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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN JACOBO,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW C. KRAMER, et al.,

Respondent.

CIV S-04-1876 LKK GGH P

ORDER

Respondent has requested an enlargement of time in which to file supplemental briefing

in this matter. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Respondent request for an enlargement of time is granted;

2. Respondent is directed to file and serve supplemental briefing within forty-five days

from the date of this order. Petitioner may file a reply brief within thirty days thereafter.

DATED: 6/7/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

jaco1876.eot05

Case 2:04-cv-01876-LKK -GGH Document 16 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 1
#### Eric A. Klein, Appellant, v David Martin et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 74]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered July 17, 1995, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs cross motion to the extent of converting defendants’ motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

It is the essence of a cause of action, not its form, which determines the requisite elements which must be alleged and the applicable Statute of Limitations *(Trott v Merit Dept. Store,*106 AD2d 158, 160; *Williams v Arpie,*56 AD2d 689, *affd*44 NY2d 689). Here, plaintiff cannot circumvent the rules of employment-at-will and the one year Statute of Limitations for intentional torts by claiming, without any support in the record, that a third, albeit closely-related party tortiously interfered with his employment *(Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp.,*58 NY2d 293, 303-304; *Matter of Entertainment Partners Group v Davis,*198 AD2d 63; *Williams v Arpie, supra).*Here, the record demonstrates that plaintiff, in essence, complains of the termination of his employment by his employer more than four years prior to commencement of this action.

Finally, there can be no claim of lack of notice to plaintiff here as the IAS Court converted defendants’ motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment pursuant to plaintiff’s cross motion *(compare, Dannasch v Bifulco,*184 AD2d 415). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
l)ISMISS; Opinion tiled September 27, 2012

In The

(!nurt uf ptica1

.fiftI! Jitrirt nf ixzi at 1a11w5

No. 05-00-01592-CV

KANEB PIPE LINE OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P. AND

SUPPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., Appellants

V.

GRACE ENERGY CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 97-05135

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices FitzGerald. Murphy. and Fillmore

Opinion By Justice FitzGerald

By order dated May 7, 2001 , this Court abated the appeal because appellee filed a bankruptcy

petition. Before the Court are the parties’ joint motion to reinstate the appeal,joint motion to vacate

the trial courts judgment consistent with the parties’ agreement, and joint motion for immediate

issuance of the mandate.

We REINSTATE the appeal. We grant the parties’ joint motion to vacate the trial court’s

judgment. We vacate the trial court’s amended final judgment signed on August 30, 2000 and

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

ERRYYTrZcERALD

JUSTICE

001 592F.P05
(uiirt uf i%iprahi

fift1! Outrtrt nt !rxw it lat1a

JUDGMENT

KANEB PIPE LINE OPERATING Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

PARTNERSHIP, L.P. AND SUPPORT of I)allas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 97-

TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., Appellants 05135).

OpiniorL delivered by Justice FitzGerald.

No. 05-00-0i592-CV V. Justices Murphy and Fillmore, participating.

GRACE ENERGY CORPORATION,

Appellee

Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, the August 30, 2000 amended judgment ofthe trial

court is VACATED and the case is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that the parties’ beat’ their own costs of the appeal.

.Judgment entered September 27, 2012.

1’

%ERRY P FjAtD—

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) of TICC Capital
Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jonathan H. Cohen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|                                                
|/s/ JONATHAN H. COHEN                           
|Name: Jonathan H. Cohen Date:   November 9, 2009
#### Barbara Douglas, Appellant, v Long Island Rail Road, Respondent.

[635 NYS2d 476]

—Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated July 21, 1994.

*312Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Robbins at the Supreme Court. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit      32**

**Certification      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 **

|   | 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:                August 11, 2008 | By:         | /s/                MICHAEL S. DUNLAP                |
|--------------------------------------|-------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                 | Name:  | Michael                S. Dunlap                    |
|                                 | Title:      | Chairman                and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                 |        |                                                |
|                                 | By:         | /s/                TERRY J. HEIMES                  |
|                                 | Name:       | Terry                J. Heimes                      |
|                                 | Title:      | Chief                Financial Officer              |

----
No. 53602.

protests 52452-K, etc. (Boston).

#### Jordan Marsh Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**OFFICER’S      CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT      TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18      U.S.C. 1350)**

| 1.     | The                Report is in full compliance with reporting requirements of Section                13(a)                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                Corporation. |

|    |                                                             |
|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         | /s/                *Zak W. Elgamal*                              |
|         | Zak                W. Elgamal                                    |
|         | Chairman                of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |
|         | (Principal              Executive Officer)                       |
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

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2520 LKK JFM P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 25, 2005, this court granted plaintiff an extension of

time in which to file his second amended complaint until May 31, 2005, but held the April 13,

2005 findings and recommendations in abeyance pending receipt of his second amended

complaint. On May 2, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations,

dated April 22, 2005, which apparently crossed in the mail with this court’s April 25, 2005 order. 

In his May 2, 2005 objections, plaintiff seeks additional time to file his second amended

complaint, but states he can file his amended complaint by May 31, 2005. Since that is the new

deadline set by this court’s April 25, 2005 order, plaintiff will be directed to file his second

amended complaint by May 31, 2005.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 16 Filed 05/11/05 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

1

 Plaintiff has been attaching copies of prior court orders as well as his own prior court

filings to documents filed with the court. (See February 7, 2005 Request, and May 2, 2005

Objections.) Plaintiff is advised that the court retains copies of all courts filings, as well as court

orders, so plaintiff is not required to attach copies of prior filings to future filings. 

