alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THE UPPER DECK COMPANY, LLC 

and RICHARD P. MCWILLIAM,

No. 07-56070 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

D.C. No.

v.  CV-05-1945 IEG

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL (RBB)

SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE OPINION COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Irma Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

November 20, 2008—Pasadena, California

Filed December 9, 2008

Before: Pamela Ann Rymer and Milan D. Smith, Jr.,

Circuit Judges, and Edward R. Korman,* District Judge.

Per Curiam Opinion

*The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 

16169
COUNSEL

Duke F. Wahlquist, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Costa Mesa, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants. 

Peter A. Stroili, D’Amato & Lynch, LLP, New York, New

York, (argued); Jeffry A. Miller, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &

Smith LLP, San Diego, California, for the defendant-appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

This appeal arises out of an insurance policy that The

Upper Deck Corporation (“Upper Deck”), purchased from

American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company

(“AISLIC”). The policy insured a tax strategy that KPMG, an

accounting firm, developed for Upper Deck. The IRS investigated the tax strategy and determined that it constituted an

improper tax shelter. Upper Deck then settled with the IRS for

$80 million in back taxes and interest, and with the California

Franchise Tax Board for $17 million in back taxes and interest. 

16170 THE UPPER DECK v. AMERICAN INT’L
After AISLIC rejected Upper Deck’s claim that the policy

covered the loss incurred as a result of the settlement, Upper

Deck and its Chief Executive Officer, Richard McWilliam,

filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of California seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the policy issued by AISLIC covered the

loss. Subsequently, the district court granted AISLIC’s

motion to compel arbitration. 

A three-member panel of arbitrators held that Upper Deck

and McWilliam were not entitled to coverage because Upper

Deck had abandoned the tax strategy that AISLIC had

insured. The district court confirmed the arbitration award.

Upper Deck Co. v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 495

F.Supp.2d 1092, 1104 (S.D. Cal. 2007). Upper Deck and

McWilliam appeal. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated in the opinion of the district court, except for its

discussion of the arbitrators’ reliance on the failure of McWilliam to comply with § 9(b) of the policy. Id. at 1096-1104.

We do not reach that issue because we agree with the district

court that the alternative grounds for the arbitrators’ award

“drew [their] essence from the [p]olicy and plausibly interpreted [it].” Id. at 1104. 

AFFIRMED. 

THE UPPER DECK v. AMERICAN INT’L 16171
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          34,232
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  202,218
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    136,112
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               384,638
<PP&E>                                         626,924
<DEPRECIATION>                                 265,675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,033,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          887,493
<BONDS>                                        680,929
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,647,670
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,196,153)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,033,271
<SALES>                                      2,552,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,552,682
<CGS>                                        1,601,568
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,452,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               152,206
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             138,650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (228,197)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       26,784
<NET-INCOME>                                 (201,413)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Pension Assets Partnership 1989-B, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of
operations contained in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         4,488
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  79,909
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               84,397
<PP&E>                                         3,745,061
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,121,569)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 707,889
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,610
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     697,279
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   707,889
<SALES>                                        271,009
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               271,536
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,938<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                61,980
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            61,980
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   61,980
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0

<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation and
amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and interest expense.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Kuroiwa v. Kuroiwa

17449

9/30/97

Affirmed
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC., OSHKOSH 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

E-ONE, INC., REV GROUP, INC., 

Defendants-Cross-Appellants

______________________

2022-1560, 2022-1562

______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Florida in No. 8:18-cv-00617-TPB-TGW,

Judge Thomas P. Barber.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. 

App. P. 42 (b).

Case: 22-1560 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 09/13/2023
2 PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC. V. E-ONE, INC.

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

September 13, 2023

Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 13, 2023

Case: 22-1560 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 09/13/2023
#### Sato v. Tanaka

16422

9/01/94

Affirmed
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 563 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States 

and the Republic of Belarus should establish full diplomatic relations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 10, 2015 

Mr. ROHRABACHER (for himself, Mr. MEEKS, and Mr. COHEN) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the United States and the Republic of Belarus should 

establish full diplomatic relations. 

Whereas the Republic of Belarus released all of its political 

prisoners on August 22, 2015, which resulted in a temporary lifting of sanctions by both the European Union 

and the United States; 

Whereas Belarus has played a constructive role by hosting 

talks which have resulted in a cease fire agreement in 

eastern Ukraine; 

Whereas the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 

Europe (OSCE) election observation team tasked with 

monitoring the Republic of Belarus’ October 15, 2015, 

elections noted progress in their democratic development; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 563 IH 

Whereas the United States Department of State has been engaged with Belarus in developing democratic institutions 

and a functioning civil society; 

Whereas the United States recognizes the Republic of 

Belarus’ role in and encourages deeper cooperation with 

a variety of international organizations, including the 

United Nations, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, 

OSCE, the International Monetary Fund, and the World 

Bank; 

Whereas the United States is committed to developing a positive diplomatic relationship with the Republic of Belarus 

and its citizens; and 

Whereas the United States welcomes the improved conduct of 

the October national elections including the presence of 

international election observers such as OSCE and encourages Belarus to advance towards a more open government that increasingly responds to the will of its people: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that United States and the Republic of 

3 Belarus should allow the number of diplomatic staff in 

4 both the embassies in Minsk and Washington, DC, to in5 crease to more appropriate levels for the necessary conduct 

6 of diplomatic relations, including the exchanging of am7 bassadors and full diplomatic relations. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Plant and Plant Product Exports

Last Modified: 

Print

We provide phytosanitary certification for plants and plant products exported from

the United States. This certification attests that the products are free from pests and

diseases of concern and helps U.S. exporters meet other countries' entry

requirements. We also work with exporters and our trading partner countries to

expand markets for U.S. commodities.

