alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NATHAN SALVATORE, :

Plaintiff : No. 4:14-cv-01848

:

v. : (Judge Kane)

:

MICROBILT CORPORATION, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Carlson)

Defendants :

ORDER

Before the Court is the October 3, 2016 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Carlson. (Doc. No. 27.) No timely objections have been filed. ACCORDINGLY, on this 4th 

day of November, 2016, upon independent review of the record and the applicable law, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson

(Doc. No. 27);

2. Defendant MicroBilt Corporation’s First Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

(Doc. No. 21), is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff Nathan Salvatore’s complaint (Doc. No. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE; 

4. Plaintiff may amend his complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order 

to address the pleading deficiencies identified in Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report 

and Recommendation with respect to standing; and

5. This matter is remanded to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings. 

s/ Yvette Kane 

Yvette Kane, District Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Case 4:14-cv-01848-YK-MCC Document 28 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 1
Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law Member of the Bar, Texas and Florida

By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization JSandberg@pamlaw.com

Octo ber 13, 2015

VIA E-FILING Ms. Antonette Regor, Court Reporter

68th Judicial District Court
600 Commerce St., Texas 75201 Attention: Appellate Record

Re: Branch Banking and Trust Company v. James C. Morris Appellate Docket No. 05-15 -01249- CV ; Trial Court Cause No. DC -11-12220;

Dear Ms. Regor:

I am requesting that you prepare and file the Reporter’s Record in the Fifth District Court of Appeals regarding this matter. Appellant is prepared to pay the fee when we are notified of the amount due. Please include all documents and exhibits offered by the part ies at the following hearings and trial:

July 1, 2013 hearing

March 9, 2015 hearing

April 21, 205 jury trial

October 5, 2015 hearing

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

/s/ Jeffrey R. Sandberg Jeffrey R. Sandberg Direct: (21 4) 242-6454 jsandberg@pamlaw.com ACCEPTED
05-15-01249-CV
FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS
10/13/2015 2:16:30 PM

LISA MATZ
CLERKJRS

cc via e

- filing and facsimile: Tim Woods , Esq.

cc via e

- filing: Clerk, Fifth District Court of Appeals

I: \ 15035 \ Appeal \ Clerk.Request for Reporter's Record.151013.doc
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25995]



[[Page 51490]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

    Notice is hereby given that on September 2, 1997, a proposed 
Consent Decree in United States v. Vogel Paint and Wax Co., C97-4078 
MWB (N.D. Iowa) was lodged with the United States District Court for 
the Northern District of Iowa. The proposed Consent Decree resolves the 
United States' claims in this action against Vogel Paint and Wax 
Company, Incorporated (``Vogel'') under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 
U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a), for response costs incurred and to be incurred by 
the United States at the Vogel Paint and Wax Company Site (``Site'') in 
Sioux County, Iowa.
    The proposed Consent Decree requires, inter alia, that Vogel will 
pay to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund $200,000. In addition, 
Vogel is required to implement and perform certain response actions at 
the Site as ordered by the State of Iowa. The proposed Consent Decree 
grants to Vogel a covenant not to sue under Sections 106 and 107(a) of 
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 9606 and 9607(a), and the contribution 
protection afforded by Section 113(f)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 9613(f)(2), for matters addressed in the proposed Consent Decree. 
The proposed Consent Decree contains reopeners which allow the United 
States, in certain situations, to institute additional proceedings to 
require Vogel to perform response actions or reimburse the United 
States for additional costs of response.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date 
of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United 
States v. Vogel Paint and Wax Co., DOJ No. 90-11-3-855.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, 320 6th St., 
Sioux City, Iowa 51101; and at the Consent Decree library, 1120 G 
Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005. A copy of the proposed 
Consent Decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent 
Decree library. When requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the 
amount of $11.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the 
Consent Decree library.
Joel Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-25995 Filed 9-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
### Quality of the surface waters of Oregon

By: Walton Van Winkle

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp363

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
IN THESUPREME COURT OF 

### PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF 

### PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 109 MM 2019

v. DAVID DERRY, 

### Respondent

Petitioner ORDER PER 

### CURIAM AND NOW, this 11th

### day of 

### December, 2019,the "Motion to File Petition 

### NuncPro Tunc," 

### treated as a Petition 

### for Leave to File Petition 

### forAllowance of

### Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc, is 

### GRANTED. Counsel is 

### DIRECTED to file a Petition for 

### Allowance of 

### Appeal within 15 days.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 50304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25379]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-451-001]


Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

September 19, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 16, 1997, Questar Pipeline Company 
(Questar) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 75B, to be 
effective September 15, 1997, in compliance with the Commission's 
September 10, 1997, Order Accepting Tariff Sheets Subject to 
Conditions.
    Questar states that this tariff filing complies with the September 
10 order by deleting from Section 11.1(i) of Part 1 of the General 
Terms and Conditions of its tariff the sentence ``Intra-day nominations 
received during this batch period may not bump gas that is already 
flowing.''
    Questar states that a copy of this filing has been served upon its 
customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the Wyoming Public 
Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such protests must be 
filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations. 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. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25379 Filed 9-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2304

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Lige Bush, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 6, 2004

Filed: March 11, 2004 

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lige Bush appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after he pleaded

guilty to two counts of knowingly making or causing to be made a false or fictitious

written statement in connection with the acquisition of a firearm, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6), 924(a)(2), and 2. The district court sentenced Bush to 70

months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release on both counts, to be served

concurrently. Bush’s counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw under Anders
-2-

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred by accepting

Bush’s plea and then sentencing him within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines

range. In a pro se supplemental brief, Bush asserts that his counsel was ineffective.

