alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert L. VAN WAGENEN, Plaintiff, v. Gary WALKER et al., Defendants, v. Lorin R. BLAUER, Third Party Defendant and Appellant, v. Gust M. JANIS et al., Cross-Claim Defendants, v. RIGO’S ITALIAN RESTAURANT, Defendant Garnishee and Respondent, v. COMMERCIAL SECURITY BANK, Garnishee and Respondent.

No. 16045.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 27, 1979.

Maxwell Bentley, Salt Lake City, for appellant.

*1328Brian R. Florence, Ogden, for Rigo’s Italian Restaurant.

Richard W. Campbell, Ogden, for Commercial Security Bank.

MAUGHAN, Justice:

Third party defendant, Blauer, appeals from two orders of the trial court vacating two garnishment judgments. These were lodged against garnishees, Rigo’s Italian Restaurant and Commercial Security Bank. Blauer contends the trial court committed procedural errors which he seeks to have rectified on appeal. Garnishees urge the appeal should be dismissed.

Under Rule 72(a) U.R.C.P., an appeal may be taken to this Court on a *final*order or judgment. An order vacating a judgment is not such a final order, for the rights of the parties are not determined and the litigation is not concluded thereunder.1

> The general rule is that when an order or judgment is vacated the previously existing status is restored and the situation is the same as though the order or judgment had never been made. The matters in controversy are left open for future determination. The action is not thereby discontinued or abated, but is subject to further proceedings in regular course. The party in whose favor a judgment has been entered irregularly may, after it has been vacated, proceed as if it had never been rendered, and in due time and upon proper proceedings obtain a valid judgment. . . . 2

Since the orders of the trial court did not finally conclude any of the rights of the parties which were in litigation, there was not a final judgment or order from which an appeal, as a matter of right, lies. The appeal is dismissed.

CROCKETT, C. J., and WILKINS, HALL and STEWART, JJ., concur.

1

. *Baer v. Young,*25 Utah 2d 198, 479 P.2d 351 (1971); *Jensen v. Nielsen,*22 Utah 2d 23, 447 P.2d 906 (1968).

2

. 1 Freeman on Judgments (5th Ed.) § 302, pp. 71-72; also see *Wrang v. Spencer,*4 Conn.Cir. 473, 235 A.2d 861 (1967); 4 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, § 126, p. 641.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                               PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      507,645
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      2,547
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         195,833
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        29,633
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  93,829
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 829,487
<COMMON>                                        51,418
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       43,233
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            119,546
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 214,197
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           29,262
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           210,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  97,600
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      2,772
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 1,509
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 274,147
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  829,487
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      653,073
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            16,258
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     156,777
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     232,765
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         45,404
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 726
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  46,130
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        20,827
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,303
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,926
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   23,377
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        11,929
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       18,633
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         101,005
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    45.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    45.46
        

</TABLE>
### RCRA CLUSTERS XXI and XXII REV ISED AUTHORJZATION APPLICATION

INTRODUCTION The approach of this Revised Au th orizati on A p plication for RCRA Clusters XXI and XX II , requesting authority for a ll federal d elegab le hazardous was te regulations promulgated from July 1,2010 to July 1 , 2013, will be to address updated documents and any changes from the Addendull: to Program Description for RCRA Clusters XVIII, XIX and XX, (Appendix II). Any documents that have changed have been included and others that have been cited and have not changed have not been included as they have been previou s ly s ubmitt ed. Added to this Revised Authorization Application are Regulatory Summaries of fmal federal hazardous waste regulations promulgated from 711 / 1 0 to 7/1/13 for RCRA C lu s ters XX I and XX II , (Appe ndix X), which have been adopted by referenc e int o th e Id aho Rules ar.d Standards for Hazardous Waste, (Appendix XI). There
were no final federal RCRA hazardous waste reg ulation s promulgated by EPA from July 1,2012 to Jul y 1,2013

. The rul es in these re g ula to ry s ummaries include the removal of Saccharin and it s Salts as li sted hazardous wa ste, date d 

### 1211711 0, Technical Corrections to the Academics Lab Rule, dated 

### 12/20/1 0, Revisions to LOR Treatment Standards for Carbamates, dated 

### 611311 I, HW Manifest Printing Specifications Corrections, dated 

### 6/22/11 and I-lW Technical Corrections and Clarifi ca tion s, dated 

### 4/13/12. None of these rules hav e major imp act on the im p lementat ion of the Idaho HW program. (The Hazardou s Waste Program Summary, dated April 2000 and submitted in April 200 I for the purpose of background information, and the Idaho Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Act, subm itted in September of2002, have no t changed and have not been submitted with this app li cation The Hazardous Waste Management Act, (Appendix XII), the Idaho Environmental Protection and Health Act, (Appendix XIII) and the Idaho Public Records Act, (Append ix XIV), have been inc lud ,,<./ wi t I! their Idaho Code 20J 3 Cumulative Pocket Supplements (CPS) si nce these statutes have bee n referenced in the Attorney General's S tate me nt s ign ed J a nu a ry 9, 20 I 5, (Append ix I)

