alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Howard F. HATCH, President of Howard Hatch and Associates, a Utah corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UTAH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, Jeff R. Mendenhall, Director, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 19662.

Supreme Court of Utah.

July 23, 1984.

*551Howard F. Hatch, Provo, pro se.

Sterling B. Sainsbury, Noall T. Wootton, Provo, for defendant and respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Hatch brought this action for damages, injunctive relief and extraordinary writ to require defendant to issue a building permit for construction of a boat launching facility. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, whereupon plaintiff took this appeal.

Plaintiff desired to construct a cement slab protrusion into the waters of Utah Lake as a part of a boat-docking marina. He applied unsuccessfully for a building permit and made no formal move for relief under available statutes and ordinances to appropriate administrative regulatory agencies. He chose to build the facility irrespective of the absolute requirement of obtaining a building permit.

The trial court entered findings to the effect that Hatch had filed an application for a permit with the Utah County Planning Department, which application was not granted, but tabled. Without pursuing the matter further by administrative review or otherwise, he built the landing ramp. The trial judge, citing U.C.A., 1953, § 17-27-16, concluded that he lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff had not exhausted existing administrative remedies and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Plaintiff urges that a Utah County ordinance permits judicial review of any grievance resulting from the administration of the zoning ordinance, without prior hearing by the Board of Adjustment. Whatever ambiguity there may be in the ordinance is answered by state law. In *Merrihew v. Salt Lake County Planning,*Utah, 659 P.2d 1065 (1983), we applied U.C.A., 1953, § 17-27-16 and held that a party must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of the denial of a building permit.

The thrust of this appeal, in Hatch’s own words, is that “he have a fair opportunity to present his case” by honoring “his request for oral argument” that was denied. The motion to dismiss that was granted addressed the facts and infirmities of the complaint. It was accompanied by a “Statement of Undisputed Facts,” which Hatch did not attack until after the hearing and dismissal. His only prehearing request was for oral argument, claimed as a matter of right, which request was made shortly before the judge ruled on the matter. He claimed such right under the local District Court Rule 2.8, which he misconceived since it provides that such oral argument may be allowed on the request of the parties or the court, only if granting the request would dispose of the case on the merits *with prejudice.*His contention is without substance since the trial judge dismissed this case *without prejudice.*

We affirm the judgment in accordance with the views herein expressed. No award of costs on appeal.

ZIMMERMAN, J., does not participate herein.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30854

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GILBERTO IZQUIERDO CRUZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 92-CR-577-E

- - - - - - - - - -

July 18, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gilberto Izquierdo Cruz appeals his new sentence imposed

after the grant of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and

his guilty-plea conviction on four counts of distribution of

cocaine. He challenges the computation of his offense level

under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3), based on the quantity of cocaine

involved in the offense, and the four-level increase in his
No. 96-30854

- 2 -

offense level under § 3B1.1(a) because of his role in the offense

as a leader or organizer.

We have reviewed the record and briefs and conclude that the

findings of the district court are not clearly erroneous. United

States v. Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d 929, 942 (5th Cir. 1994); United

States v. Wilder, 15 F.3d 1292, 1299 (5th Cir. 1994). The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### STATE ex rel. Willie R. SANDIFER and Robert E. Sandifer v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 87-KH-1693.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 15, 1987.

In re Willie R. and Robert E. Sandifer; applying for writ of habeas corpus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring to the district court for prompt consideration.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. George ROGERS.

No. 86-KO-2096.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Rogers, George; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 17827-KA; Parish of East Carroll, 6th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 31794.

Prior report: La.App., 494 So.2d 1251.

Denied.
#### Robert L. WATERBURY v. L.J. QUEBEDEAUX d/b/a L.J.’s Gulf Service, et al.

No. 86-C-2408.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Waterbury, Robert L.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 86-4; Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 90811-A.

Prior report: La.App., 497 So.2d 382.

Denied. The result is correct.
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Pamphile LOCHAN, a/k/a Charles Lochan, Appellee.

No. 86-1150.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 27, 1987.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Ordonez, Friend & Fleck and Geoffrey C. Fleck, Milton M. Ferrell, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

*170PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Walsingham v. State,*272 So.2d 215 (Fla.2d DCA 1973).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2196 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2196

    To suspend temporarily the duty on powdered ion exchange resin 
  comprising a copolymer of styrene crosslinked with divinylbenzene, 
                      sulphonic acid, sodium form.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on powdered ion exchange resin 
  comprising a copolymer of styrene crosslinked with divinylbenzene, 
                      sulphonic acid, sodium form.