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court and

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

Because Bush did not object below that the district court failed to comply with

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b) (consideration and acceptance of guilty

pleas), we review the acceptance of Bush’s plea for plain error, and we find none.

Thus, we reject counsel’s argument that the district court erred in accepting Bush’s

guilty plea. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002) (defendant who

allows Rule 11 error to pass without objection in trial court must satisfy plain-error

rule, i.e., that claimed plain error affected defendant’s substantial rights). As to the

remaining arguments, the ineffective-assistance argument is not properly before us,

see United States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995) (except where result

would be plain miscarriage of justice, ineffective-assistance claims should be raised

in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings), and the sentencing argument does not raise any

reviewable issues, cf. United States v. Woodrum, 959 F.2d 100, 101 (8th Cir. 1992)

(per curiam) (where appellant did not argue his sentence was imposed in violation of

law or because of incorrect application of Guidelines, and where applicable

sentencing range did not span more than 24 months, appeals court had no appellate

jurisdiction to entertain argument that sentence was improperly imposed at top of

Guidelines range).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm,

and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________
*	CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS HAVE BEEN OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY 
WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A 
CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST.


January 8, 1997
Our Ref: B96-7701-RJTL-RJ0350-015

Atlantic Coast Airlines
1 Export Drive, 
Sterling, Virginia,
U.S.A. 20164


Gentlemen,

Letter Agreement No. 015 to Purchase Agreement No. RJ-0350 dated January 
8, 1997 (the "Agreement" between Bombardier Inc. ("BRAD") and Atlantic 
Coast Airlines ("Buyer") relating to the purchase of twelve (12) 
Canadair Regional Jet Aircraft (the "Aircraft")

Subject:		Airworthiness Directives

1.0	*









2.0	*


3.0	*






4.0	*












5.0	This letter constitutes an integral part of the Agreement and 
evidences our further agreement with the matters set forth below.  
All terms used herein and in the Agreement and not defined herein, 
shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement.

6.0	The provisions of this Letter Agreement are personal to 
Buyer and shall not be assigned or otherwise disposed of by 
Buyer except as part of an assignment of the Agreement 
expressly permitted in Article 20 of the Agreement.

7.0	*




Should there be any inconsistency between this Letter Agreement 
and the Agreement with respect to the subject matter covered by 
the terms hereof, then this Letter Agreement shall prevail.


Yours very truly,
BOMBARDIER INC.



________________________				Date:_____________
Michel Bourgeois
Vice President, Contracts 





Acknowledged and Accepted


Atlantic Coast Airlines



________________________				Date:_____________
James B. Glennon
Sr. Vice President and C.F.O.

 

 
[Footnote continued from previous page]

[Footnote continued on next page]

3
EXHIBIT 23.1



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated March 15,  2006,  except Note 6, as to which the
date is October 3, 2007, accompanying consolidated financial statements included
in the Annual Report of Tarrant Apparel Group on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2 for
the year ended  December 31, 2005.  We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by
reference in  Registration  Statements  of Tarrant  Apparel  Group of our report
dated  March  15,  2006  relating  to our  audit of the  consolidated  financial
statement and the financial statements schedule, included in and incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2 of Tarrant Apparel
Group for the year ended December 31, 2005.


/s/ Singer Lewak Greenbaum & Goldstein LLP
------------------------------------------
Singer Lewak Greenbaum & Goldstein LLP

Los Angeles, California
October 10, 2007
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF


THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of EnergyConnect Group, Inc. (the
"Company") for the twelve months ended January 3, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I,
the principal financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby
certify that:





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





The
information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this certificate as of this 25th day of March
2009.








/s/ RANDALL R.
REED


Randall
R. Reed


Chief
Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL LEE MYERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 05-319 Erie

v. )

)

DR. GADDIS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on October 25, 2005,

and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report

and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10], filed on

January 30, 2006, recommended that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. 

Service was made on Plaintiff by certified mail and on Defendants. No objections were

filed. After de novo review of the complaint and documents in the case, together with

the Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s civil rights action is DISMISSED for

failure to prosecute. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on January 30, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00319-SJM-SPB Document 11 Filed 02/21/06 Page 1 of 1
255 La. 803

#### James E. WALKER et al. v. William JONES et al.

No. 50429.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 3, 1970.

In re: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 230 So.2d 851.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.

Granted as to assignment of Error No. 1. In all other respects, the application is denied on the facts found by the court of appeal.
#### Jack Franklin FELDMAN, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-556.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 29, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; John G. Ferris, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
### Magnitude and frequency of floods in the United States; part 2-A. South Atlantic slope basins, James River to Savannah River

By: Paul R. SpeerCharles R. Gamble

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1673

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF KPMG LLP





The Board of Directors


ClickAction
Inc.





We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements Nos. 333-96622, 333-68841, 333-85335, 333-34078, 333-38008, 333-58974 and
333-67796 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-95747, 333-35186, 333-45204, 333-59724, 333-68688 and 333-74792 on Form S-3 of ClickAction Inc. of our report dated February 1, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of ClickAction Inc. as of December
31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, and related financial statement schedule, which report
appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of ClickAction Inc.





| | KP | MG LLP
| | -- | ------




Mountain View, California


March 7, 2002
#### James Earl BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1453.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 10, 1978.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Preston Mighdoll, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DOWNEY and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.

CROSS, J., dissents.

CROSS, Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent on the authority of *United States v. Robinson,*535 F.2d 881 (5th Cir. 1976).
#### W. Clark HERSEY, Appellant, v. Thomas E. JEFFERS, Appellee.

No. 70-384.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 18, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.