alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD A. WELCH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

BILL LATOUR, Esquire, 

Real-party-in-interestAppellee,

 and

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56544

D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00740-DFM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Douglas F. McCormick, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 7, 2018** 

Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

FILED

MAR 09 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Plaintiff Ronald Welch timely appeals the district court’s order awarding

attorney fees to real-party-in-interest Bill LaTour, Plaintiff’s lawyer in an

underlying Social Security benefits case. We vacate the judgment and remand.

The district court correctly identified the legal standard for determining the

amount of fees to award under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for representing a Social

Security claimant in court: The district court must conclude that the fees granted

are reasonable under the standards set forth in Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789

(2002), and in Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). But

the district court did not comply with Crawford’s requirement that the court

"provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award." 586 F.3d

at 1152 (internal quotation marks omitted).

A clear explanation is particularly important here, in light of the unusual

circumstances of this case. Counsel misplaced Plaintiff’s case file, which may

have affected the duration of the case. Moreover, counsel worked

disproportionally few hours compared to the large fee awarded. On remand, the

district court shall enunciate how those and other relevant circumstances affect the

calculation of a reasonable fee.

VACATED and REMANDED. The parties shall bear their own costs on

appeal.

2
#### Joan Rockmaker, Appellant, v Philippe M. Alphonse, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[635 NYS2d 492]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated July 12, 1994, which granted the defendant Philippe M. Alphonse’s motion for leave to vacate a default judgment entered against him dated September 7, 1993. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated November 15, 1994, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination *(see,*CPLR 5517 [b]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 12, 1994, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated November 15, 1994, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 15, 1994, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court did *618not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the motion by the defendant Philippe M. Alphonse to vacate the default judgment since Alphonse established a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense *(see, Fennell v Mason,*204 AD2d 599; *Putney v Pearlman,*203 AD2d 333). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Seifi Ghasemi, certifythat:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)           All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: May 15, 2006 | /s/ SEIFI GHASEMI                    |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                    | Seifi Ghasemi                        |
|                    | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1923. LAMARKUS SNEED v. THE STATE.

Lamarkus Sneed was convicted of aggravated sexual battery. On April 8, 2015,

the trial court entered an order denying his motion for new trial. On May 13, 2015,

Sneed filed a notice of appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the appealable

order. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is

an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See Rowland v. State,

264 Ga. 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Because Sneed filed his notice of appeal 35

days after entry of the trial court’s order, his appeal is untimely. Accordingly, we

lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Because Sneed is represented by counsel, he is informed of the following in

accordance with Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995): This appeal

has been dismissed because of your counsel’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal. 

If you still wish to appeal, you may request the trial court to grant an out-of-time

appeal. If the trial court grants an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days from that

grant in which to instigate an appeal. If the trial court denies your request for an outof-time appeal, you may appeal that denial by filing a notice of appeal within 30 days

of the denial. If you no longer wish to appeal your conviction, you need not do

anything else.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to Sneed as well as

to Sneed’s attorney, who is also directed to send a copy to Sneed.

July 20, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/20/2015
No. 46776.

#### Protests 785231-G, etc., of International Research Alliance et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Fashion Trimming Corp.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 199, C. D.462) slung spangles were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 1503 as claimed.
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 235 Promenade Street, Providence, RI 02908-5767 TDD 401-222-4462

24 May 2016 David Conroy U.S. EPA

- Region 1 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OEP05-02) Boston, MA 02109-3912 

### Re: Withdrawal of Regulations from State Implementation Plan Submission Dear Mr. Conroy: By letter dated September 22, 2008, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) submitted thirty-two (32) ofits Air Pollution Control Regulations as formal revisions to the Rhode Island State Implementation Plan (SIP). I am requesting that the following regulations be withdrawn from the September 22, 2008 submittal. Air Pollution Control Regulation No
. 5 " Fugitive Dust" Rea son : Contains Director discretion provi sion s. Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 8 " Sulfur Content of Fuels " Reason: A more recent version of thi s regulation has been approved into the SIP Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 13 " Particulate Emissions from Fossil Fuel Fired Steam or Hot Water Generating Units" Reason: Contains Director discretion provisions. Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 16 "Operation ofAir Pollution Control Systems" Reason: This regulation was included in Startup/ Shutdown/Malfunction SIP Call. Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 20 " Burning ofAlternative Fuels" Reason : Department' s decision Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 25 " Control ofVolatile Organic Compound Emissions from Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt" Reason : A more recent version of this regulation has been approved into the SIP Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 28 " Operating Permit Fee s" Reason: Title V operating permit programs are not part ofthe SIP.

