alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

CHARLES E. DESHNER,
Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2021

- 2341

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20

- 2156, Judge Amanda L. Meredith.

______________________

Before D YK

, R EYNA

, and S TARK

, Circuit Judges

.

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Appellant appeals the determination by the United States Court of Appeals for V eterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) that he was not eligible for total disability individual unemployability (“TDIU”) status before 2016 based on

a p pellant’s theory that two of his disabilities were combinable in 2015 because they resulted from a “common etiology.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). The Veterans Court concluded Case: 21-2341 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 03/09/2023DESHNER v. MCDONOUGH 2

that this theory had not been raised before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”)

. Because of the remand in this

case to the Board , the Board has before it the question ofwhen appellant became entitled to schedular TDIU as a result of his 70% post

- traumatic stress disorder disability. Appellant’s theor ies (1) in this appeal that his e ligibility date for schedular TDIU precedes 2016 because of a combination of two of his disabilities and (2) in the remand proceeding that he is owed TDIU before 2016 because of his
PTSD alone are part of a single claim

.
W e “generally decline[] to review non

- final orders of the
Veterans Court.” Williams v. Principi , 275 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Under Williams , all theories to entitlement stemming from a single claim must be finally rejected by the Veterans Court to be fit for our review, with narrow exceptions not applicable here.

A ccordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

The appeal is dismissed. Each party shall bear its own

costs.

M arch 9, 2023

Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 21-2341 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 03/09/2023
#### L. M. JORDAN and Bettle Reed Osborne, Plaintiffs in Error, v. THE UNKNOWN HEIRS OF Frank BROWER, deceased, and Roscoe Dunjee, Defendants in Error.

No. 36443.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Sept. 21, 1954.

Bruce & Rowan, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Hall & Cotten, Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

WILLIAMS, Justice.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs from the order and judgment of the trial court in favor of defendants. The motion for new trial was overruled on October 16, 1953, and under the provisions of 12 O.S.1951 § 972, the time to appeal expired on January 16, 1954, without any order of the court extending the time. On January 9, 1954, the trial court entered an order as follows:

> “It Is Further Ordered, that for good cause shown, the period of time for commencing proceedings for reversing, vacating or modifying the judgment of this court in the Supreme Court is hereby extended for a period of 37 days from this date.”

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the appeal was not lodged in this court under the terms of this order or any other valid order extending the time to appeal. The motion must be sustained. In Roof v. Fechtel, Okl., 258 P.2d 890, it is stated:

> “ ‘Where the petition in error with record or case made is' not filed within three months after the judgment or final order made in the case and there has been no order of the trial court extending the time for appeal as provided by 12 O.S.1951 § 972, the appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.’ ”

The time in which to appeal under the order of extension expired on February-15, 1954. The appeal was filed April 15, 1954. An order granting further time was entered February 16, 1954. This order was. ineffective. See Adams v. Hobbs, 204 Okl. 85, 226 P.2d 913; Schuler v. State ex rel. Coryell, 205 Okl. 212, 236 P.2d 673.

Appeal dismissed.

HALLEY, C. J., and JOHNSON, V.C.J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur.
#### The Electro-Pneumatic Transit Company, appellant, v. John P. Stockton, attorney-general, respondent.

On appeal from an order advised by Vice-Chancellor Bird, whose opinion is reported in *Electro-Pneumatic Transit Company’s Case, 6 Dick. Ch. Rep. 71.*

*Mr. Horatio N. Barton,*for the appellant.

*Mr. William Y. Johnson,*for the respondent.

*587Per Curiam.

Order affirmed, for the reasons given in the court of chancery.

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Dixon, Garrison, • Lippincott, Mague, Reed, Van Syckel, Bogert, Brown, Krueger, Sims, Smith — 12.

*For reversal*— None.
SCPW-22-0000283

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

IN RE KEAKA MARTIN, Petitioner

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CASE NO. 3CPN-21-0000006)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Keaka Martin’s

petition for writ of mandamus, filed on April 19, 2022, and the

record, petitioner fails to demonstrate he has a clear and

indisputable right to the requested relief and that he lacks

alternative means to seek relief. An extraordinary writ is thus

not warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d

334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy

that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear

and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means

to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested

action; such a writ is not intended to supersede the legal

discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-22-0000283

26-APR-2022

01:26 PM

Dkt. 5 ODDP
error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate

procedures). Accordingly, 

It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus is

denied.

