alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

27–398 2006

109th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 109–107 

AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES 

OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE SUPREME COURT 

OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE COURT, PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. 2075 

MAY 8, 2006.—Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered 

to be printed 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTS
(III)

LETTER OF SUBMITTAL 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington, DC, April 12, 2006. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I have the honor to submit to the Congress 

the amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 

that have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States 

pursuant to Section 2075 of Title 28, United States Code. 

Accompanying these rules are excerpts from the report of the Judicial Conference of the United States containing the Committee 

Notes submitted to the Court for its consideration pursuant to Section 331 of Title 28, United States Code. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN G. ROBERTS, Jr., 

Chief Justice. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTS

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTS
(1) 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 3 here HD107.000
2 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 4 here HD107.001
3 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 5 here HD107.002
4 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 6 here HD107.003
5 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 7 here HD107.004
6 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 8 here HD107.005
7 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 9 here HD107.006
8 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 10 here HD107.007
9 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 11 here HD107.008
10 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 12 here HD107.009
11 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 13 here HD107.010
12 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 14 here HD107.011
13 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 15 here HD107.012
14 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 16 here HD107.013
15 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 17 here HD107.014
16 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 18 here HD107.015
17 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 19 here HD107.016
18 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 20 here HD107.017
19 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 21 here HD107.018
20 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 22 here HD107.019
21 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 23 here HD107.020
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 21, 2015

No. 04-14-00785-CV

Mary Ann CASTRO,

Appellant

v.

Manuel CASTRO,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-15957

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

ORDER

 On May 18, 2015, appellant filed eight additional motions – “Motion for 

Reconsideration,” “Motion to Deny Counsel Joseph Appelt and Applee [sic] Manuel Castro 

Time to Turn in Appellee Brief,” “Motion to Amend Agreement for Final Divorce Signed 

10/30/2013,” “Motion for Action for Bill of Review BSI Mortgage Statement to Modify 

Agreement for Final Divorce . . .,” “Motion to Redivison [sic] of Community Estate Due to 

Fraud . . .,” “Motion to Just and Right Divison [sic] of Community Estate Due to Fraud . . .,” 

“Motion for Punitive Damages . . .,” and “Motion to Grant Appellant Relief and Punitive 

Damages Who is the Wronged Spouse.” We DENY the eights motions identified in this order.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of May, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Duff, Appellant, *v.*Caputo.

Argued October 10, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

reargument refused December 27, 1968.

*Melvin Schwartz,*with him *Cooper, Goodman & Schwwrtz,*for appellant.

*Robert E. Wayman,*with him *Wayman, Irvin, Trushel & McAuley,*for appellees.

*8November 27, 1968:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed by an equally divided court.

Mr. Justice Musmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Eagen :

The lower court entered judgment for the defendants notwithstanding the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The court felt that the evidence established that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. In my view, this disposition was erroneous.

It is fundamental that contributory negligence exists as a matter of law only where there is no reasonable basis for holding otherwise under the facts of the case. *Cushey v. Plunkard,*413 Pa. 116, 196 A. 2d 295 (1964). I am not convinced that under all of the circumstances disclosed by the evidence in the instant case that there is no room for “fair and reasonable disagreement” as to the plaintiff’s negligence.

I dissent, and would reverse the judgment of the lower court and would enter judgment on the verdict returned by the jury.

Mr. Justice O’Brien and Mr. Justice Roberts join in this dissent.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6480
CLEVELAND SANDERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-03-1127-6-25AK) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleveland Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Rawls Edwards, NEXSEN PRUETT, Columbia, South Carolina; Roy F. Laney, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Cleveland Sanders appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny his motion to remand his action back to state court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Sanders v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr. , No. CA-03-1127-6-25AK (D.S.C. Feb. 12, 2004). We deny Sanders’s motion to consolidate, and 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
No. 51766.

