alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

SCAP-13-0002732

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

VIRENDRA NATH, NANCY MAKOWSKI, KRISHNA NARAYAN,

and SHERRIE NARAYAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

vs.

THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C., THE RITZ-CARLTON

DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

MARRIOTT VACATIONS WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, MARRIOTT

OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., THE RITZ-CARLTON

MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C., MARRIOTT TWO FLAGS, LP,

and MH KAPALUA VENTURE, LLC,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

KAPALUA BAY, LLC, MAUI LAND & PINEAPPLE CO., INC.,

KAPALUA REALTY CO., LTD., EXCLUSIVE RESORTS, LLC, MLP

KB PARTNER, LLC, EXCLUSIVE RESORTS CLUB I HOLDINGS, LLC,

EXCLUSIVE RESORTS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, ER

KAPALUA INVESTORS FUND HOLDINGS, LLC, ER KAPALUA

INVESTORS FUND, LLC, KAPALUA BAY HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

(CAAP-13-0002732; CIV. NO. 11-1-0216)

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAP-13-0002732

14-JUL-2017

08:51 AM
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.,

and Circuit Judge Nakasone, in place of Wilson, J., recused)

This appeal concerns the arbitrability of certain 

“purchase-based” claims pursuant to an arbitration clause

contained in the Declaration of Condominium Property Regime of

Kapalua Bay Condominium. On June 30, 2015, we affirmed the

Circuit Court of the Second Circuit’s (circuit court) order

denying Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to our

opinion in Narayan v. Ritz-Carlton Development Co., 135 Hawai#i

327, 350 P.3d 995 (2015) (Narayan I).

On January 11, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United

States vacated and remanded Narayan I and this case for further

consideration in light of its decision in DIRECTV, Inc. v.

Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. 463 (2015). 

The questions presented in this appeal are controlled

by our decision in Narayan v. Ritz-Carlton Development Co., No.

SCWC-12-0000819, at 3 (Haw. July 14, 2017) (pub. op.) (Narayan

II), which affirmed our decision in Narayan I and held that

“under long-standing Hawai#i contract law, the arbitration clause

is unconscionable.” 

Pursuant to our analysis in Narayan II, the circuit

court’s July 12, 2013 order denying Defendants’ motion to compel

arbitration is affirmed. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 14, 2017.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
#### CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF the LATTERDAY SAINTS, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-6.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 22, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 13, 1971.

James F. Pollack, Miami, for appellant.

Stuart L. Simon, County Atty., and St. Julien P. Rosemond, Asst. County Atty., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Smith v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 281; Harris v. City of Coral Gables, Fla.App. 1963, 157 So.2d 146.
# Official Journal L 311/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 311 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 622 December 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 311

English edition

Legislation

Volume 622 December 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2019/1961 of 17 October 2019 on implementing rules for handling CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET UE/EU SECRET information | 1 |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2019/1962 of 17 October 2019 on implementing rules for handling RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED information | 21 |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2019/1963 of 17 October 2019 laying down implementing rules on industrial security with regard to classified procurement contracts | 37 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2019/1961 of 17 October 2019 on implementing rules for handling CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET UE/EU SECRET information

1

*

Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2019/1962 of 17 October 2019 on implementing rules for handling RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED information

21

*

Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2019/1963 of 17 October 2019 laying down implementing rules on industrial security with regard to classified procurement contracts

37

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
RESOLUTION NO. 3811 

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE SECRETAR;);'. q~" 1 e> 2 ~} 

TRANSPORTATION TO DELAY SUSPENSION OF ESSENft.AT;·~ 

AIR SERVICE TO LEWISTOWN 

WHEREAS, the City of Lewistown has been served with an Order to Show Cause Proposing 

Termination of Essential Air Service (EAS) Eligibility by the U.S. Department of Transportation 

; and, 

WHEREAS, the stated reason for proposed termination of BAS· is that the average subsidy per 

passenger for BAS in Lewistown during the most recent fiscal year exceeds the maximum 

allowed amount of$1,000.00/passenger. 

