alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no

precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of wellsettled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens

on the legal profession." Pursuant to that rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 95-40025

Summary Calendar

_______________

BUISON, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

YAGA, INC. f/k/a YAGA RGAZ, INC.,

JOE FLORES, BEACH THINGS, INC.,

DILLARDS DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.,

CHAMPS SPORTS, GADZOOKS, INC.,

MARSHALL FIELDS STORES, INC., and

SHANNON'S SURF SHOP,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(94 CV 478)

_________________________

August 24, 1995

Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The plaintiff appeals a judgment of dismissal. There is some

confusion as to whether the dismissal was on the ground of failure

to prosecute or want of subject matter jurisdiction. The judgment,
2

however, plainly says it is for the latter.

The case was filed on the basis of diversity. From the face

of the complaint it is obvious, however, that there is not complete

diversity, as the plaintiff and at least three of the defendants

are citizens of Texas for purposes of the diversity statute. In

its brief, the appellant does not even attempt to argue that

diversity jurisdiction, or any other form of federal jurisdiction,

exists in this case. Instead, the appellant only quarrels with the

notion that the case also was dismissed for failure to attend a

FED. R. CIV. P. 16 conference.

Because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction,

any other reason given for the dismissal is irrelevant. We also

note that the court declined to impose sanctions, so that is not an

issue here. To remove any implication that the dismissal operates

on the merits of the controversy, we modify the judgment so that it

still dismisses for want of jurisdiction, but we delete "WITH

PREJUDICE" therefrom.

As so modified, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION









EXHIBIT 10.1




MODIFICATION TO BUSINESS LOAN AGREEMENT




 




 




This Second Modification to Business Loan

Agreement (this “Modification”) is entered into by and between TAB PRODUCTS CO.

(“Borrower”) and COMERICA BANK-CALIFORNIA (“Bank”) as of this 16th day of November,

2001, at San Jose, California.




 




RECITALS




 




                This

Modification is entered into upon the basis of the following facts and

understandings of the parties, which facts and understandings are acknowledged

by the parties to be true and accurate:




 




                Bank

and Borrower previously entered into a Business Loan Agreement dated November

21, 2000, which was subsequently amended pursuant to or that certain

modification agreement dated August 21, 2001. 

The Business Loan Agreement and each modification shall collectively be

referred to herein as the “Agreement.”




 




                NOW,

THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of

which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as set forth below.




 




AGREEMENT




 




1.                Incorporation by Reference.  The Recitals and the documents referred to

therein are incorporated herein by this reference.  Except as otherwise noted, the terms not defined herein shall

have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.




 




2.                Modification to the

Agreement.  Subject to the

satisfaction of the conditions precedent as set forth in Section 3 hereof, the

Agreement is hereby modified as set forth below.




 




a.                Addendum

Section 2(b) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




 




“2(b)                Tangible Effective Net Worth in

an amount not less than $31,000,000.00;”




 




3.                Legal Effect.  The effectiveness of this Modification is

conditioned upon receipt by Bank of this Modification, and any other documents

which Bank may require to carry out the terms hereof.  Except as specifically set forth in this Modification, all of the

terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.




 




4.                Integration.  This is an integrated Modification and

supersedes all prior negotiations and agreements the subject matter

hereof.  All amendments hereto must be

in writing and signed by the parties.




 




                IN

WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have agreed as of the date first set forth above.











 




	

  TAB PRODUCTS CO.


  	

   


  	

  COMERICA

  BANK-CALIFORNIA


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  
	

  By:


  	

  /s/ Donald J. Hotz


  	

   


  	

  By:


  	

  /s/ Nick Tsiagkas


  
	

  Title:


  	

  Vice President, Chief

  Financial Officer & Treasurer


  	

   


  	

   


  	

  Nick Tsiagkas


  Assistant Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 50562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25551]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4236-000]


Boston Edison Company; Notice of Filing

September 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 15, 1997, Boston Edison Company (Boston 
Edison), Massachusetts, submitted for filing revised sheet Nos. 123 
through 125 of its open-access transmission tariff. Boston Edison 
submits these revisions to conform with the July 1, 1997 filing by the 
New England Power Pool in Docket Nos. 0A97-608-000, et al. Boston 
Edison requests waiver of the 60-day notice provision to allow an 
effective date of September 1, 1997.
    Boston Edison states that this filing has been posted in accordance 
with the Commission's regulations and that copies of the filing have 
been served upon Boston Edison's wholesale customers, the Massachusetts 
Department of Public Utilities, and all persons listed on the official 
service lists in Docket No. OA96-70-000, ER97-1328-000 and ER97-2340-
000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filings should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before October 2, 1997. 
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. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25551 Filed 9-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-264]


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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems.
    Date and Time: January 22-24, 1997; 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
530, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Edward H. Bryan, Program Director, Environmental 
Engineering, Division of Bioengineering and Environmental Systems, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1318.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate CAREER proposals as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: January 2, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-264 Filed 1-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Umatilla National Forest - MVUM MAP #1

Legend Special Vehicle Designation Dates Allowed Route Number

Trails open to Wheeled 

Vehicles 50" or less in width, 

with Seasonal Designation

Seasonal Designation 04/16-11/30 2407046, 2407047, 240806

Seasonal and Special Vehicle Designations
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF


THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Microfield Group, Inc. (the
"Company") for the twelve months ended December 29, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I,
the principal executive 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 28th day of March
2008.








