alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AOA0128.DOC;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 

27 

28 

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

CASE NO. 2:04-CV-02743 DFL (GGH)

THOMAS E. MOORE III (SB#115107) 

ROBERT O. WHYTE (SBN 130021)

TOMLINSON ZISKO LLP

200 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94306 

Telephone: (650) 325-8666 

Facsimile No.: (650) 324-1808 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

RIPPEY COMMERCIAL LLC 

KATHLEEN FINNERTY (SB# 157638) 

LIVINGSTON & MATTESICH 

1201 K Street, Suite 1100 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 442-1111 

Facsimile: (916) 448-1709 

Attorneys for Defendant 

W.G. GRINDERS FRANCHISE, INC. 

and CONSTANCE S. BELLISARI 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

RIPPEY COMMERCIAL LLC, a California 

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

W.G. GRINDERS FRANCHISE, INC., an Ohio 

corporation, and CONSTANCE S. BELLISARI, 

an individual, 

Defendants. 

NO. 2:04-CV-02743 DFL (GGH) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Case 2:04-cv-02743-DFL-GGH Document 11 Filed 08/04/05 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

AOA0128.DOC;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 

27 

28 

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

CASE NO. 2:04-CV-02743 DFL (GGH)

STIPULATION 

Plaintiff Rippey Commercial LLC, and defendants W.G. Grinders Franchise, Inc. and 

Constance S. Bellisari (collectively “the parties”), by their undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate 

as follows: 

1. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., and in accordance with the provisions set 

forth in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release between the parties, the parties 

stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of this action, including the complaint, and hereby move 

the Court for such dismissal. 

2. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. 

Dated: July 28, 2005 By /s/ Thomas E. Moore III 

Thomas E. Moore III 

TOMLINSON ZISKO LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Rippey Commercial LLC 

Dated: July 28, 2005 By /s/ Kathleen Finnerty 

Kathleen Finnerty 

LIVINGSTON & MATTESICH 

Attorneys for Defendant 

W.G. Grinders Franchise, Inc. and 

Constance S. Bellisari 

Case 2:04-cv-02743-DFL-GGH Document 11 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

AOA0128.DOC;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 

27 

28 

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

CASE NO. 2:04-CV-02743 DFL (GGH)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, this matter is hereby dismissed with 

prejudice; and each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. 

Dated: __August 3, 2005 /s/ David F. Levi_____________

HONORABLE DAVID F. LEVI 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-02743-DFL-GGH Document 11 Filed 08/04/05 Page 3 of 3
- cover
- page1
- page2
- page3
- page4
- page5
- page6
- page7
- page8
- page9
- page10
- page11
- page12
- page13
- page14
- page15
- page16
- page17
- page18
1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2737

___________

Tony Dam, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Graco, Inc.; Jim Badzinski, Manager, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 18, 2011

Filed: January 19, 2011

___________

Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tony Dam appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment in

his employment-discrimination action against his former employer Graco, Inc.

(Graco). After careful de novo review, see Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d

979, 982 (8th Cir. 2004), this court concludes that summary judgment was properly

granted. Even assuming Dam made a prima facie case of discrimination, Graco

presented a valid, non-discriminatory reason for his termination – poor job

performance that did not improve – and Dam failed to present a triable issue of fact
-2-

on whether that reason was a pretext for discrimination. See Richmond v. Bd. of

Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 957 F.2d 595, 598 (8th Cir. 1992) (poor job

performance is valid, non-discriminatory reason for termination; defendants produced

documentation that plaintiff’s performance was unsatisfactory, plaintiff ignored

progressive warnings, and performance did not improve).

This court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Robert W. Coadney, Respondent. Anchor Fence Company of Northeast New York, Inc., Appellant; John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 427]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 4, 1994, which assessed Anchor Fence Company of Northeast New York, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions.