WHEREAS, the subsidy received by an BAS provider is directly related to the number of 

persons who utiliZe the service; as ridership decreases, the subsidy must increase. It is the City's 

belief that ridership. on the local BAS provider has deteriorated due to poor route selection, 

undependable service and utilization of aircraft that are not equippe,d to take advantage of the 

Lewistown Airport's low visibility landing system. : 

WHEREAS, the City desires· to be included in the upcoming Request for Proposal for BAS 

which would include a route from Lewistown to Denver and a requirement that bidding air 

providers have aircraft equipped to take advantage ofLewistown's low visibility landing system. 

WHEREAS, the Lewistown City Manager has drafted a letter to the Secretary of Transportation 

dated Aprilll, 2013, detailing the need for BAS in Central Montana along with the reasons why 

such service can be provided within the subsidy ranges authorized by the Department. 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lewistown City Commission urgently 

requests that the Secretary suspend proceedings on the proposed termination of BAS eligibility 

for a period sufficient to allow Lewistown to obtain proposals from air carriers that would not 

only meet the needs of Lewistown and Central Montana residents, but also increase ridership on 

the BAS provider· that will correspondingly reduce the subsidy to within the limits set by the 

Department. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Commission fully supports the letter drafted by 

the Lewistown City Manager and adopts the same to be included herein by reference. 

PAS SED AND APPROVED THIS 15th day of April, 2013. 

FRANK GREMAUX, Chairman of the Commission
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1272

To amend section 507(a)(3) of title 11, United States Code, to give priority

to certain claims of persons that are independent sales representatives.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 21 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. COCHRAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 507(a)(3) of title 11, United States Code,

to give priority to certain claims of persons that are

independent sales representatives.

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 ‘‘Independent Sales

5 Representatives Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

7 (a) DEFINITION.—Section 101 of title 11, United

8 States Code, is amended—

9 (1) in the penultimate paragraph by striking

10 ‘‘and’’ at the end;
2

•S 1272 IS

1 (2) in the last paragraph by striking the period

2 and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

3 (3) by adding at the end the following new

4 paragraph:

5 ‘‘(58) ‘independent sales representative’ means

6 a person working as an independent contractor in

7 the sale of 1 or more lines of goods or services.’’.

8 (b) PRIORITY.—Section 507(a)(3) of title 11, United

9 States Code is amended—

10 (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘an indi11 vidual’’ the first place it appears and inserting ‘‘a

12 person (including an independent sales representa13 tive that is not an employee)’’; and

14 (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘individ15 ual’’ and inserting ‘‘person’’.

16 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

17 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub18 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this

19 Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

20 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend21 ments made by section 2 shall not apply with respect to

22 cases commenced under title 11, United States Code, be23 fore the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6309

GAMIN RAUL MACK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (1:05-cv-00678-LMB)

Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 30, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gamin Raul Mack, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Gamin Raul Mack seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mack has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Order filed March 6, 2012

.

In The


## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 11

- 01085

- CV

____________
CLAUDE ELDRIDGE , Appellant

V.

CINTAS CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 992031



### O R D E R
The notice of appeal in this case was filed December 8, 2011. To date, the filing fee of $175.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant has established indigence has been filed.

See Tex. R. App . P

. 2 0.1. Therefore, the court issues the following order. Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 to the Clerk of this
court on or before March 20, 2012

. See Tex. R. App . P. 5. If appellant fails to timely pay the
filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
259 La. 881

#### James J. DESELLE v. Paul Dowdy BONNETTE.

No. 51745.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1971.

In re: James J. Deselle applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Avoyelles. 251 So.2d 68.

Writ denied. No error of law.
IV 

House Calendar No. 134 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 700 

[Report No. 113–570] 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and 

providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2014 

Mr. COLE, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with 

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported 

from the Committee on Rules, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. 

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the 

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to 

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported through the legislative day of September 5, 2014, 

6 providing for consideration or disposition of measures reVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:07 Jul 31, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR700.RH HR700

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 700 RH 

1 lating to the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the U.S. 

2 southern border, border security, and related immigration 

3 law. 

4 SEC. 2. It shall be in order at any time through the 

5 legislative day of September 5, 2014, for the Speaker to 

6 entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as 

7 though under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to measures 

8 addressing the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the U.S. 

9 southern border, border security, and related immigration 

10 law. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 134 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 700 

[Report No. 113–570] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

the rules. providing for consideration of motions to suspend tions reported from the Committee on Rules, and with respect to consideration of certain resoluJULY 31, 2014 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0328

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

DAVID ALLEN PEIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 3, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 29 2024

05/29/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0328
#### DAVID AND DASH, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. CAPITOL FIXTURE & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellee.