/s/
      RODNEY M.
      BOUCHERRodney
      M. BoucherChief
      Executive Officer
State of Israel

Ministry of Transport

Civil Aviation Authority

Page 1 of 1 C: \ Documents and Settings \ pascals \ Local Settings \ Temporary Internet

Files \ Content.Outlook

\ 98EM6Z15 \ AD 01

- 12

- 02

- 02R1 Apr 2013.doc A D 01

- 12

- 02

- 0 2

Date: April 23 , 20 1 3R1

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

This Airworthiness Directive, issued by the Civil Aviation A uthority in accordance with the

Israeli Aviation Regulations, applies to an aircraft for which our rec ords list you as the registered

owner. It affects aviation safety and requires your immediate attention. No person may operate an

aircraft to which an Airworthiness Directive applies, except in accordance with that Directive.

APPLIES TO: Gulfstream Aeros pace LP (GALP) Model G15 0 air craft, all serial numbers

,

certificated in any category.

SUBJECT: Revision of runway slope and anti

- ice corrections to V1 and take

- off

distance values

.

R EASON: Updating / correcting of the Performance section "TAKE

- OFF DISTANCE

RUNWAY SLOPE CORRECTIONS: ALL FLAP SETTINGS” & “TAKE

- OFF DISTANCE

ANTI

- ICE CORRECTIONS: ALL FLAPS AND RUNWAY CONDI TIONS

Reason for

Revision 1: Rev. 17 of the AFM contain s permanent corrections which

supersede/remove TR

- 3 from the AFM

, as well as address additional

corrections identified during preparation of the new performance data.

ACTION: This AD mandates revised limitations in the G150 AFM, pertaining to

the Performance Section. Each operator must incorporate Rev. 17 to the

G150 AFM and remove previous AFM TR 3 dated December 14

, 2012.

COMPLIANCE : Compliance within 60 days from the effective date of this AD.

EF ECTIVE DATE : Revision 1: May 2 4 , 20 1 3

.

Initial issue: March 24, 2012

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Saul Pascal , Engineering and

Manufacturing Branch, CAAI

– Golan House, Golan Street P.O.B 1101

, Airport City , Israel 701 0 0.