A: 

## \.J 30% post
-consumer fibe rAir Pollution Control Regulation No. 29 " Operating Permits " Reason: Title V operating permit programs are not part of the SIP. Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 36 "Control ofEmissions from Organic Solvent Cleaning " Reason: A more recent vers ion ofthis regulation has been approved into the SIP Air Pollution Control Regulation No 37 " Rhode Island 's Low Emiss ion Vehicle Program" Reason: A more recent version of thi s regulation has been approved into the SIP Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 39 "Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators" Reason: 111 (d) programs are not part ofthe SIP
. Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 41 "NOx Budget Trading Program " Reason: This regulation was repealed in 2014. Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 42 " Heavy -Duty Die sel Engine Standards" Reason: This regulation was repealed in 2014. Additionally, I am requesting Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 17 " Odors" that was included in the September 22, 2008 SIP submission be withdrawn and further request that it b e removed from the SIP entirely as EPA has determined that Rhode Island's odor regulations do not have a reasonable connection to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and related air quality goal s of the Clean Air Act. Ifyou have any questions on this issue, please contact me at (401) 222-2808, x-7011. Sincerely,

Office ofAir Resources
cc: Susan Lancey

- EPA Ida McDonnell

- EPA
****

****
This script file displays the date and time
Your browser is either not set/configured to read script files or cannot read them.
This script creates drop-down menus for each of the 6 buttons.  If you click on a buttonyou will be taken to that section's list of options, equivalent to the drop-down menus.

 **The U.S. National Arboretum presents *Ilex crenata*'SkyPencil', a unique form of Japanese holly that makes a living exclamationpoint in the landscape!**The strongly fastigiate, pencil-thin growthhabit and lustrous, dark evergreen leaves provide a rare, natural, verticalaccent in the landscape. Even the smallest of spaces can accommodate thisexcellent and durable holly.      **'Sky Pencil'**Japanese Holly **Botanical Name:***Ilex crenata* Thunb. 'Sky Pencil' (NA 57190)**Family:**Aquifoliaceae**Hardiness:**U.S.D.A. Zone 7**Development:**Discovered in the wild on Mount Daisen, Honshu, Japan, by NorihiroShibamichi, this upright holly found its way to the private collectionof Dr. Masato Yokoi, Kawaguchi City, Japan. Dr. Yokoi donated propagationmaterial of this selection to Sylvester March, U.S.N.A., and FrederickDarke, Longwood Gardens, during a 1985 U.S. National Arboretum collectingtrip. It was propagated and distributed as 'Sky Pencil' through the ElitePlant Program in 1992. **Significance:**A unique form of Japanese holly, 'Sky Pencil' has a naturally narrowand fastigiate growth pattern. **Description:****Height and Width:** 10 feet talland approximately 2.5-3.0 feet wide at maturity. **Habit:** Tall, multistemmed, narrowlyfastigiate, evergreen shrub. **Foliage:** Lustrous, dark evergreenleaves typical of the species. **Flowers:** Female selection. Small,solitary, dull greenish-white flowers in May to June, in leaf axils ofcurrent season's growth. **Fruit:**A berry-like, dark purpledrupe, 1/4 inch in diameter, ripening in September to October. Inconspicuous. **Culture:**Prefers light, moist but well-drained, slightly acid soils in eithersun or shade. Transplants easily. Needs no pruning to maintain growth habit.Chlorosis may occur if soils are too alkaline.**Propagation:**Roots easily from semi-hardwood cuttings taken in mid to late summer,under mist, 1000-3000 ppm IBA quick dip, in 4-6 weeks.**Landscape Use:**Effective as a single specimen; dense, narrow hedge; mixed with otherevergreen and deciduous plants. Well suited for urban gardens and smallerspaces which demand a strong vertical accent. Excellent for formal spacesor foundation plantings.**Availability:**Readily available from wholesale nurseries and some retail nurseries. 
 
**U.S. National Arboretum Elite Plant** Gardens Unit U.S. National Arboretum, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Agricultural Research Service, 3501 New York Ave., N.E., Washington, DC20002
Back to the Arboretum Home PageArboretum Information || Events & Education || Gardens & Horticulture || Research ActivitiesSupport the Arboretum ||New Plant Introductions || USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map || CommentsSearch Our Site
*Last Updated January 14, 2002*URL = ../Newintro/skypenc1.htmlnarj
#### Ira H. Gibson and others, *Respondents, v.*The Black River Insurance Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Hardin, J., not sitting.
----

----

----

----

----

|   | MANHATTAN SCIENTIFICS, INC. |                                |
|--------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|   |                        |                                |   |
|   | By:                         | /s/ Emmanuel Tsoupanarias      |   |
|   |                        | Name: Emmanuel Tsoupanarias    |   |
|   |                        | Title: Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |                        |                                |   |
|   |                        |                                |   |
|   | NORMANDIE NEW MEXICO CORP.  |                                |
|   |                        |                                |   |
|   | By:                         | /s/ Marvin Maslow                   |   |
|   |                        | Name: Marvin Maslow                 |   |
|   |                        | Title: President                    |   |

----
#### AMERICAN PHOTOCOPY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. AMPTO, INC., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

April 27, 1964. Denied.