Information for Exporters

Exporter Responsibilities (Plants and Plant Products) 

Certification Programs for Exporters 

Plant and Plant Product Export Certificates 

Protected Plant Permits (CITES and ESA) 

Selling Plants and Seeds Online 

Opening New Markets for U.S. Commodities 

Information for Partner Agencies

Export Program Manual 

Phytosanitary Certificate Issuance and Tracking (PCIT) System 

Phytosanitary Certificates for Export or Reexport 

Trading Partners Participating in ePhytosanitary Certification 
Accreditation Systems and Programs 

Need help with a different exporting issue?

Visit Our Trade Contacts Directory
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 25, 2015

s0318

Order 

Clerk

March 25, 2015

149773

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149773

COA: 315987

Ingham CC: 12-000551-FC

KENYARTA JEREMY GETER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 17, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 13

- 00354

- CV

Alfred F. Bernat

v

.

Tomas Sotelo and Benancia Sotelo

NO. 1016865 IN THE CO CIVIL CT AT LAW N O 4 OF HARRIS C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

M T FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

E

- TXGOV FEE

E

- TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

FILING

C LK RECORD $15.00

$15.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$5.00

$5.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$17 5.00
$98.00 04/03/2014

02/20/2014

01/31/2014

12/19/2013

12/13/2013

08/08/2013

07/12/2013

07/12/2013

07/01/2013

06/10/2013

05/20/2013

05/07/2013 PAID

PAI D

PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

APE

APE

APE

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

A NT



### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $3 73

. 00

.Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine

, Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTI MONY WHEREOF, witness my

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the
First District of Texas, this March 1 3 , 2015

.
#### In the Matter of the Construction of the Will of Mary E. Jones, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County,

July 29, 1959.

*952*Lieberman S Rubinovitz*for petitioner.

*Brenna & KorsMn*for Theodore B. Klapper and others, respondents.

*Lewis F. X. Gotignola*for Elizabeth J. O’Grady and others, individually and as executors of Charles H. Jones, deceased, respondents.

*Holtzmann Wise & Shepard*for Mary H. J ones, individually and Mary H. Jones and another, as administrators of the estate of Arthur E. Jones, deceased, respondents.

John D. Bennett, S.

In this proceeding for a construction, the decision of this court dismissing the petition was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department (8 A D 2d 829), with costs payable from the estate to all parties filing separate briefs.

The petitioner now seeks to tax a bill of costs to which several objections have been made by the respondents. Those objections are disposed of as follows:

1. Objection to the amount requested for term fees has been

conceded to be inaccurate and is reduced to the agreed amount of $10. , ;

2. Objection to charges for “ Author’s alterations” or corrections appearing in all three printer’s bills is sustained and those amounts, totaling $163, are disallowed *(Matter of Greek-more,*2 Misc 2d 789; *Matter of Fowler,*180 Misc. 786; *Matter of Weiman,*152 Misc. 385).

3. Objection to charges for printing more than the required copies of the record on appeal, appellant’s brief and reply brief is sustained *(Byrnes*v. *Labagh,*12 N. Y. Civ. Pro. 417). The charges for serving and filing the record on appeal and briefs are also disallowed as an improper item of disbursement.

The court accepts as accurate the mathematical computations resulting in a reduction of the three printing bills in accordance with this decision as they are set forth in the respondents’ brief with respect to the taxation of costs. This reduces the bill dated January 20, 1959 to $1,552.96; the bill dated February 3, 1959 to $194.88, and the bill dated March 27,1959 to $62.32.

*9534. The objection to the petitioner’s taxation of the official stenographer’s minutes of the hearings before this court in the amount of $90 is overruled *(Matter of Chelrob, Inc.*v. *Barrett,*180 Misc. 314).

Costs are allowed in the total amount of $2,002.16 including costs of $100 and disbursements of $1,902.16.

Settle order on five days’ notice.
EXHIBIT  99.1

                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                    As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                          Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AFG Investment Trust A (the "Trust"),
on  Form  10-Q  for  the  period  ended  September  30,  2002  as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned,  the  Principal  Executive Officer of the Trust's Managing Trustee,
hereby  certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  that:
(1)     the Report of the Trust filed today fully complies with the requirements
of  Section  13(a)  or  15  (d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934; and
(2)     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations of the Trust.