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

SECTION 1. POWDERED ION EXCHANGE RESIN COMPRISING A COPOLYMER OF 
              STYRENE CROSSLINKED WITH DIVINYLBENZENE, SULPHONIC ACID, 
              SODIUM FORM.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.34 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to powdered ion exchange resin 
comprising a copolymer of styrene crosslinked with divinylbenzene, 
sulphonic acid, sodium form) is amended to read as follows:

``      9902.02.34       Powdered ion        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          exchange resin                                                     31/2011.......
                          comprised of a
                          copolymer of
                          styrene, cross
                          linked with
                          divinyl-benzene,
                          further reacted
                          to provide
                          sulfonic acid
                          functionality
                          (sodium form),
                          having a nominal
                          particle size of
                          0.075 mm to 0.150
                          mm, dried to a
                          moisture content
                          of not more than
                          10% (CAS No.
                          63182-08-1)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3914.00.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1




                         AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


     American Express  Centurion Bank, a Utah  corporation (the "Company"),  and
each of the undersigned officers and directors of the Company, hereby constitute
and appoint  John  Hobby,  Stephen P.  Norman,  Jay B.  Stevelman  and Daniel L.
Follett, jointly and severally,  with full power of substitution and revocation,
their true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, for them and on their behalf
and in their respective names, places and steads, in any and all capacities,  to
sign,  execute  and affix  their  respective  seal  thereto  and file any of the
documents  referred to below  relating to the American  Express  Credit  Account
Master Trust; all filings and reports required under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934,  including Current Reports on Form 8-K and Annual Reports on Form 10-K,
including any amendments thereto, on behalf of the Company,  with any regulatory
authority,  granting  unto  said  attorneys,  and each of them,  full  power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done in and about the premises in order to effectuate the same as fully to
all intents and purposes as they might or could do if personally present, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that said  attorneys-in-fact  and agents, or any of
them, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

     This Power of Attorney may be executed in counterparts.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  American Express  Centurion Bank has caused this Power
of  Attorney  to be executed  in its name by its  Chairman  and  attested by its
Assistant  Secretary,  and the undersigned  officers and directors have hereunto
set their hand as of the 28th day of March, 2002.

                                          AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK

                                          By:  /s/ Ashwini Gupta
                                               --------------------------
                                               Ashwini Gupta
                                               Chairman



ATTEST:

/s/ John Hobby
------------------------------------
John Hobby
Assistant Secretary


<PAGE>



/s/ Ashwini Gupta
------------------------------------
Ashwini Gupta
Director and Chairman


/s/ David E. Poulsen
------------------------------------
David E. Poulsen
Director, President and
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Maria J. Garciaz
------------------------------------
Maria J. Garciaz
Director


/s/ Bill Isaac
------------------------------------
Bill Isaac
Director


/s/ Peter A. Lefferts
------------------------------------
Peter A. Lefferts
Director


/s/ Raymond F. Pettit
------------------------------------
Raymond F. Pettit
Director


/s/ Frank L. Skillern
------------------------------------
Frank L. Skillern
Director


/s/ Jay B. Stevelman
------------------------------------
Jay B. Stevelman
Director


/s/ Roslyn M. Watson
------------------------------------
Roslyn M. Watson
Director
#### NATIONAL ELECTRIC SIGNAL CO. v. CITY OF ELECTRA et al.

No. 8932.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 1939.

Harry B. Barnhart, of Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

J. Shirley Cook, of Vernon, Tex., S. J. Brooks, of San Antonio, Tex., Henry R. Ashton, of New York City, and C. P. Engelking, of Electra, Tex., for appellees.

Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a decree in two suits for injunctions and accountings for alleged patent infringements against both of the appellees. The same issues being presented, the suits were consolidated and tried as one, resulting in a finding by the Court that the patent in suit was invalid for want of invention and because of anticipation by the prior art, prior use, and prior patents.

The patent here involved is Garrett Patent No. 1,743,965, issued January 14, 1930, and was before this court in the case of National Electric Signal Co. v. City of Waco, 5 Cir., 90 F.2d 497. As in the previous suit, the issues revolve around claims 5 and 6, each covering a traffic-signal system for the control of traffic at a plurality of street intersections. In the City of Waco case, supra, the issue was narrowed to one element, a switch interrupting the electrical connections leading to the traffic-control lights, movable to one position to effect normal operation of all signals, and movable to another position to display only the stop signals at all intersections. The switch called for by this claim was obviously a double-throw switch, well known to the art of electrical wiring long prior to research in traffic-control devices. However, since the Waco system did not use a double-throw switch, but used two single-throw switches to perform the same function, we held that infringement was not shown, and declined to pass upon the validity of the patent.

We have reviewed the record upon which the district court reached its conclusions. Without attempting to recite the substance of the large volume of testimony, or to analyze the numerous patents and publications which were found by the court to read on the patent in suit, we think that its findings are amply sustained. The patent can be held valid only as a combination of old elements. But, under the doctrine of combinations and aggregations, we do not find any element performing, any differently, or producing any new result, as contrasted with the art and patents found by the court to anticipate the patent in suit. Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corporation, 303 U.S. 545, 58 S.Ct. 662, 82 L.Ed. 1008; Bassic Mfg. Co. v. R. M. *38Hollingsliead Co., 298 U.S. 415, 56 S.Ct. 787, 80 L.Ed. 1251.

