alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SUMMA CORPORATION, a California Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LANCER INDUSTRIES, INC., an Illinois Corporation, the General Partner of Synergetics, a Utah Limited Partnership, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 15149.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 28, 1978.

*137John L. McCoy of Ryberg & McCoy, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Walter Plumb, III, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

ELLETT, Chief Justice:

This is the second appeal brought before this Court by the parties herein. Both appeals involve the question of jurisdiction of the defendants. The prior appeal1 was brought by the plaintiff when the lower court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non-conven-iens. This Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The defendants then again moved to dismiss because of lack of service upon them. The trial court denied this motion and the defendants now appeal from that ruling. In making each motion, the defendants said they were appearing “specially.”

Lancer Industries, Inc. is an Illinois corporation qualified to do business in Utah. Its president resides in Utah. Lancer is a general partner in a limited partnership known as Synergetics. Synergetics is a partner with another partnership that owns land in Florida. This action arose out of a claimed breach of contract by Synergetics in that it failed to pay Summa Corporation for services rendered in Florida.

Service was made upon the president of Lancer Industries, Inc. here in Utah. The question presented on this appeal is simply this: Is Synergetics brought before the Utah Court either by service upon the president of Lancer Industries, Inc., or by reason of prior proceedings in court?

To serve a partnership, it is only necessary to serve one of the partners.2 Service upon the president of Lancer Industries, Inc., a general partner in Synergetics, was service upon that limited partnership. We hold that service upon the general partner does bring the named limited partnership before the court, and the trial court properly denied the motion to quash service of process.

It is not necessary to consider whether or not a second motion before the trial court should have been permitted, asking for the same relief as was requested in the first motion, to-wit: to dismiss the action. It would seem that all reasons for granting relief should be made at one time; and certainly numerous appeals ought not be permitted to examine piecemeal the different reasons for granting or denying the same relief requested. Nor need we decide whether or not a motion to dismiss due to forum non-conveniens under a claimed special appearance places the movant in court when he did not question the jurisdiction of the court at the time of that special appearance.

The ruling holding that Lancer Industries, Inc. and Synergetics are properly before the court is affirmed. Costs are awarded to the respondent.

CROCKETT, MAUGHAN, WILKINS and HALL, JJ., concur.

1

. *Summa Corporation v. Lancer Industries, Inc.,*Utah, 599 P.2d 544 (1977).

2

. Rule 4(e)(4), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
THIS PLACE-HOLDER PAGE REPLACES THE

SPECTRAL AND ANALYTICAL DATA CLAIMED CBI 

(12 PAGES)
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of FAO, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending May 3, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jerome A. Kollar, Senior Vice President Finance of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  June 16, 2003 |                                                                            | /s/ Jerome A. Kollar |   |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|                           | Jerome A. Kollar  Senior Vice President-Finance  (Principal Accounting Officer) |                 |

 

----
**OPSIS Data May-11**  **Line 1, Room 6 Date**  **Lbs TF/Day Lbs HF/Day**  Run 1 5/4-6/11 233.4 115.6 Run 2 5/11-13/11 250.2 122.7 Run 3 5/18-20/11 261.7 122.6 Run 4 5/25-27/11 194.2 97.9 **Line 5, Room 20 Date**  **Lbs TF/Day Lbs HF/Day**  Run 1 5/4-6/11 337.1 120.1 Run 2 5/11-13/11 174.9 80.4 Run 3 5/18-20/11 166.3 75.8

Sample technique: EPA Method 14, OPSIS CEM Duration of sample: 48 hours Production rate, Line 1:128 tons per day Production rate, Line 5:161 tons per day Potroom operations:Normal - full pot cycle.

**Method 14 Data May-11**
Disposition Comments 

Docket No: 

Directorate ID: 2014-NM-051-AD 

Originating Office Tracking No.: 2013-020 

Next Step: [3'] FRAN D SNPRM 

D These comments are in 

response to an SNPRM 

[3'] No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received - If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required. 

Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NP RM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. 

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9. 

ISSUE 1: Select one ofthefollowing: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

lfNO, we don 't agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one ofthefollowing: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

Page 1 of3 
If NO, we don 't agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here 

Page 2 of3 
Signature Section 

Signature indicates concurrence with this action . 