No. 74-129.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 2, 1974.

Marx & Squitero, Miami, for appellant.

Cushman & Cushman, Miami, for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This interlocutory appeal by the defendant challenges the correctness of an order denying defendant’s motion filed under § 38.10 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. to disqualify the trial judge for bias. The motion was denied on the ground it was “insufficient as a matter of law.” In so holding, the judge whose impartiality was challenged was correct. No ground or reason for seeking disqualification was stated in the motion, which relied upon three accompanying affidavits as stating factual support for the motion. The affidavits were made by three officials of the defendant corporation. Assuming that the main affidavit (made by the Chairman of the Board of the corporation) may be considered as the required affidavit of the moving party, and without necessity to reach a decision as to whether the supporting affidavits of the other officials of the defendant corporation would meet the requirement of the statute which provides: “The said affida*382vit shall be supported in substance by affidavit of at least two reputable citizens of the county not of kin to the defendant or counsel for the defendant”, it appears the supporting affidavits, as worded, were insufficient under the authority of Hahn v. Frederick, Fla. 1953, 66 So.2d 823.

Affirmed.
#### Jose MILTON, Appellant, v. R. Ray GOODE, as County Manager, Tax Assessor and Tax Collector, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 71-844.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 29, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
tct_ex1013.htm

EXHIBIT 10.13

 

FIRST AMENDMENT 

TO THE FUND ADMINISTRATION SERVICING AGREEMENT 

 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT effective as of January 1, 2021, to the Fund Administration Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of August 14, 2015, is entered into by and between TEUCRIUM COMMODITY TRUST, a Delaware statutory trust (the “Trust”), TEUCRIUM TRADING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the sponsor of the Funds (the “Sponsor”), and U.S. BANCORP FUND SERVICES, LLC d/b/a U.S. BANK GLOBAL FUND SERVICES, a Wisconsin limited liability company (“USBFS”).

 

RECITALS 

 

WHEREAS, the parties have entered into the Agreement; and 

 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the term of the Agreement and to amend the fee schedule set forth on Exhibit C to the Agreement, and;

 

WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Agreement allows for its amendment by a written instrument executed by all parties. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 

 

	
 
	
1. 
	Section 12 of the Agreement will be replaced with the following Section 12. 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Section 12. Term of Agreement; Amendment

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
The Term of the Agreement will be extended until January 1, 2024. After January 1, 2024, this Agreement shall automatically renew for successive one (1) year terms unless either party provides written notice at least 90 days prior to the end of the then current term that it will not be renewing the Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be terminated by any party upon the breach of another party of any material term of this Agreement if such breach is not cured within 15 days of notice of such breach to the breaching party. This Agreement may not be amended or modified in any manner except by written agreement executed by Fund Services and the Trust, and authorized or approved by the Sponsor.



 

	
 
	
2. 
	
Effective, January 1, 2021, Exhibit C of the Agreement is hereby superseded and replaced in its entirety with Exhibit C attached hereto.



 

Except to the extent amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 

Signatures on the following page

 

	 
	
	
	 


 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer on one or more counterparts as of the date and year first written above. 

 

TEUCRIUM COMMODITY TRUST 

 

By:_______________________________

 

Name:_____________________________ 

 

Title:______________________________ 

 

 

TEUCRIUM TRADING, LLC 

 

By:_______________________________

 

Name: ____________________________ 

 

Title: _____________________________

 

U.S. BANCORP FUND SERVICES, LLC 

 

By:________________________________ 

 

Name: _____________________________

 

Title: Senior Vice President

 

	 
	
	
	 


  

Exhibit A to the Fund Administration Servicing Agreement – Teucrium Commodity Trust

 

Separate Series of Teucrium Commodity Trust 

 

	
Name of Series

Teucrium Corn Fund

Teucrium Wheat Fund

Teucrium Soybean Fund

Teucrium Sugar Fund

Teucrium Agricultural Fund
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a) AND UNDER
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Brian R. Schaefgen, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ambassadors
International, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. May 6, 2004 /s/ Brian R. SchaefgenBrian R. SchaefgenChief Financial Officer