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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

AUG 6 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOSE MACAIBA CANELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

KEN McCLAIN,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 97-3281

(D.C. No. 97-CV-3124-GTV)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.**

Plaintiff-Appellant Jose Macaiba-Canell, appearing pro se and in forma

pauperis, appeals from the district court’s denial of his letter motion for

rehearing, which the court construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion. Our

jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. §1291, and we affirm. 

We review the district court's denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for abuse of
discretion. See Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 576 (10th Cir.

1996). In his complaint filed April 9, 1997, Mr. Macaiba-Canell alleges he was

injured by a corrections officer on June 28, 1992. The district court dismissed the

case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Mr. Macaiba-Canell’s Bivens

claim is subject to Kansas’s two-year general personal injury statute. See Kan.

Stat. Ann. § 60-513(a)(4) (1994); Industrial Constructors Corp. v. United States

Bureau of Reclamation, 15 F.3d 963, 968 (10th Cir. 1994). The face of the

complaint indicates Mr. Macaiba-Canell’s claim is time-barred, and we cannot say

that the district court abused its discretion in determining that his tolling

arguments were legally insufficient. See Aldrich v. McCulloch Properties, 627

F.2d 1036, 1041 n.4 (10th Cir. 1980). 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT 32.2


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 on Form 10-Q of RPM Advantage, Inc.
(the "Registrant") for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David R. Pressler, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:   July 15, 2011

By:

/s/ David R. Pressler


David R. Pressler
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
New Hampshire Motor Vehicle I/M SIP Revision 

New Hampshire Departments of Safety and Environmental Services May 12, 2011 

The State of New Hampshire 

Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

State Implementation Plan Revision 

Attachment VI : 

New Hampshire I/M Program Vendor Contracts 

and Associated Documentation 

Prepared by: 

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 

Concord, NH 

November 1, 2011 

Services 

Attachment VI : New Hampshire I/M Program Vendor Contracts and Associated Documentation 
New Hampshire Motor Vehicle I/M SIP Revision 

New Hampshire Departments of Safety and Environmental Services May 12, 2011 

Applicable New Hampshire I/M Program Implementation Documentation 

Table of Contents - Documents provided in electronic format due to size. 

New Hampshire DOT Request for Proposals 

Gordon-Darby I/M Program ("NHOST") Proposal 

Governor and Council/Contract 

Amendment to Existing Contract 

Attachment VI : New Hampshire I/M Program Vendor Contracts and Associated Documentation 
New Hampshire Motor Vehicle I/M SIP Revision 

New Hampshire Departments of Safety and Environmental Services May 12, 2011 

New Hampshire Department of Safety 

Division of Motor Vehicles 

Request for Proposals 

2003-907 

On-Board Diagnostics and Safety Inspection 

Program Management Project 

September 4, 2002 

Located in NH IM-SIP Attachment VI Sub-Folder 

File: NH DMV RFP #2003-907 09.04.02 .pdf 

Attachment VI : New Hampshire I/M Program Vendor Contracts and Associated Documentation 
New Hampshire Motor Vehicle I/M SIP Revision 

New Hampshire Departments of Safety and Environmental Services May 12, 2011 

Gordon-Darby I/M Program ("NHOST") Proposal 

Response to DMV RFP #2003-907 

On-Board Diagnostics and Safety Inspection 

Program Management Project 

March 14, 2003 

Located in NH IM-SIP Attachment VI Sub-Folder 

File : Gordon-Darby Proposal 03 .14.03,pdf 

Attachment VI : New Hampshire I/M Program Vendor Contracts and Associated Documentation 
New Hampshire Motor Vehicle I/M SIP Revision 

New Hampshire Departments of Safety and Environmental Services May 12, 2011 

NH Governor and Council Approval 

Gordon-Darby Contract 

On-Board Diagnostics and Safety Inspection 

Program Management Project 

September 23, 2005 

Located in NH IM-SIP Attachment VI Sub-Folder 

File: Gordon-Darby Contract 09 .23.05.pdf 

Attachment VI : New Hampshire I/M Program Vendor Contracts and Associated Documentation 
New Hampshire Motor Vehicle I/M SIP Revision 

New Hampshire Departments of Safety and Environmental Services May 12, 2011 

NH Governor and Council Approval 

Gordon-Darby Contract Extension 

On-Board Diagnostics and Safety Inspection 

Program Management Project 

April 14, 2010 

Located in NH IM-SIP Attachment VI Sub-Folder 

File: Gordon-Darby Contract Extension 04 .1 4.10.pdf 

Attachment VI : New Hampshire I/M Program Vendor Contracts and Associated Documentation
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES BRYANT, :

:

Plaintiff :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-15-820

:

KAREN KASKIE, ET AL., : (Judge Brann)

:

Defendants :

ORDER

February 16, 2016

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant Karen Kaskie’s motion to dismiss the

Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.

