alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Melvin D. REUBER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al.

No. 85-5698.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 4, 1985.

Leonard E. Cohen and Frances E. Kan-terman, Baltimore, Md., were on motion to dismiss.

*1368Raymond D. Battocchi and Alfred F. Belcuore, Washington, D.C., were on opposition.

On Motion to Dismiss

Before GINSBURG, BORK and STARR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion Per Curiam.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant-appellee Litton Industries, Inc., successfully moved in the district court to dismiss plaintiff-appellant Reu-ber’s claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. Litton would now block Reu-ber’s appeal from that ruling on the ground that the district court’s dismissal decision is not “final” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (“courts of appeals ... shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of district courts”). While dismissing the action as to Litton, the district court— pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) — transferred the case as to Litton’s two co-defendants to the district court in Maryland. Litton contends that so long as a piece of the action originally lodged here remains pending adjudication against some defendant somewhere, Litton’s own amenability to suit in this district must be held in limbo. We disagree and hold that Reuber is challenging a “final” decision; we therefore deny Litton’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

The district court here has thoroughly disengaged itself from this case. No shred of the action remains pending for further adjudication in the District of Columbia; nothing is left over for our district court to rethink or revise. The posture of the litigation is therefore unlike the circumstances addressed in Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 54(b) concerns decisions made on fewer than all claims or parties while portions of the case are retained for further adjudication *in the decision-rendering forum.*In such situations, the decisions governing less than all claims or parties remain nonfinal; they continue to be “subject to revision” until the district court concludes its consideration of the entire case, unless the court expressly determines there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs the entry of final judgment on particular claims or as to particular parties. Rule 54(b) surely does not instruct that Reuber must abide the outcome of the case now lodged *in another forum*— the Maryland district court — against other parties before pursuing in our circuit the question whether Litton may be sued here.

To recapitulate: When a district court has disassociated itself from a case in all respects, it has made its “final decision.” That is what occurred in this case. Therefore, the issue whether personal jurisdiction over Litton lies in this district is ripe for our immediate review. The motion to dismiss Reuber’s appeal is accordingly

*Denied.*
No. 51018.

#### Protest 122174-K of B. Shackman & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the harmonicas in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 40586, the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 1541 was sustained.
Contact Us

#   Download Page for Tabletop Exercise Tool for Water Systems

Tabletop Exercise Tool for Water Systems Emergency Preparedness Response and Climate Resiliency TTX Tool Zip File (zip)(194.86 MB)    

          -  Water Resilience Home 
          -  Basics of Water Resilience 
          -  Water Resilience Tools 
          -  America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) 
          -  Cybersecurity 
          -  Contamination 
          -  Supply Chain Resilience 
          -  Interdependencies 
          -  Training 

Contact Us
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5020]



[[Page 13104]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-301-152]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

March 14, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 9, 2007 subject to Section 4 of the 
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 154 of the Regulations of the 
Commission, and the Offer of Settlement, Stipulation and Agreement 
(``Settlement'') approved in the above-referenced docket, ANR Pipeline 
Company (ANR), tendered for filing and approval, copies of Twelfth 
Revised Sheet No. 190A to include in its Tariff to become effective 
April 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests 
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest 
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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#82c4c7d0c1cdeceeebece7d1f7f2f2edf0f6c2e4e7f0e1ace5edf4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="40060512030f2e2c292e25133530302f323400262532236e272f36">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5020 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>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brouk Arefaine, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 332]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him following the forcible stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. Before stopping the vehicle, an officer confirmed that it matched the description and plate number of a vehicle listed on a "hotsheet” that the officer obtained before going on duty. The officer also received a radio message from a fellow officer that the vehicle was taken during an armed robbery the night before. "A police officer is entitled to act on the strength of a radio bulletin or a telephone or teletype alert from a fellow officer or department and to assume its reliability” *(People v Lypka,*36 NY2d 210, 213; *see also, Whiteley v Warden,*401 US 560, 568). When a defendant challenges the reliability of that information, it is incumbent upon the People to establish that the sender or provider of the information in fact possessed probable cause for the arrest *(see, People v Rosario,*78 NY2d 583, 588, *cert denied*502 US 1109; *People v Landy,*59 NY2d 369, 375; *People v Lypka, supra).*Defendant asserted a general *980objection to the sufficiency of the information in his omnibus motion papers. Because he failed to assert a specific challenge to the reliability of the information either in his motion papers or during the suppression hearing, the People were not required to present evidence that the sender or provider of the information had the requisite probable cause *(see, People v Vaccaro,*214 AD2d 981, *lv denied*86 NY2d 742; *People v Jordan,*178 AD2d 1009, 1010, *lv denied*79 NY2d 920; *People v Ward,*95 AD2d 233, 239-240).

We conclude that the sentence imposed upon defendant is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.—Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
No. 59068.

protest 937001-G (San Francisco).

#### China Fur Trading Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lambskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

*376Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1643, *supra.*
No. 38893.

#### Protest 923473-G of Ernest E. Marks Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of thyme leaves similar to those the subject of Abstract 36805. The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated February 14, 2003, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements of Aladdin Systems Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the
"Company") included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 2002. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of
said report in the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No.
333-46712).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

San Jose, California
February 14, 2003




                                       93
<PAGE>
No. 60896.

#### Automatic Toy Co. and F. L. Kraemer & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 276140-K (A) and 276140-K (B) (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, effective July 1, 1955, the protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
#### In the Matter of the Petition of William H. Platt.

Order discharging Platt from custody affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Dyeman, J.
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

THOMAS JOSEPH DUNPHY, JR., 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2623 DFL KJM P

vs.