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date 

Branch Manager Date 

Page 3 of3
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Agricultural

Marketing

Service

Quality Assessment Division

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Stop 3960

Washington, D.C. 20250

Grading Supplies

The items below are not available from USDA, but may be obtained as follows:

Marbling Pictures – Set of six official color prints illustrating the lower limits of degrees of 

marbling (Slight through Moderately Abundant)

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

Phone 800-368-3138

Orders must be placed via internet: www.beefstore.org

Item 06901

Price $26.25 plus shipping and handling charges

USDA Ribeye Grid for Quick Measurement of Ribeye Area (Beef)

Art Services

Phone 301-982-7304

Price $6.50 each plus shipping and handling charges

Lamb Yield Grade Ruler

GEI International

Phone 315-463-9261

Orders may be placed via internet: http://www.geionline.com/

Item 4344a-06

Price $8.95 each plus shipping and handling charges

The following items are available from Nasco

Phone 800-558-9595

Orders may be placed via internet: www.enasco.com

Hormel Judging Computer

Item C07437N

Price $48.75 single; $46.27 on orders of 5 or more

Preliminary Yield Grade Ruler (Beef)

Item C026159

Price $2.90 single; $$2.41 on orders of 100 or more

Swine Backfat Probe

Item C00155N

Price $2.85 single; $2.48 on orders of 100 or more
U.S. Department of Transportation Office ofthe Secretary OfTransportation

July 30, 2014 Ms. JoAnn Wolters GemAirLLC 31 Hammer Drive Salmon, ID 83467
DearMs. Wolters: 1200 NewJersey Ave., S.E. Washington, DC 20590

We have reviewed the financial information you submitted including the pre-operating and firstyear expense forecasts, and it does not appear that Gem Air has sufficient funds in its name to meet the Department's fitness test. While account information for Spirit Air and W&S Enterprises, LLC ("W&S") was provided, these accounts are in their company names and no information was provided that supports their intent to fund Gem Air. Therefore, if Gem Air intends to rely on Spirit Air and W&S' funds, the Department will need to reviewtheir financial positions. 1 Balance sheets and income statements ofSpirit Air and W&S, Gem Air's relevant corporation, together with their accompanying explanatory footnotes must be submitted along with letters stating that Spirit Air and W&S will provide financial support to Gem Air. Additionally, in order for us to continue our review, we ask that you provide an income statement andbalance sheet ending June 30, 2014, and a current letter from Washington Federal Bankconfirming funds availableto Gem Air ending that same date.
Please respond fully to this request within 30 days ofthe date ofthis letter. You may upload your response via the web at www.regulations.gov or you may mail your response to U.S. Department of Transportation Dockets, West Building, Ground Floor, W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, D.C. 20590. In either case, your response should be filed in DocketDOT-OST-2014-0020. Please include a statement signed by a representative ofthe air carrier [who shall be a principal owner, senior officer, or internal counsel of the carrier] indicating that, pursuant to Title 18 United States Code Section 1001, the information provided in response to this letter is true and correct and that the aforementioned individual has not knowingly and willingly falsified, concealed or failed to disclose any material fact or made any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statementinconnectionwiththepreparationor filing ofthe material submitted.

We consider Spirit Air and W&S as relevant corporations which are defined as any company in which the owners have a substantial interest or any organization which has a significant financial or managerial influence on the applicant.Thankyoufor your cooperation in this matter. Ifyouhave any questions regarding this letter or the requested information, please contact Barbara Snoden ofmy staffat (202) 366-9721 or via email atBarbara.Snoden@dot.gov.

Ch1 ,Air CarrierFitnessDivision Office ofAviationAnalysis

cc: DocketDOT-OST-2014-0020 Mr. PatrickDarling POI for GemAirLLC FAABoiseFSDO 3295 Elder St. Suite 350 Boise, ID 83705

2
JIMMIE GOODINE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-3563

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 14, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charles R. McCoy, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CERTIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing and 

Certification. We grant the motion to the extent that it requested the inclusion of a 

citation to controlling authority. However, we deny Appellant’s request to certify 
questions of great public importance. Accordingly, we withdraw our former 

opinion filed on August 22, 2014, and substitute this opinion in its place.

AFFIRMED. See Williams v. State, 143 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

WOLF, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.

2
#### The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. John E. Washburn, Respondent, v Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc., et al., Appellants.

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered August 22, 1989, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to vacate a prior order dismissing the plaintiffs first cause of action, denied their cross motion to dismiss the cause of action for an accounting, and denied the cross motion of the defendant Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc., to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Assuming the truth of the allegations contained in the complaint, as this court must on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 *(see, Sanders v Winship,*57 NY2d 391), we find that it adequately states a cause of action against the defendant Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc. (hereinafter Hall), to pierce its corporate veil *(see, Pebble Cove Homeowners’ Assn. v Fidelity N. Y.,*153 AD2d 843, 843-844; *Marino v Dwyer-Berry Constr.**563*Corp.,*146 AD2d 750; *Key Intl. Mfg. v Morse/Diesel, Inc.,*142 AD2d 448, 453-454). The allegations contained in the complaint are not merely conclusory. Rather, they refer to certain activities by Hall which, if true, might lead to a piercing of its corporate veil. Accordingly, it would be premature to dismiss the complaint as against Hall at this early stage of the litigation.