See same case below: 82 *N. J. Super.*531.

*Messrs. Morris, Downing & Sherred, Mr. John R. Knox*and *Mr. Samuel J. Stoll*of the New York bar, for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Glapp & Eisenberg*for the respondent.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

**ALESTRA, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Rolando Zubirán Shetler, the Chief Executive Officer of Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge: 

1. the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the year endedDecember 31, 2006, to which this statement is filed as an exhibit (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: March 30, 2007 

 

 

1
#### ISAAC LONG, Respondent, *v.*JOSEPH TAYLOR, Appellant.

*Evidence*— in *an action to recover am, account for articles sold, the character of a pa/rty, in respect to his*“ *manner ofTceeping accounts,” cannot he proved,.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered on the report of a referee in an action in Erie County Oourt on two accounts, one arising in a grist mill, the other in a saw mill.

The action was brought to recover of the defendant a grist mill account and a saw mill account.

Upon the trial, Elias Rust, who had been a copartner with plaintiff from 1862 to 1876, and kept the books of the firm, was called as a witness and allowed to testify as to his recollection of the general accounts of the defendant with the firm.

The court at General Term said: *“*Appellant contends the referee erred in excluding evidence of witness Aldrich as to plaintiff’s character in respect to dealings and manner of keeping accounts, and confining witness to particular acts of dishonesty.

“ By the case it appears Ira Aldrich was called as a witness for the defendant, and he testified that he ‘had dealt with plaintiff at the mill; had occasion to settle with him; Mr. Loñg was keeping books *128at the grist mill at that time.’ He was asked, viz.: Question. *‘*What is the plaintiff’s character *vn respect*to his dealings and manner of keeping accounts ? ’ This was objected to by the plaintiff. The referee ruled that witness may state any particular act of dishonesty or error in books, but excluded the question asked. To this ruling the defendant’s counsel excepted.

“ (1.) When the question was put the plaintiff’s books had not been read in evidence. Rust, a partner, had been put upon the, stand and taken the firm’s books and looked at certain entries therein made by him, which he did not recollect without the books, and upon looking at them he verified them, and his entries were introduced. *(Collins*v. *Bockwood,*decided, Fourth Hep., June, 1882, and *Guy*v. Mead, 22 N. Y., 462.)

*“*(2.) The question was too broad; it called for the plaintiff’s character in respect to ' * * * *‘*his manner of keeping accounts.’ No case has been cited which goes to the extent of allowing a witness to express *an opinion*as to a party’s character as to *‘*his manner of keeping accounts,’ and we do not understand from the case of *Tomlinson*v. *Borst*(30 Barb., 46) that any such rule was favored by the court in the decision of that case. No. such rule is sanctioned by *Larue*v. *Bowla/nd*(7 Barb., 110). In that case it was remarked incidentally that fraudulent circumstances may be proved for the purpose of rendering the evidence incompetent.”

*A. O. Calkins,*for the appellant.

*Hosea 8. Heath,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Hardin, J.;

Smith, P. J., and Macomber, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First Marblehead Corporation (the “Company”)for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jack L. Kopnisky,Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating Officer, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
| Dated: November 8,  2005 |                                                                   |
|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   /s/ Jack L. Kopnisky                                            |   |
|                          |   Jack L. Kopnisky                                                |
|                          |   Chief Executive Officer, President and  Chief Operating Officer |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The FirstMarblehead Corporation and will be retained by The First Marblehead Corporationand furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999

Commission File Number: 333-85443-02

ABN AMRO Mortgage Corporation issuer in respect of
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 1999-8
(Exact Name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware      			363886007
(State or Other Juris-		(I.R.S. Employer
diction of Incorporation)     Identification No.)

181 West Madison Street, Chicago, IL 60602
(Address of Principal Executive Office)

248-643-2530
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)


Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:     None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:     None

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all
reports required to be filed  by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to
file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes  X   No _

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein,
and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
incorporated by reference in part III of this Form 10-K or any
amendment to this Form 10-K.

Not applicable.

Aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of
the Registrant as of December 31, 1999.

Not applicable.

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of December 31,
1999.

Not applicable.