*792Claimant worked for Anchor Fence Company of Northeast New York, Inc. as a fence installer from September 1990 through December 1992. The Board assessed Anchor for additional unemployment insurance contributions after finding it to be claimant’s employer. Anchor asserts that the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because claimant and the other fence installers worked as independent contractors. We disagree. The evidence in the record establishes that Anchor paid all of its installers a uniform rate of pay, furnished all materials, periodically inspected its installers’ work, handled customer complaints and arranged for workers’ compensation and liability insurance. In view of this, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                          ( print page 13109)    

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 3, 2007.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond**                     (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:                

*1. PSB Holding Corp.*, Preston, Maryland; to engage                     *de novo*                     through its subsidiary, Community Bank Mortgage Corporation, Easton, Maryland, in the origination and sale of residential mortgage loans to the secondary market, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 14, 2007.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc.E7-4981 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
- firedemA
- firedemB
----

**Exh**
**ibit      32**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

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

|   | /s/                Charles C. Handly                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Charles                C. Handly, President and ChiefExecutive                Officer of Rio Vista GP LLC, thegeneral                partner of Rio Vista Energy Partners L.P.                                                                       |
|   | May 22,              2006                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|   | /s/                Ian T. Bothwell                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|   | Ian                T. Bothwell, Chief Financial Officer(principal                accounting and financial officer) ofRio                Vista GP LLC, the general partner of RioVista                Energy Partners L.P.May                22, 2006 |

----
No. 54717.

#### Salentine and Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 153513-K and 153514-K (Milwaukee).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

When the case was called for trial counsel for the plaintiff abandoned protest 153513-K insofar as it relates to entries 261, 292, 293, 294, 295, 327, 328, 337, and 338, and protest 153514-K insofar as it relates to entries 234, 235, 396, 502, 562, and 591. The protests were dismissed as to the enumerated entries. Insofar as protest 153513-K relates to entries 291, 325, and 326, and protest 153514-K relates to entries 397, 500, 561, and 592, counsel for the *285defendant conceded Ike correctness of the claim made by the plaintiff for duty at 15 percent under paragraph 1530 (f), as-modified. The protests were sustained to the extent indicated.
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

BARRY CULBERT, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2434 GEB DAD PS

vs.

GARET ONLEY,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled

action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On July 29, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. 

No objections to the findings and recommendations have been

filed.

Case 2:04-cv-02434-GEB-DAD Document 16 Filed 09/01/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

The court 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: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 29,

2005, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted; and

3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed with

leave to file a second amended complaint within twenty (20) days

from the date on which this order is filed.

Dated: August 31, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02434-GEB-DAD Document 16 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1  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 Basset Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report), I, Madam Sun Keqing, Chief Executive 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, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  March 24, 2009 /s/ Madam Sun Keqing     Chief Executive Officer
#### EBERLY *v.*EBERLY

[No. 170,

September Term, 1968.]

*Decided April 7, 1969.*

*133The cause was argued before Hammond, C. J., and Marbury, Barnes, Singley and Smith, JJ.

*William J. Dwyer*for appellant.

*John H. Urner*and *Daniel W. Moylan,*with whom were *Bushong, Byron, Moylan & Urner*on the brief, for appellee.

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal by the husband from a decree of the Circuit Court for Washington County granting the wife a divorce *a mensa et thoro*on the ground of desertion and dismissing the husband’s cross bill of complaint for divorce *a mensa et thoro*on the ground of constructive desertion.

Examination of the record reveals that the appeal was filed May 9, 1968. The decree was dated May 7, 1968, but not filed until May 10, 1968. The relevant docket entries are:

> “5/8/68 Argument and Memorandum of Law for the Defendant and Cross-Plaintiff filed. Supplemental Memorandum filed. Legal Memorandum of the Plaintiff filed. Supplemental Memorandum filed.

> “5/9/68 Order for Appeal to the Court of Appeals of Maryland filed.

> “5/10/68 Decree dated May 7, 1968, divorcing the Plaintiff A Mensa Et Thoro from the Defen*134dant and Dismissing the Defendant’s Cross-Bill of Complaint filed May 10, 1968.”