We further find that the court providently exercised its discretion when it opened up the plaintiffs default on a motion to dismiss the first cause of action *(see,*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Guillen v 652 Broadway Corp.,*168 AD2d 486; *P & K Marble v Pearce,*168 AD2d 439).

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contention and find it to be without merit *(cf., Kensington Publ. Corp. v Kable News Co.,*100 AD2d 802). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
PRIORITIZING PLANT PESTS AND 

PROGRAMS IN APHIS

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

September 15, 2015
Facilitate trade Protect resources

SAFE

TRADE

APHIS Safeguarding Spectrum
Pests not

introduced

Newly

introduced

Established/

‘limited 

distribution’

What exotic pests should we be 

concerned about?

• Q-56;Q-37

• CAPS

• OPIP

Estimate consequences and 

probability of introduction (entry 

& establishment), 

Should we do something?

• NPAG

• Pests of imminent 

threat 

Estimate spread and 

expected impacts with 

and without mitigations

Should we continue?

• OPAG

• DEEP

Evaluate program 

effectiveness based on 

observed impacts

Ex-ante analysis: 

Evaluation of Potential Impacts 

Ex-post analysis:

Evaluation of Observed Impacts
New Model for Evaluating Impacts

• Multiple choice yes/no questions (criteria) 

predictive of impacts

• Selected factors considered in evaluating 

expected impacts:

- unmitigated damage

- frequency/severity of outbreaks

- current production practices

- private cost of control

- research
Can the pest cause economically and/or 

environmentally significant damages to 

U.S. agriculture or natural resources? *

Can the pest spread and cause damage to 

other states or affected entities?

Is containment or management of the 

pest technically feasible?

Can the cost of a program be justified 

by the expected losses to affected 

parties?

Pest is a candidate for 

Federal response

Besides economic, are there other 

overriding considerations (e.g., statutory

or judicial directives, political concerns) 

that call for Federal action?

Pest is not a candidate 

for Federal response

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

DECISION TREE FOR FEDERAL ACTION

* Economic significancy is based on established thresholds for acceptable level of risk.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or


Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code





In connection with the Quarterly Report of OHA Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven T. Wayne, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(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:August 10, 2017/s/ Steven T. WayneSteven T. WaynePresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Bowery Savings Bank, Respondent, v Harbert Offset Corp. et al., Defendants, Bonnie G. Cohen, Also Known as Jane Doe, Appellant, and N. Lawrence Newhouse, Intervenor-Respondent.

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Bonnie Gerard Cohen appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated June 27, 1990, which denied her motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale entered against her upon her default in appearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

*646The appellant argues that she was a "necessary defendant” under RPAPL 1311 (1) by virtue of her being a tenant in possession of the property subject to the foreclosed mortgage. According to the appellant, as a result of improper service of process there was a lack of personal jurisdiction and therefore, the judgment of foreclosure and the subsequent sale were invalid. After reviewing the record, however, we fail to find any evidence establishing that the appellant was a tenant or holds any other interest in the subject property *(see, e.g., Preston v Hawley,*101 NY 586, 588). A mere assertion that she owned an adjacent parcel and that she maintained a greenhouse and cultivated fruit trees on the property does not support a finding that she was a tenant in possession. Since the appellant was not a necessary party to this foreclosure action, her motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure was properly denied *(see,*RPAPL 1311 [1]).

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur. *[See,*147 Misc 2d 633.]
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20722

Conference Calendar

 

JOHNNY VALCHAR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES, 

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CV-1897

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

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Johnny Valchar, Texas prisoner # 744014, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 

Valchar contends that the file maintained by the Texas Board of

Pardons and Paroles (“the Board”) contains erroneous information

regarding his gang affiliation. The district court dismissed

this claim as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Valchar has not shown that the district court abused its

discretion in dismissing as frivolous his claim concerning the
No. 04-20722

-2-

presence of false information in his parole file. See Norton v.

Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir. 1997); Johnson v.

Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308 (5th Cir. 1997). 

This court will not consider Valchar’s argument that the

Board failed to comply with provisions of the Texas Open Records

Act requiring that information be divulged to an inmate or his

attorney because Valchar did not raise this claim in the district

court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342

(5th Cir. 1999). 

Valchar does not address the dismissal of the remaining

claims raised in the district court. Accordingly, these claims

have been abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25

(5th Cir. 1993).

Valchar’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

The dismissal of Valchar’s appeal by this court counts as

a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,

103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Valchar has accumulated at

least two additional strikes based on the dismissal of a previous

civil rights complaint and appeal as frivolous. See Valchar v.

Swart, No. 99-10186 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 1999) (unpublished). 

Valchar has now accumulated at least three strikes for purposes

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, Valchar is now BARRED from
No. 04-20722

-3-

proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed

while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR

IMPOSED.