                    /s/  Gary  D.  Engle
                    --------------------
                    Gary  D.  Engle
President  of  AFG  ASIT  Corporation,
 the  Managing  Trustee  of  the  Trust
(Principal  Executive  Officer)
November  14,  2002
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-22-00116-CR

WALTER MURPHY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19F1148-005

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In 2019, Walter Murphy was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and was 

sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment.

1

 On July 28, 2022, Murphy filed a document 

captioned Petition for Reduction of Sentence. On August 4, 2022, the trial court entered an order 

dismissing the petition, noting that it lacked jurisdiction to consider it. On August 25, 2022, 

Murphy filed a document in the trial court captioned Appeal of Court Order. Both the trial court 

and this Court interpreted the August 25 filing as Murphy’s attempt to appeal the trial court’s 

August 4 dismissal order. 

In Texas, a party may appeal only when the Texas Legislature has authorized an appeal.

Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); see Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 

694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“The standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether 

the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.”). When the 

Legislature passes legislation granting a right of appeal, in addition to granting its citizens that 

substantive right, it also grants the appellate courts of this State jurisdiction to hear such appeals. 

In the absence of such authorizing legislation, appellate courts are without jurisdiction and have 

no authority to act.

In the criminal context, the Texas Legislature has authorized appeals from written 

judgments and/or appealable orders. See Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2010). The trial court’s order dismissing, for want of jurisdiction, Murphy’s petition for a 

1This sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the twenty-year sentence Murphy received in a companion case 

in which he likewise filed an appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing his petition seeking a sentence reduction. 

The companion appeal bears our cause number 06-22-00115-CR.
3

sentence reduction does not appear to be an order from which the Texas Legislature has 

authorized an appeal. In the absence of such authorization, we are without jurisdiction to hear 

the appeal. See Raley v. State, 441 S.W.3d 647, 650–52 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, 

pet. ref’d).

By letter dated October 12, 2022, we notified Murphy of this jurisdictional issue and 

afforded him an opportunity to respond. Murphy did not file a response.

Because there is no appealable order in the appellate record, we lack jurisdiction over this 

appeal. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: November 9, 2022

Date Decided: November 10, 2022

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officers of AutoImmune Inc. (the Company)
hereby certify that, as of the date of this statement, the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) and that, to the best of their knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of
September 30, 2007 and the results of operations of the Company for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007.

The
purpose of this certification is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This statement is not filed for the purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Act or any other federal or state law or regulation.



|                        |  |        |  |                                  
|----------------------- |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------------
|Date: November 13, 2007 |  |        |  | /S/ ROBERT C. BISHOP             
|                        |  | Name:  |  | Robert C. Bishop                 
|                        |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer          
|                        |  |       
|Date: November 13, 2007 |  |        |  | /S/ DIANE M. MCCLINTOCK          
|                        |  | Name:  |  | Diane M. McClintock              
|                        |  | Title: |  | Director of Finance and Treasurer
#### Labayog v. Labayog; Labayog, In re Estate of

16096, 16310

12/10/96

Dismissed

83 Hawai'i 412, 927 P.2d 420
P.1 

OAR Box 1865 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

47) IV-E-35 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 12/3/2008 9:15:29 AM Sheet 47 of 105 
> 

. • J 

AHUII I A-83-?7 

CORPORATIO N # » W W b I 

IV-E-35 

TELEPHONE CALL REPORT - INDUSTRIAL BOILER S0„ 

DATE: April 8, 1987 

TO: Brian Linch 

Keeler/Dorr-OHver Boiler Co. 

Post Office Box 548 

WIlHamsport, PA 17703 

(717) 326-3361 

FROM: J.A. Elliott 

SUBJECT: Information on KDO FBC Units 

Mr. Linch provided the following Information: 

1) Archer-Dan1els-M1dland (Decatur, IL) 

o Five units at 425,000 pph each 

o Start up of the units wil l be staggered; start up began 1n 

January 1987 

o Circulating beds 

o Burn 3.5 to 4.0% sulfur bituminous coal 

o Designed for 90-92% S02 removal 

o Design Ca:Stt9 rati o 1s 2:0 for 90% SO removal or 2.5 for 95% 

SO. removal (based on 3% sulfur coal, 95% Ca limestone) 

2) Archer-Daniels-Mldland (Cedar Rapids, IA) 

o 3 units at 477,000 pph each 

o Start up will be staggered after the Decatur, IL units are on 

H n e 

o Circulating beds 

o Burn 3.5-4.0% sulfur bituminous coal 

o Designed for 90-92% SO- removal 

o Design Ca/S ratio 1s 2.0 for 90% S02 removal or 2.5 for 95% 

SO- removal (based on 3% sulfur coal, 95% Ca limestone) 

Progress Center/3200 E. Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy./P.O. Box 13000/Researcr Triangle Park. N.C. 27709/(919)541-9100 
P.3 

y •• 

Telephone Call Report 

Page 2 

3) Quaker State Refining (Newell, WV) 

o 2 FBC units at 120,000 pph each 

o Bubbling bed units 

o Start-up in September 1985 

o Burn bituminous coal 

o Produce steam at 525°F, 265 psig 

J