2

Plaintiff also seeks permission to pursue the instant action as a class action. 

Plaintiff, however, is a non-lawyer proceeding without counsel. It is well established that a

layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See McShane v. United States, 366

F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966). This rule becomes almost absolute when, as here, the putative class

representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405,

1407 (4th Cir. 1975). In direct terms, plaintiff cannot “fairly and adequately protect the interests

of the class,” as required by Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Martin v.

Middendorf, 420 F. Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1976). This action, therefore, will not be construed as a

class action and instead will be construed as an individual civil suit brought by plaintiff.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall file his second

amended complaint no later than May 31, 2005. No further extensions of time will be granted.

DATED: May 10, 2005.

/001

jenk2520.ext2 

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 16 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4997]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,802]

Collins and Aikman; Farmington, NH; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on January 22, 2007 in response to a 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Collins 
and Aikman, Farmington, New Hampshire. The workers at the subject 
facility produce interior car parts.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 12th day of March 2007.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-4997 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
**Exhibit 23**

 

 

# **Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

#  

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in Fidelity D & D Bancorp, Inc.’sAnnual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission of our report dated March 12, 2008 relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Fidelity D & D Bancorp, Inc. andSubsidiary as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and for each of the years inthe three-year period ended December 31, 2007, which report appears in theRegistrant’s Annual Report to Shareholders for the year ended December 31,2007.

 

****

 

 

 

Scranton, Pennsylvania

March 12, 2008

 

83

----
**EXHIBIT      12**

**RATIO      OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

| (in                thousands, except ratio)                            |   | **For                the years ended June 30,** |    |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|---------|
|                                                                   |   | **2007**                                        |    | **2006** |   | **2005** |   | **2004** |   | **2003** |   |
| Consolidated                pre-tax income from continuing operations  |   | $                                               | 185,652 |   | $ | 146,175 |   | $ | 101,351 |   | $ | 55,273 |   | $ | 79,965 |   |
| Interest                portion of rental expense                      |   |                                            | 6,167   |   |   | 5,373 |   |   | 5,089 |   |   | 4,375 |   |   | 2,671 |   |
| Minority                interest                                       |   |                                            | ─ |   |   | — |   |   | — |   |   | 843 |   |   | 162 |   |
|                                                                   |   |                                            |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings                                                               |   | $                                               | 191,819 |   | $ | 151,548 |   | $ | 106,440 |   | $ | 60,491 |   | $ | 82,798 |   |
|                                                                   |   |                                            |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed                charges, being interest portion of rental expense |   | $                                               | 6,167   |   | $ | 5,373 |   | $ | 5,089 |   | $ | 4,375 |   | $ | 2,671 |   |
|                                                                   |   |                                            |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio                of earnings to fixed charges                      |   |                                            | 31.1    |   |   | 28.2 |   |   | 20.9 |   |   | 13.8 |   |   | 31.0 |   |

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Arthur S. Locke III, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Websense, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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 annual report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Websense as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

4. Websense’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for Websense and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to Websense,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of Websense’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisannual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this annual report any change in Websense’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring Websense’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Websense’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. Websense’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to Websense’s auditors and the audit committee of Websense’s board of directors: 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect Websense’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in Websense’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: February 25, 2010
#### Superfine Lens Cleaner Co. *v.*United States

No. 7289.

Invoice dated Manchester, England, April 15, 1946.

Certified April 15, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 15, 1946.

Entry No. 760967.

(Decided June 17, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Sidney Mandell*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 *187the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on .entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar eases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2007194EN.01001801.xml

| 22.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/18

---

Publication, pursuant to Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, concerning a cancellation application

(2007/C 194/12)

This publication confers the right to object the cancellation application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (1). Statements of objections must reach the Commission within six months from the date of this publication.

1

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

Cancellation request according to Article 12(2)

‘LÖWENSTEINER MINERALQUELLE’

EC No: DE/PDO/017/0922/23.7.2003

ImagePGI ImagePDO

1.   Registered name proposed for cancellation:

‘Löwensteiner Mineralquelle’

2.   Member State or Third Country:

Germany

3.   Type of product:

Class 2.2: Natural mineral waters and spring waters

4.   Person or body making request for cancellation:

| Name: | Teusser Mineralbrunnen Karl Rössle GmbH & Co. KG |
| --- | --- |
| Address: | D-74245 Löwenstein-Teusserbad |

Name:

Teusser Mineralbrunnen Karl Rössle GmbH & Co. KG

Address:

D-74245 Löwenstein-Teusserbad

Nature of legitimate interest in making the request:

The applicant is the only producer of the protected name.

5.   Reasons for Cancellation:

The applicant has decided that it no longer wants to use the name as a protected designation of origin and therefore no longer wants to pay the control costs.

---

(1)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

---
No. 46774.

#### Protests 440349-G, etc., of Bow Tsee Tong & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

On the authority of *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) some of the articles in question, found to be crude drugs, were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1567, Tariff Act of 1922, or paragraph 1669, Tariff Act of 1930, and other commodities were held dutiable as drugs, advanced, at 10 percent ad valorem under paragraph 34, Tariff Act of 1922, or paragraph 34, Tariff Act of 1930, in accordance with stipulation of counsel. Protests sustained in part.