2. Dismissal is entered in favor of Defendant Kaskie.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

1

Case 4:15-cv-00820-MWB-JVW Document 37 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 1
```

[104th Congress Public Law 97]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ97.104]

[[Page 109 STAT. 984]]

Public Law 104-97
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To reauthorize the tied aid credit program of the Export-Import Bank of 
  the United States, and to allow the Export-Import Bank to conduct a 
     demonstration project. <<NOTE: Jan. 11, 1996 -  [H.R. 2203]>> 

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIED AID CREDIT PROGRAM.

    (a) Section 10(c)(2) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
U.S.C. 635i-3(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``1995'' and inserting 
``1997''.
    (b) Section 10(e) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
635i-3(e)) is amended by striking the first sentence and inserting the 
following: ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Fund such 
sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997.''.

SEC. 2. <<NOTE: 5 USC 4703 note.>> AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A DEMONSTRATION 
            PROJECT.

    Notwithstanding section 4701(a)(1)(A) of title 5, United States 
Code, the Export-Import Bank of the United States may conduct a 
demonstration project in accordance with section 4703 of such title.

    Approved January 11, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2203 (S. 1309):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 104-154 accompanying S. 1309 (Comm. on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):
            Oct. 19, S. 1309 considered and passed Senate.
            Dec. 19, H.R. 2203 considered and passed House.
            Dec. 29, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2


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 on Form 10-Q of RPM Advantage, Inc.
(the "Registrant") for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David R. Pressler, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:   July 15, 2011

By:

/s/ David R. Pressler


David R. Pressler
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,532
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  206,916
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,246
<INVENTORY>                                  5,793,801
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,237,712
<PP&E>                                       6,107,560
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,010,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,622,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,143,501
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,173,958
<COMMON>                                        57,411
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,827,889)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,622,989
<SALES>                                        765,617
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               765,617
<CGS>                                          544,853
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  544,853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            22,744,577
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                45,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             171,409
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (22,403,577)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (22,403,577)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (22,403,577)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.92)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32**




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and
      Acting Chief Financial Officer of Bancorp International Group, Inc. (the
“Company”), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three months ended September 30,
      2007 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except with
      respect to the modification of the Certification of our Chief Executive Officer
      and Acting Chief Financial Officer attached as Exhibit 31.1 to the Quarterly
      Report and that information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of
      the Company.




Date:
                December 12, 2007
            /s/THOMAS
                MEGASChief
                Executive Officer
              Acting
                Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51092-51093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25810]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT97-34-003]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

September 24, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 19, 1997, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing the following revised tariff 
sheet to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, bearing an 
effective date of November 1, 1997:

First Revised Sheet No. 500B

    On July 31, 1997, Columbia filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission) an original tariff sheet that referenced 
Columbia's service agreement with the West Ohio Gas Company. By the 
Commission's letter order issued August 26, 1997, in these proceedings, 
the Commission accepted the filing. However, the West Ohio Gas Company 
has merged with the East Ohio Gas Company and assumed the name of the 
East Ohio Gas Company. The instant filing reflects the name change from 
the West Ohio Gas Company to the East Ohio Gas Company on the tariff 
sheet identifying the service agreement.
    Columbia states that copies of this filing have been mailed to all 
of its

[[Page 51093]]

customers, affected state regulatory commissions, and all parties to 
this proceeding, and in Docket No. RP95-408. This filing is also 
available for public inspection at its offices at 12801 Fair Lakes 
Parkway, Fairfax, Virginia; and 700 Thirteenth Street, NW., Suite 900, 
Washington, DC.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Dockets Room, Office of 
the Secretary, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's regulations. All 
such protests must be filed as provided in 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. A copy of this filing 
is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection 
in the Commission's Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25810 Filed 9-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case 1:04-cv-00278-MBC   Document 11   Filed 03/07/06   Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00278-MBC   Document 11   Filed 03/07/06   Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00278-MBC   Document 11   Filed 03/07/06   Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00278-MBC   Document 11   Filed 03/07/06   Page 4 of 4
#### Vincent L. GARCIA, Appellant, v. James M. McLEAN and Ruth L. McLean, his wife, Appellees.

No. GG-206.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 3, 1978.