. This Revised A uthort zat io n Appl ica ti o n has been deve loped w ith resp ec t to regulati o ns found in Title 40, Parts 271.6 a nd 271.21 , Co d e or Federal Regulation. The Attorney General's Statement, s igned J a nu ary 9 , 2015 , (Appendi x I) , ha s been re vised to support th e regul ato ry eq ui va lency and co ns is te nc y for all f e de ral d e legab le re g ulation s promul ga ted as of July 1 ,20 12

. The Revised ReRA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), signed 2/ 4/15 , is conta in ed in Appendix V. The RCRA Data Management Lener of Ag reeme nt , dated 6117/03 , ha s a lso been in cluded in (Appendix V I).
# SRCVTEMP_UNS
Exhibit
No. 23(a)





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33−33520
on Form S−8, Post−Effective Amendment 1 to Registration Statement No. 33−38349
on Form S−3, Registration Statement No. 333−70332 on Form S−8, Post−Effective
Amendment 1 to Registration Statement No. 333−47910 on Form S−3, Registration
Statement No. 333−52328 on Form S−8, Registration Statement No. 333−78157 on
Form S−4, Registration Statement No. 333−48164 on Form S−8, Registration
Statement No. 333-114237 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-104951 on
Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-104952 on Form S-8, Registration
Statement No. 333-132879 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-132879-01
on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-132879-02 on Form S-3 and
Registration Statement No. 333-132879-03 on Form S-3 of our reports dated
February 28, 2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements and
consolidated financial statement schedule of Progress Energy, Inc. (which report
on the consolidated financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes an explanatory paragraph concerning the adoption of new accounting
principles in 2007 and 2006) and the effectiveness of Progress Energy, Inc.’s
internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10−K of Progress Energy, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2007.





/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP





Raleigh,
North Carolina


February
28, 2008
# C_2012326EN.01033701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

DECLARATIONS

DECLARATIONS

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON,

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON

signed on 13 December 2007

C.   DECLARATIONS BY MEMBER STATES

DECLARATIONS BY MEMBER STATES

64.   Declaration by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the franchise for elections to the European Parliament

Declaration by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the franchise for elections to the European Parliament

The United Kingdom notes that Article 14 of the Treaty on European Union and other provisions of the Treaties are not intended to change the basis for the franchise for elections to the European Parliament.

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS HUMBERTO RODRIGUEZ, a.k.a.

Humberto Rodriguez,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-73474

Agency No. A097-708-506

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Luis Humberto Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

SEP 18 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-73474

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS,

321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Rodriguez fails to address, and therefore has waived

any challenge to, the BIA’s dispositive determination that the motion to reopen

was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.

1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are

waived).

Because the BIA’s untimeliness determinations is dispositive, we do not

reach Rodriguez’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GURPREET SINGH CHAHAL,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73712

Agency No. A089-665-617

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2015* *

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

On February 10, 2015, the court granted the respondent's unopposed motion

to stay proceedings. On March 20, 2015, the respondent informed the court that

Gurpreet Singh Chahal is not a candidate for prosecutorial discretion, and

requested that this case move forward. The stay of proceedings is hereby vacated.

FILED

APR 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for

decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Chahal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations

created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.

2010), and we deny the petition for review. 

The agency found Chahal not credible based on the omission of significant

incidents and information from affidavits provided by his wife and mother in

support of his claim. Substantial evidence supports this determination. See id. at

1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of

circumstances”). Further, we reject Chahal’s contentions that the agency’s

credibility analysis was incomplete or insufficient. Thus, in the absence of credible

testimony, Chahal’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Finally, Chahal’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same

evidence the agency found not credible, and Chahal does not point to any other

evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be

2 11-73712
tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See id.

at 1156-57. We reject Chahal’s contention that the agency decisions were

insufficient. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency

need not “write an exegesis on every contention”). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 

3 11-73712
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE X

SOCIAL POLICY

SOCIAL POLICY

Article 161

(ex Article 145 TEC)

(ex Article 145 TEC)

The Commission shall include a separate chapter on social developments within the Union in its annual report to the European Parliament.