DAVID RUNNELS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 11, 2006, the magistrate judge assigned to this case filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all

parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty

days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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

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

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02623-DFL -KJM Document 15 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 11, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Respondent’s July 18, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted; and

3. This action is dismissed.

DATED: 9/27/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02623-DFL -KJM Document 15 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of  Big  Flash   Corporation(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2000, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Edward F. Cowle, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
     material respects,  the financial condition and result of operations of the
     Company.


/s/ J. Rockwell Smith
---------------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Principal Accounting Officer
September 17, 2004

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
No. 65583.

#### Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 206210-K, etc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks and candelabras similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, except that they are not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, nor colored with gold lacquer, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 10.2


Loan Agreement Summary


 


		1.	Lender and borrower:


 

		Borrower:	Weifang Lakeland Safety Products Co., Ltd. (“WF”)



		Lender:	Weifang Rural Credit Cooperative Bank (“WRCCB”)



 


		2.	The borrowing amounts limit: RMB 8 million, WF can select the borrowing amounts within RMB 8 million
(approximately USD $1,300,000).



 


		3.	Borrowing method: Trading financial, WF mortgaged inventory valued RMB 18,291,748 to the bank.
The bank hired a professional firm to supervise WF’s inventory flow, which WF will pay at a yearly rate of RMB 46,000.



 


		4.	Interests: Interest based on 120% of the benchmark rate. The annum interest rate is 6.42%. Monthly
interest is RMB 42,800 which will be paid monthly.



 


		5.	Borrowing period: up to six months. The longest borrowing period is six months beginning March
25, 2015 and ending September 21, 2015.
#### Brainard White, *Respondent, v.*Lucy White, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Hardin, J.
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 25, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 49 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 03 96 -SDM- AEP-5 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us LUIS QUILES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 25 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Kim

be rly Nole n Ho pk in s, ap po in te d c ou ns el for Lui s Qu il es inth is di rect cri m in al ap pe al , has m ov edto withd raw fro m furth er re pr es en ta ti onof t he ap pe ll an t an d h as fil eda br ie f pu rs ua ntto And er s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of t he en ti re reco rdrev eal s tha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re re co rdrev eal s n o i ss ue s o f arg uabl e m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andQui le s’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e are AFFIRMED.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALICIA ALO,

NO. CIV. S-04-1904 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

SPRINT; SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS

COMPANY, a Delaware corporation;

and U.S. TELECOM, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court are motions in limine in the abovecaptioned case. The court also addresses the parties’ objections

to the trial exhibits. Upon review of the papers and after oral

argument, the court ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendant’s motion to exclude Dr. Pamela Prescott-Kim is

DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s motion regarding the knife incident is

GRANTED.

Case 2:04-cv-01904-LKK -JFM Document 80 Filed 08/07/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

3. Plaintiff’s motion to exclude her employment history is

GRANTED.

4. Plaintiff’s motion regarding collateral source benefits

is DENIED to the extent that the court will consider

collateral source benefits when awarding damages.

5. Plaintiff’s motion regarding defense counsel’s law firm

being referenced as a “minority law firm” is GRANTED.

6. Defendant’s motion to exclude witnesses not properly

disclosed is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: all

witnesses not properly disclosed are STRICKEN, with the

exception of plaintiff’s family members, who shall be

heard. 

7. With respect to plaintiff’s objections to defendant’s

exhibits, the objections are denied subject to renewal

by defendant at the time of trial. The only objections

that are sustained at this point in time are the

objections that relate to exhibits pertaining to the

knife incident and violence in the workplace. 

8. With respect to defendant’s objections to plaintiff’s

exhibits, the objections are denied subject to renewal

by defendant at the time of trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 4, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-01904-LKK -JFM Document 80 Filed 08/07/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 13.1

    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 on Form 20-F of NDS Group plc ("the
registrant") for the fiscal year ended 30 June 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Abraham
Peled, Executive Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
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
     Registrant.



                                             By /s/ Abraham Peled
                                             _______________________________

                                                               Abraham Peled
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


                                                       Date: 21 October 2004


                                      E-18
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 30, 2020
No. 04

- 19

- 00866

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF C.D., a Child , From the 73rd Jud icial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- PA

- 02739 Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant Mom ’s brief was due to be filed with this court on January 29, 2020

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). On t he due date , Mom filed a motion for a nine

- day e xtension of time to file her brief

. A ppellant Mom ’s motion is GRANTED. Her br ief is due on February 7, 2020

.

_______________________ __________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 30th day of January, 2020

.

________________ ___________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ , Clerk of Court
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 15 , 202 4
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 4

- 00 060

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF M.B.

On Appeal from the 313 th District Court

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2022

- 01558J

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal from a n order signed December 8 , 202 3 by a juvenile court waiving its exclusive original jurisdiction in the above trial court proceeding and transferring a child to a criminal district court for criminal proceedings

. 1 See Juvenile Justice Code, Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 54.02(a), 56.01(c)(1)(A). The notice of appeal was due December 28, 2023. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b); Sup. Ct. Misc. Docket No. 15

- 9156 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). Appellant’s

1 Appellant has another appeal pending of a separate order taking the same actions with a different trial

- court proceeding originally before the same juvenile court in case number 14

- 23

- 00969

- CV. That appeal is not affected by this memorandum opinion.2

notice of appeal was filed January 18 , 202 4

. Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion to extend time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but within the 15

- day gra ce period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion to extend time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617

– 18 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within the 15

- day period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3.
On January 26 , 202 4 , notification was transmitted to all parties the appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of jurisdiction unless any party demonstrated by February 5, 2024 that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Neither party filed a response

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of subject

- matter jurisdiction

. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.