#### Protests 117349-K, etc., of C. J. Tower & Sons (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
No. 47433.

#### Protest 59150-K of Pioneer Import Corp.

C. D. 636. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>   1

Exhibit 10.37

Mr. Seth Frielich
9 Pond View Circle
Sharon, MA  02067

December 8, 1998

Dear Seth:

         As we discussed UTEK Corporation would like to engage your services as
an independent marketing representative. Your duties would be to introduce UTEK
to CEO's of public companies for the purpose of having UTEK be engaged by these
companies to find and acquire and transfer technology licenses to them. Your
services will be rendered as an independent contractor and not as an employee of
UTEK.

         Dr. Gross will provide some assistance to you to help ensure that you
can make knowledgeable and effective sales presentation.

         We would like you to provide these services on a time available basis,
where you decide how much effort and time you will spend soliciting
prospects/customers for UTEK. You are free to provide these services at a
location of your choice. You must cover your own expenses while providing this
service.

         In consideration for providing this service to the company, UTEK will
compensate you with 10% of any monies or stock received from a customer you
introduce to UTEK, within one week following the closing of a technology
transfer agreement between this customer and UTEK.

         The term of this Agreement is 12 months. This Agreement may be
cancelled by either party upon 90 days notice.

         This Agreement is governed by the Laws of the State of Florida.

         If you agree with all of the above terms, please sign and send a copy
of this letter to me. Seth, I look forward to working with you in the months to
come.

Very best regards,


/s/  Clifford M. Gross


Clifford M. Gross, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer


Agreed to:


/s/  Seth D. Frielich
------------------------
Mr. Seth Frielich

 6/30/99
------------------------
Date
#### MARY McCOLLUM, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COORDINATED TRANSPORT, *ET. AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

April 27, 1964. Denied.

*Mr. Joseph B. Moss*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Francis J. Murphy*and *Mr. John F. Ward*for the respondents.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.
No. 54742.

#### Cohn & Rosenberger, Inc., and Miller Harness Co. *v.*United States,

protests 105162-K and 157680-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Sun Drug Company, Inc., Appellant, *v.*University Park Shopping Village, Inc. et al., Appellants.

Argued October 11, 1968.

Before Bell, 0. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*William T. Marsh,*with him *Earl F. Glock,*and *Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay,*and *Glock & Mayer,*for plaintiff.

*W. Louis Coppersmith,*with him *Margolis and Coppersmith,*for defendants.

January 15, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Orders affirmed.

Mr. Justice Musmanno took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### Carol Henderson, Appellant, v Hickory Pit Restaurant et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 31]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about April 18, 1994, which granted defendant G.S.L. Enterprises, Inc.’s motion and defendant Hickory Pit Restaurant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny Hickory Pit Restaurant’s cross motion and to reinstate the complaint against it, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleged that she was injured when she slipped and fell on rotten vegetables on the sidewalk in front of the Hickory Pit Restaurant, whose premises were owned by G.S.L. Enterprises, Inc. Summary judgment was properly awarded to G.S.L. Enterprises, Inc. The right of reentry to inspect and make repairs retained by the out-of-possession landlord did not render it responsible for the general maintenance of the premises. That was the sole responsibility of Hickory Pit. The defect complained of did not involve significant structural and/or design defects or violate specific Administrative Code provisions which the landlord could have had the opportunity to discover and cure *(see, Manning v New York Tel. Co.,*157 AD2d 264, 269-270, distinguishing *Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co.,*69 NY2d 559; *see also, Brooks v Dupont Assocs.,*164 AD2d 847).

*162However, the court erred in granting Hickory Pit Restaurant’s cross motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff raised material issues of fact as to this defendant’s liability by introducing circumstantial evidence tending to show that the restaurant was responsible for the creation of the dangerous condition (see, *Negri v Stop & Shop,*65 NY2d 625; *Giambrone v New York Yankees,*181 AD2d 547; *Brito v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr, Operating Auth.,*188 AD2d 253, 254, *appeal dismissed*81 NY2d 993). .The issue of Hickory Pit’s liability should be left for a jury to resolve (see, *Ugarriza v Schmieder,*46 NY2d 471, 474). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.
----