The European Parliament may invite the Commission to draw up reports on any particular problems concerning social conditions.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from this Form
10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          16,486
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,352
<INVENTORY>                                     14,870
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,890
<PP&E>                                          13,363
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 198,848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,786
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,749
<OTHER-SE>                                     147,313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   198,848
<SALES>                                         27,840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,704
<CGS>                                           26,583
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,312
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,868
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (748)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (41,728)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (15,023)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,705)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (4,166)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,871)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.92)


</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15278

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-04179-TCB

BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY, 

as successor-in-interest to the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Colonial Bank, 

 Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

 versus

PAUL MENG, 

LANCE T. GAUDE, 

DOUGLAS R. ADAMS, 

PARKSIDE RESIDENTIAL, LLC, 

SCENIC HOLDINGS, INC., 

NORTHBRIDGE HOMES, LLC, 

CREEKWOOD HOMES, INC., 

STRONG ROCK HOLDINGS, INC., 

DODSON WOODS, LLC, 

 Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(April 14, 2015)

Case: 14-15278 Date Filed: 04/14/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Before HULL, ROSENBAUM and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

This appeal involves the amount of damages due in a multi-million dollar 

default of various promissory notes and guaranties involving real property in 

Georgia. The district court granted Branch Banking & Trust Company’s (BB&T) 

unopposed motion for summary judgment and awarded damages totaling 

$8,416,147.82. The defendant-appellants do not challenge the district court’s 

conclusion that they were in default or the total calculation of damages. Rather, 

the only issue on appeal is whether the district court’s order fails to assign the 

amount of damages due from each defendant.

The parties agree that the district court’s order sets out the amount of 

damages due on each of the defaulted loans but that it does not identify which 

defendant owed those amounts. Our review confirms that the district court’s order 

should be more precise. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment but remand for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment 

to indicate the specific amount of damages for which each defendant is 

responsible. 

AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part.

Case: 14-15278 Date Filed: 04/14/2015 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32



WRITTEN STATEMENT

OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



The undersigned hereby certify that, to the best of the knowledge of the undersigned, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004
filed by Benthos, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.



|                         |  |  |  |                     |  |                                                   
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Dated: December 29, 2004 |  |  |  | RONALD L. MARSIGLIO
|                         |  |  |  |                     |  | Ronald L. Marsiglio                               
|                         |  |  |  |                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer             
|                         |  |  | 
|                         |  |  |  |                     |  | FRANCIS E. DUNNE, JR.                             
|                         |  |  |  |                     |  | Francis E. Dunne, Jr.                             
|                         |  |  |  |                     |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
#### The STATE of Wyoming ex rel. The UNITED STATES of America, et al., Petitioners, v. The DISTRICT COURT OF the SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT of the State of Wyoming IN AND FOR FREMONT COUNTY, et al., Respondents.

No. 4452.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Feb. 2, 1976.

Tosh Suyematsu, Asst.U.S.Atty., Cheyenne, filed a brief and appeared in oral argument, on behalf of petitioners.

Marvin J. Sonosky and Glen A. Wilkinson, Washington, D.C., and George F. Guy, Cheyenne, filed a memorandum and Marvin J. Sonosky, Washington, D.C., appeared in oral argument on behalf of the petitioners, Lucy Hill Bonatsie, Peterson Bonatsie, Helene S. Bonatsie, Irving T. Bonatsie, Deeatrice E. Bonatsie, Wayland E. Bonat-sie, and Ralphaelita Stump.

G. L. Spence, Casper, and John R. Hursh, Riverton, filed a brief and appeared in oral argument on behalf of Dry Creek Lodge, Inc., a Wyoming Corp., Albert C. Cook, Elizabeth P. Cook, Thomas Burling-ham, Benjamin Miller, Ray Niedo, Rose Niedo, Bernice Miller, John Guiña, Zella Guiña, Emmett Washakie, and Beatrice Washakie, individually, respondents.

James L. Hettinger, Riverton, filed a brief and appeared in oral argument on behalf of the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Wyoming in and for Fremont County, and the Honorable W. J. Nicholas, Judge thereof, respondents.

Before GUTHRIE, C. J., McCLIN-TOCK, and RAPER, JJ., ARMSTRONG, Retired District Judge, and JOHNSON, District Judge, First Judicial District.

PER CURIAM.

The objection that the district court was without jurisdiction was never presented to the trial judge for his consideration. Failure to do so is fatal to the petition for writ of prohibition, here. *State ex rel. Spriggs v. District Court of Seventh Judicial District In and For Fremont County,*1956, 76 Wyo. 128, 301 P.2d 550

The alternative writ of prohibition is vacated and a permanent writ of prohibition denied.

THOMAS and ROSE, JJ., did not participate.