Under Maryland Rule 812 a an appeal must be filed within thirty days from the date of the judgment appealed from. In *Pocock v. Gladden,*154 Md. 249, 140 A. 208 (1928) our predecessors said:

> “[I]n order that the question may be set at rest for the future, it is our opinion that the date of a decree, in contemplation of [the rules] relating to the time within which appeals from decrees or orders of courts of equity shall be taken, is that date upon which the decree becomes effective and binding, which can only be that date upon which it is filed and becomes a part of the public record of the case. It requires no authority to support this conclusion, as otherwise a court could sign a decree, and by inadvertence retain it in his possession until after the time allowed for appeal therefrom had passed. There is nothing binding in the decree of the court until it is filed, for the simple reason that until it is filed the court could alter or destroy it entirely and substitute some other in its place.” *Id.*at 253-54.

See also *Kennedy v. Foley,*240 Md. 615, 214 A. 2d 615 (1965). An appeal may only be taken from a final judgment. *Merlands Club v. Messall,*238 Md. 359, 208 A. 2d 687 (1965). In *Md., Del. & Va. Rwy. Co. v. Johnson,*129 Md. 412, 99 A. 600 (1916) our predecessors held that where the order for appeal was taken five days before judgment was entered the appeal was premature since no judgment existed at the time of appeal.

The appeal is dismissed under Rule 812 a and Rule 835. Had we decided the case on its merits, the decree appealed from would have been affirmed.

*Appeal dismissed; costs to be paid by appellant.*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 24, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

124994-5(69)(73)(75) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

JOHANNA WOODARD, Individually and as 

Next Friend of AUSTIN D. WOODARD,

a Minor, and STEVEN WOODARD, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees

and Cross-Appellants, 

 SC: 124994 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v COA: 239868 

Washtenaw CC: 99-005364-NH 

JOSEPH R. CUSTER, M.D., 

Defendant-Appellant 

and Cross-Appellee,

and 

MICHAEL K. LIPSCOMB, M.D., 

MICHELLE M. NYPAVER, M.D., and 

MONA M. RISKALLA, M.D.,

Defendants. 

_______________________________________ JOHANNA WOODARD, Individually and as 

Next Friend of AUSTIN D. WOODARD,

a Minor, and STEVEN WOODARD, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees

and Cross-Appellants, 

 SC: 124995 

v COA: 239869 

Court of Claims: 99-017432-CM 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL 

CENTER, 

Defendant-Appellant 

and Cross-Appellee. 

___________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motions by the American Board of 

Pediatrics, the American Board of Medical Specialists and the Michigan State Medical 

Society for leave to file briefs amicus curiae are considered and they are GRANTED. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 24, 2005 

Clerk
No. 52307.

protests 965575-G, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Chew Chong Tai & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of kumquats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 342). In accordance therewith the claim at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 was sustained.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Anthony Piscitelli, certify that:

 

     1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of American DefenseSystems, Inc.;

 

     2. Based onmy 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, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

     3. Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

     4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

          (a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation 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) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

          (c) disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

     5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

          (a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

          (b) anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:  April 15, 2010

 
|   | /s/ Anthony Piscitelli                          |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|   | Anthony Piscitelli                              |
|   | Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman |

 

----
#### DORIS WEINBERG, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. TODD SHIPYARDS, RESPONDENT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 97 *N. J. Super.*289.

*Messrs.*HasTeins, *Robottom •& Hade*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Alexander J. Menza*for the respondent.

December 19, 1967.

Denied.
No. 53061.

#### Glenby Fraser & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 120795-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
#### David Beir, *Respondent, v.*Louis Ash and others, *Appellants.*

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinions by Daniels and Brady, JJ.
No. 45010.

#### Protest 33995-K of Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

There was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
6817

#### STEELE v. FRIEDHAM.

*Ruled by case of Steele*v. *Poe, post,*407.

Before DanTzler, J., York,

June, 1907.

Affirmed.

Action by Woods M. Steele and O'rrie Steele against Samuel Friedham, W. L. Rod'dey, J. Ei. Rodldey and J. F. Reid. From ‘Circuit decree, defendant appeals.

*Messrs. Wilson & Wilson,*for appellants.

*W. J. Cherry,*contra.

March 24, 1908.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

*399Mr. Justice Jones.

This case was heard with the case of *Woods M. Steele and Orrie Steele*v. *Anna Lyle Roddey Poe et al.,*involving substantially the same facts and’ principles of law and is controlled by 'the decision therein.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.