It is further ordered that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus without

payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 26, 2022.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO . A

- 1477

- 16T4

JENNIFER WALSH,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

UNIFIED PLANNING AND ZONING

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE

BOROUGH OF SEA BRIGHT and

TYLER NINE, LLC,

Defendants

- Respondents

.

_________________________________

Submitted September 17, 2018

- Decided

Before Judges Haas and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law

Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L

- 0 325

- 16

.

Gasiorowski and Holobinko, attorney s for appellant

(Alexis L. Gasiorowski, on the brief).

Michael A. Iren e, Jr., attorney for respondent Unified

Planning and Zoning Board of Adjustment of the

Borough of Sea Bright.

PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough it is posted on the

internet

, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R. 1:36

- 3.

February 15 , 20192 A

- 1477

- 16T4

We have been advised prior to argument that this matter has been amicably

adjusted and the parties have stipulated to the dismissal of this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
# C_2007297EN.01004601.xml

| 8.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/46

---

Action brought on 12 October 2007 — Strack v Commission

(Case T-392/07)

(2007/C 297/93)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decisions adopted by the Commission — either actually or in the form of a deemed refusal under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — in the context of the processing of the applicant's application for access to documents of 20 June 2007 and his confirmatory application of 23 July 2007 or, in the alternative, his confirmatory applications of 15 August 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions adopted by the Commission — either actually or in the form of a deemed refusal under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — in the context of the processing of the applicant's application for access to documents of 20 June 2007 and his confirmatory application of 23 July 2007 or, in the alternative, his confirmatory applications of 15 August 2007;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the applicant compensation for the immaterial and moral damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the processing of his application, of an appropriate amount, but at least symbolic damages in the amount of 1 Euro; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the applicant compensation for the immaterial and moral damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the processing of his application, of an appropriate amount, but at least symbolic damages in the amount of 1 Euro;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant applied, on the one hand, for access to certain documents in connection with confirmatory applications for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) which the Commission rejected wholly or partially and, on the other hand, access to documents relating to Case T-110/04. He was refused access to those documents or access was not granted within the period provided for.

1

In support of his application, the applicant submits that the defendant has infringed Article 255 EC as well as Article 2(1), (4) and (6)ff of Regulation No 1049/2001. In addition, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement of the principles of good administration and Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

1

---
# C_2008183EN.01001701.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/17

---

Action brought on 2 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-240/08)

(2008/C 183/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (1) or, in any event, by not informing the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (1) or, in any event, by not informing the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposing Directive 2006/22/EC expired on 1 April 2007. At the time the action was brought, the defendant had still not taken the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission thereof.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 35.

1

---
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Alexander Friedman, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

August 12, 1959.

*David T. Kearney*for Gertrude Berend and another, as executors, petitioners.

*Neil L. Fuhrer*for Greta Eichelbaum, respondent.

*205
      *Alfred Norik,*as special guardian for Stephan Borkan and another, infants, and as military representative of George Monoson, respondent.

*James J. Lopilato,*as special guardian for Garrett Friedman, an infant, respondent.

S. Samuel Di Falco, S.

The testamentary plan of this decedent was to bequeath certain stated amounts to named charities and to distribute the balance of his estate among a number of individuals all but one of whom were related to him. This distribution was accomplished by bequests of general legacies to these persons and by a direction that the residuary estate be divided equally among such general legatees. Subsequent to the execution of his will, the testator executed a codicil which provided general legacies to a grandnephew and a grandniece and the question now is raised as to the right of the legatees under the codicil to share in the residuary estate.

The court finds the instant testamentary scheme to be quite analogous to the one considered in *Matter of Phelps*(133 Misc. 450) and the rationale of that opinion is applicable to the present facts. Here the general legacies to individuals in the will were provided for in 10 separate paragraphs and the only effect of the codicil was to insert an additional paragraph containing two general legacies. The court reads the will and codicil together as if they constituted a single instrument with all the money legacies in both the original will and the codicil preceding the residuary clause. It is concluded that the legatees taking under the codicil are among the residuary legatees.