*505E. C. Deeno Kitchen and Brian S. Duffy, of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Angus G. Andrews, of Andrews & Miller, Defuniak Springs, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant contests here the trial court’s finding that his ejectment action against appellees was barred by the seven-year statute of limitations for adverse possession of land. The record reveals that appellees built a fence on part of appellant’s Walton County land late in 1960. In 1966, before the running of the limitation period, appellant brought a suit in equity seeking to quiet title in the land. On appellees’ motion, however, the court dismissed that suit (without prejudice) and quashed process in the cause. Appellant then brought this ejectment action at law against appellees in October of 1968, well after the running of the limitation period. The trial court held that because the court had dismissed the earlier suit in equity and quashed process, the statute of limitations had not been tolled by that suit and therefore appellees had established their claim to adverse possession at the time of this second suit.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. It is a well-established rule that an unsuccessful suit does not break the continuity of adverse possession, 51 Am.Jur.2d 808, *Limitation of Actions,*§ 301. Where as here an action to try title to real estate fails or does not result in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, it does not have the effect of suspending or tolling the running of the statute of limitations in an independent action. 3 Am.Jur.2d 175, *Adverse Possession,*§ 92. *Deas v. Burnham,*65 So.2d 297 (Fla.1953), cited by appellant, is not to the contrary. There the court had transferred the equity suit to the law side of the docket pursuant to a motion by the plaintiff. The Florida Supreme Court held that the subsequent proceedings at law were a continuation of the original suit so that the statute of limitations had been tolled at the time the original process was served. The situation is different here. Under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.040 there are no longer two forms of action — law and equity, but only one form known as “civil action.” Had appellant desired to amend his original complaint to quiet title and allege a suit in ejectment, he should have requested leave to do so. But since that suit was dismissed and thereafter became final, no appeal having been taken, appellant’s subsequent ejectment suit was a completely new cause of action for which the statute of limitations had already run. The lower court is

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., BOYER, J., and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RODNEY WHYTE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 2650

[ March 10, 2022 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Daliah H. Weiss

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502013CF008665

.

Rodney Whyte, Blountstown, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, K LINGENSMITH

, and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Forest Products Industry Meeting with EPA - October 13, 2010

List of Meeting Attendees

In Person

Rob Kaufmann (Koch Companies) Corey Connors (Composite Panel Association) Mark Lowe (Kronospan) Gary Heroux (Composite Panel Association) Dan Diehl (AbitibiBowater) Tim Hunt (AF&PA/American Wood Council) Paul Noe (AF&PA/American Wood Council) Richard Weber (Flakeboard) Carolyn Underwood (Uniboard USA) Susan Bodine (Barnes & Thornburg) Amy Schaffer (AF&PA/American Wood Council) Lee Hofmann (EPA/ORCR) Suzanne Rudzinksi (EPA/ORCR) Jim Berlow (EPA/ORCR) Mike Galbraith (EPA/ORCR) Mimi Guernica (EPA/ORCR) Marc Thomas (EPA/ORCR)

By Phone

Carol Stapper (Temple-Inland) Steve Woock (Weyerhaeuser) Russell Strader (Boise Cascade) Mike Curtis (Georgia Pacific) Jeff Shumaker (International Paper) Mitchell Leu (Plum Creek) John Petchul (Grief Packaging) Amy Artmeier (Kapstone) Phil Ferguson (LP) Eveleen Muehlethaler (Port Townsend) Rich Garber (Boise) Katherine Frye (Sierra Pine) David Word (NCASI) Donald Bisson (CPA) Tom Lehtinen (Temple-Inland) Tom Holloway (Arclin) Pat Miller (Temple-Inland) Rob Morales (Temple-Inland) Colby Benton (Craftmaster) Martin Rollins (Sothern Lu mber Manufacturers Assoc) Steve List (New Page) Alan Carpien (EPA/OGC)
#### Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*George J. Gillespie, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff. Catholic Summer School of America, Third-Party Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

June 18, 1951.

*560
      *Haughton Bell*and *Vincent Keane*for plaintiff.

*Ernest A. Zema*for defendant and third-party plaintiff.

McNally, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the first defense. Defendant, in effect, concedes that said defense is insufficient as to every cause of action other than the first. The defense is clearly insufficient as to all causes of action other than the first.

In the court’s opinion, the defense is, however, good as to the first cause of action. Section 1083-b of the Civil Practice Act is express authority in favor of such defense. That section provides that in any action *“*commenced during the emergency ” any party against whom a money judgment is demanded shall be entitled to set off the fair and reasonable value of the mortgaged property less the amount owing on prior liens and incumbrances. The present action was concededly commenced during the emergency. Plaintiff contends that, nevertheless, since the emergency has now expired, the defense is insufficient. It relies upon the language of section 1 of chapter 473 of the Laws of 1947 to the effect that the continued application of the legislative restrictions upon deficiency judgments until July 1, 1947, “ is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination ”. Plaintiff argues, in effect, that this legislative declaration terminated the application of section 1083-b of the Civil Practice Act after July 1, 1947, except as to certain owner-occupied dwellings. In the court’s opinion, this is not a proper construction of what the Legislature intended or did. Chapter 473 of the Laws of 1947 amended sections 1 and 4 of chapter 794 of the Laws of 1933, leaving intact sections 2 and 3 of chapter 794 of the Laws of 1933. Section 2 of chapter 794 of the Laws of 1933 amended the Civil Practice Act by adding sections 1083-a and 1083-b. It seems clear, therefore, that all that the Legislature intended or accomplished by the enactment of chapter 473 of the Laws of 1947 was to extend the period of the emergency *561referred to in.sections 1083-a and 1083-b of the Civil Practice Act until July 1,1947, without, however, repealing those sections as of July 1,1947. The Legislature did not provide that sections 1083-a and 1083-b should have no applicability after July 1, 1947. It merely extended the termination date of the term “ emergency ” as used in those sections.

The motion to strike the first defense as insufficient is denied insofar as that defense is addressed to the first cause of action, and otherwise granted.