It being our view that the evidence fully sustains the findings of the district court, and that it committed no error of law, the decree appealed from is affirmed.
#### In the Matter of John W. McGOWAN.

No. 89-C-0012.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1989.

In re McGowan, John W.;—Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA87 0677; Department of Environmental Quality, No. 2-86-0093.

Denied. The result is correct.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Steve Bajic, President, Secretary, Treasurer and a director of Goldrange Resources, Inc. (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer), certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Goldrange Resources, 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.  The small business issuer’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 company 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 company, 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 company'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 company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.  The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of the company'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 company'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 company's internal control over financial reporting. 

Date:  August 17, 2006

 

/s/ Steve Bajic                                                                

Steve Bajic

President, Secretary, Treasurer 

(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial 

Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Charlotte G. SHAW.

No. 8365.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 18, 1940.

Francis T. McDonald, U. S. Atty., and Joseph F. Deeb, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellant.

Knappen, Uhl, Bryant & Snow, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellee.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the appeal herein be and the same is dismissed pursuant to stipulation of counsel.
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40899 C onfer enc e C al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee v. C LIFF O R D B E R N A R D N E LS O N , al soknow n as D um m y, D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 01- C R
- 32- 1 B ef ore W IE N E R , B E N AV ID E S , an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * C l i f f ord B erna rd N el son, federalpri son e r # 05 790 - 078 , convi ct ed of p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te , a n dd is tr ib u tio n o f, cr a c kco c a in e , a p p e a ls hi s r educ ed s ent enc e i m pos ed pur suantt o 1 8 U . S. C . § 3582(c ) ( 2) . H e ar gues t hat Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , appl i es t o § 3582(c ) ( 2) pr oc ee di ngs and , a s s uc h, t h e di s t r i c tc o ur tw as a ut ho r i z e d t o s e nt e nc e hi m b e l o w t he am en dedgu i delin e s r a n g e . T h e G o v e rn m e n t h a s m o v e dforsu m m ary af f irm an ce and , a l t e r nat ive l y, fora n ex t e ns i o n o f t i m e i n whi c h t o f

il e ab r i e f, a nd the United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D October 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40899

2 F ederalP u bl i c D efen der h as m ovedto w i t h draw to a l l ow N el son to proceed pro s e o n a p p e a l. The i s s ue N el son r ai s e s i s f o r e c l o s e d b y o urr e c e ntde c i s i o n i n Un i t ed S ta tes v. D o u b lin , 5 7 2 F .3 d 2 3 5 , 2 3 6 -3 9 (5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 9 ), pet i t i on f or c ert . f

i led (Se p t. 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( N o. 09 -66 5 7 ), w h i ch h eld th a t B ooker i s i n ap pl i cabl e t o sentence redu ct i on s un der § 3582 (c) an d, th u s, t h at a di st ri ctcourtcann otreduce a s e n t e n c e b e l o w t h e mi ni m um pr o v i d e di n t h e a m e n d e dg u i d e l i n e s r a n g e . As such , N el son’ s j u dg m en ti s af f i rm ed, an d t h e G overnm en t ’ s m ot i on forsum m ary a ffir m a n c e is g r a n te d . C o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d r a w is d e n ie d . Cf . Un i t ed S t ate s v. W

ag n er , 1 5 8 F .3d9 0 1 , 9 0 2 -0 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). AF F I RMED; MOTI ON F OR S UM M ARYA FFI RMANC E GRANT ED ; M OT I O N FO R E X TE N SIO N O F T I M E TO FILE B R I E F D E N I E D ; M O TIO N TO W IT H D R A W D E N IE D .
1

Medina, Dayana

From: Pettyjohn, Mary <PETTYJOHN@adeq.state.ar.us>

Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:37 AM

To: Medina, Dayana

Cc: Donaldson, Guy; Feldman, Michael; Snyder, Erik; Kordzi, Joe

Subject: FW: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. - White Bluff Plant, BART 5-factor Analysis

Attachments: WB Cover Letter.pdf; Entergy White Bluff BART Analysis 02-21-13 FINAL.pdf

Good morning,

Here is Entergy White Bluff’s five‐factor.  When I get the modeling files, I will forward them to you.

Mary

From: JOHNSON, GEORGE [mailto:GJOHNS6@entergy.com] 

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:13 PM 

To: Bates, Mike 

Cc: Pettyjohn, Mary; Bassett, Karen; Spencer, Stuart; GLOVER, MYRA H; McQueen, Kelly; HANTZ, JOSEPH; Triplett, 

David; SNOW, BARRY LAMAR; Jeremy Jewell (jjewell@trinityconsultants.com) 

Subject: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. - White Bluff Plant, BART 5-factor Analysis 

Mike,

Please find the attached BART 5‐factor analysis and cover letter for Entergy’s White Bluff facility.

Thanks,

Tracy Johnson