Telephone: 972

- 3

- 9774

- 5 83 , Fax: 972

- 3

- 9774

- 592, e

- mail: pascals @mot.gov.il.
```

[104th Congress Public Law 5]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ5.104]

[[Page 109 STAT. 72]]

Public Law 104-5
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
    To amend a provision of part A of title IX of the Elementary and 
   Secondary Education Act of 1965, relating to Indian education, to 
provide a technical amendment, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Mar. 23, 
                           1995 -  [S. 377]>> 

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

    Section 9112(a)(1)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 (as added by section 101 of the Improving America's Schools Act 
of 1994 (Public Law 103-382)) <<NOTE: 20 USC 7812.>> is amended by 
striking ``and'' and inserting ``or''.

    Approved March 23, 1995.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 377:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):
            Feb. 16, considered and passed Senate.
            Mar. 14, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26279]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Fossil Energy
[Docket No. FE C&E 97-02--Certification Notice--155]


Denver City Energy Associates, L.P.; Notice of Filing of Coal 
Capability Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of filing.

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

SUMMARY: On September 23, 1997, Denver City Energy Associates, L.P. 
submitted a coal capability self-certification pursuant to section 201 
of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, as amended.

ADDRESSES: Copies of self-certification filings are available for 
public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Coal & Power Im/Ex, 
Fossil Energy, Room 3F-056, FE-27, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Russell at (202) 586-9624.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title II of the Powerplant and Industrial 
Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), 
provides that no new baseload electric powerplant may be constructed or 
operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel 
as a primary energy source. In order to meet the requirement of coal 
capability, the owner or operator of such facilities proposing to use 
natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify, 
pursuant to FUA section 201(d), to the Secretary of Energy prior to 
construction, or prior to operation as a base load powerplant, that 
such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate 
fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with section 201(a) as 
of the date filed with the Department of Energy. The Secretary is 
required to publish a notice in the Federal Register that a 
certification has been filed. The following owner/operator of the 
proposed new baseload powerplant has filed a self-certification in 
acccordance with section 201(d).
    Owner: Denver City Energy Associates, L.P.
    Operator: Denver City Energy Associates, L.P.
    Location: Amarillo, Texas.
    Plant Configuration: combined-cycle.
    Capacity: 489 megawatts.
    Fuel: Natural gas.
    Purchasing Entities: Golden Spread Electric Generating Cooperative, 
Inc. (GSE).
    In-Service Date: Simple-cycle mode--Winter of 1998-99 Combined-
cycle mode--Summer of 1999.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., September 29, 1997.
Anthony J. Como,
Director, Electric Power Regulation, Office of Coal & Power Im/Ex, 
Office of Coal & Power Systems, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 97-26279 Filed 10-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### Oscar Paul MOYEN, Kenneth Brewer and Paul Lester Ketchum, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. J-472.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Aug. 5, 1969.

Deutsch & Hurth, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SPECTOR, Justice.

Appellants seek reversal of a judgment of conviction and sentence upon being found guilty of the crime of robbery by a jury. Paradoxically, the object of appellants’ felonious conduct was a tourist attraction in Marion County, Florida, known as “Six-Gun Territory”. The aforementioned paradox arises from the victim’s advertisements by which it invites prospective patrons to visit its simulation of a frontier town in the days of the legendary cowboys *459and their equally legendary shoot-outs in the middle of the town’s lone street in front of either the bank or the saloon.

Almost as though following their victim’s own script, the appellants robbed the office of the “Six-Gun Territory” after tying up the lone watchman with adhesive tape and proceeding to cut their way into the office safe where the loot was kept in supposed safety from modern society’s counterpart of the highwaymen of the old west.

Appellants raise four points for reversal, three of which relate to the evidence adduced at the trial and its sufficiency. Our review of the testimony and consideration of the authorities cited by appellants in their brief leave us with the view that the evidence was properly adduced and was amply sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty.

The remaining point on appeal is the contention of appellants that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motion for change of venue. The gist of appellants’ change of venue motion was that the news reports of the robbery of the tourist attraction, Six-Gun Territory, were particularly prejudicial inasmuch as tourism is a major industry in Marion County; and, therefore, the populace is especially sensitive to occurrences related to that industry. In the case at bar, of course, the robbery charged occurred at a major tourist attraction in the county.

Our consideration of the manner in which the news media reported the robbery gives us no particular cause for concern. On the contrary, it seems to us that the reportorial publicity surrounding the robbery was little more than the appellants should have expected in the event they completed their plans to stage a real robbery at the very scene where so many fictional robberies had been staged.

In Singer v. State, 109 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1959), the Supreme Court held that a ruling on a motion for change of venue in a criminal case is largely within the sound discretion of the judge presiding over the trial. To reverse a trial court’s ruling on such a motion, it is necessary for the appellant to demonstrate that the trial judge abused his discretion. Such a showing has not been made by the appellants here.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
#### Dennis WATKINS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, etc., Respondent.

No. HH-477.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 9, 1977.

*754Dennis Watkins in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

SMITH, Judge.

This petition and attached exhibits demonstrate that petitioner inadvertently was denied an opportunity to request the circuit court to find him indigent for purposes of appeal and appoint the public defender to represent him on appeal with the result that no notice of appeal was timely filed. Petitioner is thus entitled to a belated appeal under the principles of *Hollingshead v. Wainwright,*194 So.2d 577 (Fla.1967), cert. den., 391 U.S. 968, 88 S.Ct. 2040, 20 L.Ed.2d 882 (1968) and *Baggett v. Wainwright,*229 So.2d 239 (Fla.1969). The petition is GRANTED. The circuit court of Alachua County will determine whether petitioner is indigent and, if so, will appoint counsel to represent petitioner on appeal to this court.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEROY RILEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 05-172 Erie

v. )

)

CHARLES SIMPSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on June 3, 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. 27], filed on July

28, 2006, recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 22] be granted.

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 motion and documents in the case, together with the

Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 16th day of August, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 22]

is GRANTED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 27] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on July 27, 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-00172-SJM-SPB Document 28 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


SHARIF WILLIAMSON, Civil No. 3:15-cv-1797 

Plaintiff (Judge Mariani) 

v. 

SUPERINTENDENT GARMAN, et al., 

Defendants 

ORDER 

AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2016, upon consideration of Defendants' motions (Docs. 

15,24) to dismiss, and for the reasons set forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinion of the same 

date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. 	 The motions (Docs. 15, 24) to dismiss are GRANTED. 

2. 	 Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

3. 	 Plaintiff is granted 28 days from the date of this Order to file an Amended 

Complaint. Failure to timely file an Amended Complaint may result in the dismissal 

of Plaintiff's action. 

4. 	 Should Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Plaintiff 

must file a brief in opposition to such motion within 14 days after service Qf 

Defendants' brief.1 

)See M.D. Pa. Local Rule 7.6 ("Any party opposing any motion, other than amotion for summary judgment, 

shall file abrief in opposition within fourteen (14) days after service of the movant's brief .... Any party who fails to 

comply with this rule shall be deemed not to OPPOse such motion.") (emphasis added). 

Case 3:15-cv-01797-RDM-CA Document 27 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 1