# Shock and Awe:

## Achieving Rapid Dominance 

## 

Written By 

Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade 

 

With: 

L.A. "Bud" Edney, Fred M. Franks, Charles A. Horner, Jonathan T. Howe, and Keith Brendley

**NDU Press Book**

**December 1996**

----

## Contents 

Foreword 

Prologue 

Introduction to Rapid Dominance 

Chapter 1. Background and Basis 

Chapter 2. Shock and Awe 

Chapter 3. Strategic, Policy, and Operational Application   

Chapter 4. An Outline for System Innovation and Technological   Integration 

Chapter 5. Future Directions 

Appendices -- Reflections of Three Former Commanders

> 
Appendix A. "Thoughts on Rapid Dominance" by     Admiral Bud Edney 

> 
Appendix B. "Defense Alternatives: Forces Required"     by General Chuck Horner 

> 
Appendix C. "Enduring Realities and Rapid Dominance"     by General Fred Franks

Biographies of the Study Group Members 

----

Contact   UsNDU   Press Home PageNDU Home PageINSS Home Page

Last Update:      January 23, 2003
446 A.2d 683

#### Commonwealth v. Tucker, Appellant.

Submitted March 24, 1981.

John J. Moran, II, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Richard H. Horn, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P. J., and WIEAND and LIPEZ, JJ.

The judgment of sentence of the lower court is affirmed.
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 235 Promenade Street, Providence, R102908-5767 TDD401-222-4462

14 December 2007 David Conroy EPA- New

England, Region I 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA02114-2023 Dear Mr. Conroy: As you are aware, sections 110(a) (1) and (2) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) provide procedural, timing and infrastructure requirements related to compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) . In 2005, the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into a Consent Decree with EarthJustice which obligates EPAto determine whether states have made the submissions necessary to meet the 110(a)(1) and (2) requirements forthe 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 15 December 2007. To meet this obligation, EPAissued a guidance memo on 2 October 2007 directing states to review their existing ozone State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and, ifthe existing SIP is adequate to meet the 110(a) requirements, to certify that adequacy in a letter to the EPA

. This letter will serve as the required certification for Rhode Island. Theguidance memo identifies fourteen elements required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) . Those elements and the sections ofthe Rhode Island programthat are consistent with those elements are identified in the attached table . The Rhode Island SIP, whichwas approved in May 1972, and its numerous subsequent revisions fulfill most ofthese requirements. Other Section 110(a)(2) requirements are fulfilled in Section 23-23 ofthe Rhode Island General Laws (RIGL) and in the Rhode Island Air Pollution Control Regulations (APCR) that have been incorporated into or submitted to the EPAfor incorporation into the Rhode Island SIP. Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (401) 222-4700, extension 7010or Barbara Morin of my staff at extension 7012. d Very truly yours Stephen M

jkut, Aief Office ofAir Resources cc. Anne Arnold, EPA Region I

~4FW- " 30%

post-consumer fiber
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5018]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-345-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

March 14, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 9, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing in its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of 
April 9, 2007:

Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 252
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 253

    Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed 
to each of its customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone 
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on 
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before 
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#11575443525e7f7d787f74426461617e636551777463723f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b2d2e392824050702050e381e1b1b04191f2b0d0e1908450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5018 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.10

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Frontier Diversified Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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 Frontier Diversified Series.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                         
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                             
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Diversified Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                           
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                            
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                                
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund                                                                                                                    
|Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Frontier Diversified Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund                                                      

Date: May 12, 2010
Exhibit 23.01

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-60430,
333-38696, 333-76804, 333-92232 and 333-131697) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-87858,
333-111306 and 333-113353) of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. of our report dated March 9, 2006 relating to the financial statements, management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
Denver, Colorado
March 9, 2006

---



QuickLinks
#### ARTHUR QUINTER, *ET*ALS., APPELLANTS-PETITIONERS, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

*Messrs. Kmiec & Palumbo*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Arthur J. Sills*and *Mr. Theodore A. Winard*for the respondent.

February 13, 1968.

Denied.