Submit decree on notice construing the will and settling the account.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**StatementFurnished Pursuant toSection 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

            The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer of Home Solutions of America, Inc. (the "Company").  This Certificateis made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  ThisCertification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company forthe year ended December 31, 2004 (the "10-KSB Report").

The undersignedcertifies that the 10-KSB Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and thatthe information contained in the 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company onthe dates and for the periods presented therein. 

Date: March 28, 2005                                        /s/ FRANK J.FRADELLA                                                                                             FrankJ. Fradella                                                                           Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 28, 2005                                        /s/ RICK J. O'BRIEN                                                                                                     RickJ. O'Brien                                                                           Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Home Solutions ofAmerica, Inc. and will be retained by Home Solutions of America, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                 SUBSIDIARIES OF
                             GIANT INDUSTRIES, INC.
                            (A DELAWARE CORPORATION)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         Jurisdiction of      Names Under Which
            Subsidiary                    Incorporation     Company Does Business
---------------------------------------  ---------------   ------------------------
<S>                                      <C>               <C>
Giant Industries Arizona, Inc.               Arizona       Giant Refining Company
                                                           Ciniza Pipe Line Company
                                                           Giant Transportation
                                                           Giant Service Stations
                                                           Giant Travel Center
                                                           TransWest Tank Lines

-  Giant Four Corners, Inc.*                 Arizona
-  Navajo Convenient Stores Co., LLC**       New Mexico
-  Giant Mid-Continent, Inc.*                Arizona
-  Phoenix Fuel Co., Inc.*                   Arizona       Phoenix Fuel Company
                                                           Mesa Fuel Company
                                                           Tucson Fuel Company
                                                           Firebird Fuel Company
                                                           PFC Lubricants Company

-  Ciniza Production Company*                New Mexico
-  Giant Stop-N-Go of New Mexico, Inc.*      New Mexico
-  San Juan Refining Company*                New Mexico
-  Giant Pipeline Company*                   New Mexico
-  Giant Yorktown, Inc.*                     Delaware
-  Giant Yorktown Holding Company*           Delaware
</TABLE>

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

 *  A wholly-owned subsidiary of Giant Industries Arizona, Inc.

**  Giant Four Corners, Inc. has a 66 2/3% interest in this entity.
# C_2008209EN.01003201.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/32

---

Action brought on 17 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-257/08)

(2008/C 209/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and L. Prete, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC or, in any event, by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive: |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC or, in any event, by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive:

1

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The deadline for implementing the directive expired on 1 April 2007.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 35.

1

---
Exhibit 23.2





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





We hereby consent to the application of our
report dated September 24, 2002, included in this Form 10-KSB of Onsite Energy Corporation, relating to their financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2002, and previously filed Form S-8 Nos. 33-79894, 33-87104, 33-89642, 33-98806,
333-25879, 333-47821, 333-85184 and 333-85186.





/s/    SWENSON ADVISORS, LLP


SWENSON ADVISORS, LLP


Certified Public Accountants





San Diego,
California


October 10, 2002
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             JULY IN REVIEW

  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we are now at some point in time going to 
conclude 4 weeks in session with little to show for it.
  Over the past month, the Republican do-nothing Congress has continued 
its relentless pursuit of message over substance. Not only have they 
failed to address job creation or deficit reduction in any serious way, 
they have also refused to work with us to pass bills that the Senate 
approved with bipartisan support: Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act--critically important to women and to families; 
postal reform--absolutely essential; a farm bill.
  Their approach has been confrontation, unfortunately, not compromise. 
As a result, House Republicans have been unable to govern.
  This week, in the most brazen abandonment of responsibility we've 
seen yet, Republicans chose to adjourn for the summer, which we 
prevented, without a middle class tax cut extension signed into law.
  We ought not to adjourn, ladies and gentlemen of this House, until we 
pass a middle class tax cut.

                          ____________________
```