment of disadvantaged and disabled workers; Article 6: Employment of disabled workers |
| Economic sectors | All Community sectors  (1)eligible for employment aid |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministère de l'industrie/DGE |
| 12, rue Villiot |
| F-75572 Paris CEDEX 12 |

Aid No

XE 15/07

Member State

France

Region

Alsace

Title of aid scheme

Aide régionale aux bassins en revitalisation économique — ARBRE

Legal basis

Règlement d'exemption (CE) no 2204/2002 prolongé par le règlement (CE) no 1976/2006

o

o

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 3 million; Overall budget: —

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(5), 5 and 6 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

1.3.2007

Duration

30.6.2008

Objective

Article 4: Creation of employment; Article 5: Recruitment of disadvantaged and disabled workers; Article 6: Employment of disabled workers

Economic sectors

All Community sectors  (1)eligible for employment aid

1

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministère de l'industrie/DGE

12, rue Villiot

F-75572 Paris CEDEX 12

---

(1)  With the exception of the shipbuilding sector and other sectors subject to special rules in regulations and directives governing all State aid within the sector.

1

---
Exhibit 10.2











March 5, 2015




Partner Communications Company Ltd.


8 Amal Street


Afeq Industrial Park


Rosh-Ha’ayin  48103


Israel




Dear Sirs:





On behalf of Giza Singer Even, 7 Jabotinsky St. Ramat-Gan(the “Consultant”), I hereby confirm that the Consultant has reviewed the information set forth in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Form 20-F”), for Partner Communications Company Ltd. under Item 5A.1d “Acquisition of 012 Smile”, Item 5A.1q “Critical Accounting Estimates and Judgments”, and in Note 4 and Note 12 to the consolidated financial statements included in the Form 20-F, with respect to testing for impairment of assets and the results thereof.





The Consultant hereby confirms the information referred to above and consents to being named in the Form 20-F as an “expert”.





By:____/s/_______


Giza Singer Even LTD.





Name: Alex Shechter


Title: Partner
EXHIBIT 31.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Scott Delbeck, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Wired Associates
     Solutions Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
13th day of September, 2007.


/s/ Scott Delbeck
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer