alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered su bmitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 20 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
EZEKIEL DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MIKE MULLIN, Warden; ROBERT BERRY, Unit Manager; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. No. 04-7087 (D.C. No. CV-03-248-WH) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , O’BRIEN , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges. **
Plaintiff-Appellant Ezekiel Davis, an Oklahoma inmate proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for monetary damages and injunctive relief arising from alleged constitu tional violations occurring during his incarceration. The district court grant ed summary judgment to the- 2 -

defendants on the grounds that Mr. Davis had failedto exhaust his administrative remedies. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts, and we nee d not restate them here. Having reviewed the matter de novo and for substant ially the same reasons iterated in the district court’s order dismissing M r. Davis’s suit, we AFFIRM. Mr. Davis has clearly failed to demonstrate the exh austion of administrative remedies mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) or comple te exhaustion where he did file a grievance. See Jernigan v. Stuchell , 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002) (requiring complete exhaustion).

Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
# C_2013071EN.01000502.xml

| 9.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 December 2012 — KONE AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

(Case C-557/12)

2013/C 71/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: KONE AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH

Appellants:

Respondent: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 101 TFEU (Article 81 EC, Article 85 of the EC Treaty) to be interpreted as meaning that any person may claim from members of a cartel damages also for the loss which he has been caused by a person not party to the cartel who, benefiting from the protection of the increased market prices, raises his own prices for his products more than he would have done without the cartel (umbrella pricing), so that the principle of effectiveness laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union requires grant of a claim under national law?

---
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21.1


                           UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC.
                                  SUBSIDIARIES


SUBSIDIARY                                      STATE OF INCORPORATION
----------                                      ----------------------
 1.  Fast Towing, Inc.                          Arizona
 2.  Arri Brothers, Inc. d/b/a A&A Towing*      California
 3.  Auto Service Center                        California
 4.  Bill & Wags, Inc.*                         California
 5.  URS Midwest, Inc.                          Delaware
 6.  URS Northeast, Inc.                        Delaware
 7.  URS of Tennessee, Inc.                     Delaware
 8.  URS Southeast, Inc.                        Delaware
 9.  URS Southwest, Inc.                        Delaware
10.  URS West, Inc.                             Delaware
12.  URS Leasing, Inc.                          Delaware
13.  Environmental Auto Removal, Inc.           Illinois
14.  E & R Towing and Garage, Inc.              Illinois
15.  City Towing, Inc. d/b/a Quality Towing     Nevada
16.  Ken Lehman Enterprises, Inc.               Nevada
17.  El Paso Towing, Inc.                       Texas
18.  Garry's Wrecker Service, Inc.              Texas
19.  Rouse's Body Shop, Inc.                    Washington
20.  Auction Transport, Inc.**                  Missouri

*  a wholly-owned subsidiary of URS West, Inc.
** a wholly-owned subsidiary of URS Midwest, Inc.
EXHIBIT 99.2

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  Medina Coffee, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ended March 31, 2002, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Harry Miller , President, CEO, CFO and sole Director and officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the*Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,* that:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)  of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ; and
- The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| Date: May      15, 2003 | /s/ Harry Miller      _______________________Harry Miller, President, CEO, CFO and Director |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [Docket: EPA-RI0-0AR-2010-0432] Finding ofAttainmentfor PMIO for the Mendenhall Valley PM10 NonattainmentArea, Alaska AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA finds that the Mendenhall Valley nonattainment area in Alaska attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ofless than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM10) as ofDecember 31, 1995. 

### DATES: Comments must be received on orbefore 

### [insert date 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register]. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket 

### ID No. EPA-RI0-0AR-2010-0432, by any ofthe following methods: • www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Email: body.steve@epa.gov • Mail: Steve Body, 

## u.s. EPA Region 10, Office ofAir, Waste and Taxies (AWT-I07), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101 • Hand Delivery/ Courier: U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle2 WA, 98101. Attention: Steve Body, Office ofAir, Waste and Toxics, A WT - 107. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours ofoperation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries ofboxed information. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section ofthis Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body at telephone number: (206) 553­ 0782, e-mail address: body.steve@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the direct final action, ofthe same title, which is located in the Rules section ofthis Federal Register. EPA is approving the attainment determination as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. IfEPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. IfEPAreceives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties3 interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that ifwe receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section ofthis rule and ifthat provision may be severed from the remainder ofthe rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions ofthe rule that are not the subject ofan adverse comment. DATED: 

# Ce**(~-;).I** (cJ

# ~~.1U= ---r:>.c: ]-v \ 

### -:S-, 

## e.. 

## l**~Y'** ...,.'i:.

### ~



## 'R i::q \

### OU~L 

# ADV\A'

### ~ \s-r·{t.c.

## \OJ'<.. E:fA Region 10. )
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1541 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1541

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
            the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven

                                 An Act

 
To revise the Federal charter for the Blue Star Mothers of America, Inc. 
     to reflect a change in eligibility requirements for membership.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF MEMBERSHIP TERMS.
    Section 30504 of title 36, United States Code, is amended--
        (1) in paragraph (1)--
            (A) by striking the text preceding subparagraph (A) and 
        inserting ``she is a mother (meaning a woman who filled the 
        role of birthmother, adoptive mother, step-mother, foster-
        mother, grandmother, or legal guardian) of a person who--''; 
        and
            (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``in World War II or 
        the Korean hostilities''; and
        (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or is a citizen of the 
    United States living outside the United States'' before the period 
    at the end.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.20    
    


 
 

TERMINATION AGREEMENT    
    


        THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into as of the 17th day of December, 2007, by and between HSW INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and HOWSTUFFWORKS, INC., a Delaware corporation ("HSW"). 


        WHEREAS,
the Company and HSW are parties to that certain Services Agreement, dated as of October 2, 2007 (the "Services Agreement"); and 


        WHEREAS,
the parties desire to terminate the Services Agreement in its entirety. 


        NOW,
THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual premises contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 


        1.     Termination of Services Agreement. Effective as of the date hereof, the Services Agreement is hereby terminated and shall
be of no further force and effect, and neither the Company nor HSW shall have any further obligation or liability under the Services Agreement. 


        2.     Binding Effect; Severability. This Agreement is binding on, and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties and their
respective successors and assigns. If any part of this Agreement is deemed unreasonable by a court of competent jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be subject to judicial modification in order to
render this Agreement reasonable and enforceable. Further, if any part of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement still is enforceable. 



        3.     Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York,
excluding its choice of laws provisions. The Parties agree that the exclusive venue and jurisdiction for any actions or disputes arising from this Agreement shall be a federal or state court in New
York. 


        4.     Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts and by facsimile, each of which shall be deemed an
original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 


[SIGNATURES CONTAINED ON FOLLOWING PAGE.]







 

        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed by the parties under seal as of the date first written above. 



	

 	
 	

HSW INTERNATIONAL, INC.
	

 	
 	

By:	

/s/ Hank Adorno

	 	 	Name:	Hank Adorno
	 	 	Title:	Vice Chairman
	

 	
 	

HOWSTUFFWORKS, INC.
	

 	
 	

By:	

/s/ Jeff Arnold

	 	 	Name:	Jeff Arnold
	 	 	Title:	CEO




2











QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.20


TERMINATION AGREEMENT
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 07584

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

07584\07584_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

07584\07584_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

07584\07584_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 07584\07584_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07584\07584_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07584\07584_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07584\07584_PlantID_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 07584\Supporting Documentation\07584_Arial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07584\Supporting Documentation\07584_Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
# C_2014253EN.01006901.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/69

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Maynard v Europol

(Case F-121/12) (1)

1

((Civil service - Europol staff - Europol Convention - Europol Staff Regulations - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the CEOS to members of the staff of Europol - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Refusal to grant a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff))

2014/C 253/96

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ginny Maynard (The Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: initially, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents, then J. Arnould, D. Neumann ad D. El Khoury, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul Europol’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period and an application to order Europol to pay the difference between the remuneration which she could have continued to receive at Europol and any other damages which she actually received.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Maynard to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Maynard to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8/12/2012, p. 36.

1

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1511 

To extend the participation term for small business concerns affected by 

Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita in certain programs, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 

Ms. LANDRIEU introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To extend the participation term for small business concerns 

affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita in certain programs, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gulf Coast Disadvan5 taged Business Relief Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act— 

8 (1) the term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Ad9 ministrator of the Small Business Administration; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1511 IS

1 (2) the term ‘‘covered parish or county’’ means 

2 a parish in the State of Louisiana, or a county in 

3 the State of Mississippi or the State of Alabama, 

4 that has been designated by the Administrator as a 

5 disaster area by reason of Hurricane Katrina of 

6 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005 under disaster dec7 laration 10176, 10177, 10178, 10179, 10180, 

8 10181, 10205, or 10206; and 

9 (3) the term ‘‘small business concern’’ has the 

10 meaning given that term under section 3 of the 

11 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). 

12 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF PARTICIPATION TERM FOR VICTIMS 

13 OF HURRICANE KATRINA OR HURRICANE 

14 RITA. 

15 (a) RETROACTIVITY.—If a small business concern, 

16 while participating in any program or activity under the 

17 authority of section 7(j)(10) of the Small Business Act 

18 (15 U.S.C. 636(j)(10)), was located in a covered parish 

19 or county and was affected by Hurricane Katrina of 2005 

20 or Hurricane Rita of 2005, the period during which the 

21 small business concern is permitted continuing participa22 tion and eligibility in the program or activity shall be ex23 tended for 24 months after the date such participation and 

24 eligibility would otherwise terminate. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1511 IS

1 (b) REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE.—The Administrator 

2 shall ensure that the case of every small business concern 

3 participating before the date of enactment of this Act in 

4 a program or activity described in subsection (a) is re5 viewed and brought into compliance with this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Case No. 13,372.

#### STEPHENSON v. GIBERSON.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 319.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1806.

Attachment — Condemnation—Proof of Debt.

_ 1. Upon an attachment under Act 1795, c. ;>0, the plaintiff must prove his debt before he can obtain judgment of condemnation.

2. Quaere, whether attachment lies for unliq-uidated damages.

Attachment under Act Md. 1795, c. 56. Tike plaintiff made affidavit and annexed articles of agreement by which the defendant had agreed to do bricklaying work for the plaintiff.

THE COURT

refused to condemn the attached effects without proof of the debt, and doubted whether a claim of unliquidated damages can be the ground of an attachment under the act of 1795.
No. 96-5792.

#### Staples *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Before the Second Division,

September 5, 1939

No. 42052.

#### Protest 122758-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of wearing apparel in part of trimming similar to that the subject of *Pustet*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 530, T. D. 41396). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained. ,
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE 

I, Allen D. Goodman, a Managing Member of Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., the General Partner of Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (the“Partnership”), certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Partnership on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and (ii) the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. 

Date: May 17, 2010 

By: /s/ Allen D.Goodman

Allen D. Goodman 

Managing Member (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) 

Beeland Management Company, L.L.C. 

GeneralPartner of Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P.
#### In re Warren STRICKHAUSEN, Relator.

No. 01-99-00703-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

July 8, 1999.

Warren Strickhausen, Huntsville, for Relator.

Charles Bacarisse, Dist. Clerk, Harris County, Houston, for Respondent.

Panel consists of Justices COHEN, HEDGES, and ANDELL.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Relator, Warren Strickhausen, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining that he has paid in full for the clerk’s record and reporter’s record in trial court cause no. 633266 of the 180th District Court of Harris County Texas, but that the district clerk and the court reporter are refusing to give him the records. It should be noted that relator appealed his conviction in cause no. 633266 to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. The record was filed in that court. On May 22, 1997, the Fourteenth Court affirmed his conviction in appellate cause no. 14-94-00920-CR. Relator filed a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which that court refused on September 15,1997. Mandate issued on October 16,1997.

We have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a court reporter or the district clerk unless they are interfering with our appellate jurisdiction. *See*Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a) (Vernon 1988), § 22.221(b) (Vernon Supp.1999); *Lesikar v. Anthony,*750 S.W.2d 338, 339 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, orig. proceeding). In this case, they are not because we have none. Nor do we have any authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, which presumably has the record sought by relator. *Compare*Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.002 (Vernon Supp.1999) *with*Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221.

The clerk of the appellate court, which was the Fourteenth Court of Ap*937peals in relator’s case, is statutorily required to file and preserve the certified records in an appeal. *See*Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.204(a)(1) (Vernon 1998). Relator, or his agent or anyone else, would be entitled to view the records at the court. A criminal defendant is not entitled to a free copy of the record once he has exhausted his state appeals, absent some compelling, recognized reason. *See Eubanks v. Mullin,*909 S.W.2d 574, 576-77 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1995, orig. proceeding); *Escobar v. State,*880 S.W.2d 782, 784 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993) (order). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.