alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TORO-AIRE, INC., a California

corporation,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an

Indiana corporation,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-56880

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-05784-SVWJTL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 7, 2012

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, GRABER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Toro-Aire, Inc., appeals from the district court’s grant of summary

judgment to Defendant Federal Insurance Company in this diversity action arising

under California law. Reviewing de novo, Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039,

1052 (9th Cir. 2002), we affirm.

FILED

MAY 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

1. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to Defendant on

the contract claim. After the district court’s evidentiary rulings, which Plaintiff

does not challenge on appeal, no evidence supported Plaintiff’s assertion that the

hospital suffered a loss of use or that the defective coils caused water damage.

Evidence supported Plaintiff’s assertion that the defective coils caused

repairs to other property, such as drywall. But, under California law, Plaintiff’s

commercial general liability insurance policy does not cover the costs of repairs in

situations such as this one. See, e.g., N.H. Ins. Co. v. Vieira, 930 F.2d 696, 701

(9th Cir. 1991) (applying California law). Plaintiff relies on cases that interpret

insurance policies with different text, see, e.g., St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v.

Sears, Roebuck & Co., 603 F.2d 780 (9th Cir. 1979), and on cases involving

hazardous materials not at issue here, see, e.g., Armstrong World Ind., Inc. v.

Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690 (Ct. App. 1996) (asbestos insulation).

2. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to Defendant on

the claim of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The parties, and

we, agree that no such claim lies in the absence of a viable breach of contract

claim.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7778

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DURWOOD WAYNE STONE, a/k/a Larue Godwin,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-91-106)

Submitted: January 12, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Durwood Wayne Stone, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Durwood Stone appeals the district court’s denial of his

motion to amend his presentence investigation report. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Stone, No. CR-91-106 (W.D.N.C.

Nov. 16, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
AFS

- 13

- 451

- E August 26, 2013

Exemption No. 10395 A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 0953

Mr. James Louis Ferris, Jr.

Airworthiness Lead Engineer

Lockheed Martin Corporation M S2

1801 State Route 17C

Owego, NY 138 2 7

Dear Mr. Ferris :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No.

10395. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions and

limitatio ns.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated July 10, 2013 you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on

behalf of Lockheed Martin Corporation MS2 ( Lockheed Martin ) for an ex tension of

Ex emption No. 10395. That exemption from §§ 45.2 9 ( f ), 9 1.9 (b) (2)

, and 91.203(a) and (b) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allow s Lockheed Martin to operate an

unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that does not carry and display the aircraft’s airworthiness,

certification, and registration documents required under part 91.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any

delay in acting on this petition would be detr imental to Lockheed Martin

.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10395

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the

authority provided by 49 U.S. C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. The document s required under §§ 91.9 and 91. 203 must be available to the pilot in

command of the UAS anytime the aircraft is operating.

2. Those documents required under §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be made available

within 10 days to any FAA, U.S. Department of Defense, or law enforcement

official.

3. This exemption is not valid for operations ou tside the United States.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10395 to November 3 0

, 201 5

, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich

Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Ser vice
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*JOHN JOHNSON

*Paul R. Kraus,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 913 (AC 16098), is denied.

*911
      *Mitchell S. Brody,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided June 17, 1998
Report of Independent Accountants
Board of DirectorsChevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying “Report ofManagement on Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.‘s Internal Control Over the FinancialReporting Relative to the Servicing of Home Equity Loan Receivables,” thatChevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. maintained effective internal control over the financialreporting relative to the servicing of home equity loan receivables owned byChevy Chase Capitol Revolving Home Equity Loan Trusts Series 1996-1 and 1997-1(collectively referred to as the “Trusts” herein) as of September 30,2003, based on criteria established in “Internal Control-IntegratedFramework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of theTreadway Commission. Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.‘s management is responsiblefor maintaining effective internal control over the preparation of monthlyServicer’s Certificates relative to the servicing of home equity loanreceivables owned by the Trusts. Our responsibility is to express an opinion onmanagement’s assertion based on our examination. 

Our examination wasconducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the AmericanInstitute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included obtainingan understanding of internal control over the preparation of monthlyServicer’s Certificates relative to the servicing of home equity loanreceivables owned by the Trusts, testing and evaluating the design and operatingeffectiveness of that internal control, and performing such other procedures aswe considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examinationprovides a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

Because of inherentlimitations in any internal control, misstatements due to error or fraud mayoccur and not be detected. Also, projections of any evaluation of internalcontrol over the preparation of monthly Servicer’s Certificates relative tothe servicing of home equity loan receivables owned by the Trusts to futureperiods are subject to the risk that the internal control may become inadequatebecause of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with thepolicies or procedures may deteriorate. 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. maintained effectiveinternal control over the preparation of monthly Servicer’s Certificatesrelative to the servicing of home equity loan receivables owned by the Trusts asof September 30, 2003 is fairly stated, in all material respects, based oncriteria established in “Internal Control-Integrated Framework” issuedby the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. 

This report is intendedsolely for the information and use of Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. and JP MorganChase, MBIA Insurance Corporation, AMBAC Indemnity Corporation and U.S. BankNational Association, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyoneother than these specified parties. 
/s/ERNST & YOUNG LLPDecember 19, 2003
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Oklahoma Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 6:30 p.m. and adjourn at 8:00 p.m. on November 30, 2000, at the Student Union Hotel, Oklahoma State University, 242 Student Union, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075. The purpose of the meeting is to receive planning input for project development for the next two years. 

Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the Central Regional Office, 913-551-1400 (TDD 913-551-1414). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. 

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington, DC, October 20, 2000. 

Lisa M. Kelly, 

Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. 

[FR Doc. 00-27461 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
EXHIBIT
      32.1





**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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A (the “Report”) of Vitasti,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, the
      undersigned Tammy-Lynn McNabb, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the
      undersigneds’ knowledge and belief:





(1)
      the
      Report 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 Company.





Date:
      May
      18, 2006       /s/
      Tammy-Lynn McNabb _______________________


Tammy-Lynn
      McNabb, Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                                ENERGYSOUTH, INC.


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   Percent of Voting      State of
      Subsidiary                   Securities Owned     Incorporation
      ----------                   -----------------    -------------
<S>                                     <C>
Mobile Gas Service Corporation          100%              Alabama

MGS Storage Services, Inc.              100%              Alabama

EnergySouth Services, Inc.              100%              Alabama

MGS Marketing Services, Inc.            100%              Alabama
</TABLE>

                PARTNERSHIPS IN WHICH REGISTRANT OWNS AN INTEREST


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
      Partnership                   Equity Ownership
      -----------                   ----------------
<S>                                 <C>
Bay Gas Storage Company, Ltd.            87.5%

Southern Gas Transmission Co.              51%
</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 99 (a)

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 Amended Annual Report of Northland Cable
Television, Inc. and Subsidiary (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year
ended December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Form 10-K/A), I, John Whetzell, 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;



| | (1) |  | The Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 (a) or (15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78(d)); and   
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: November 8, 2002

| |  |     |  |                                         
| |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------
| |  | BY: |  | /s/ JOHN S. WHETZELL                    
| |  |     |  |                                         
| |  |     |  | John S. Whetzell
Chief Executive Officer
#### RUSSELL v. JOHNSON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 31, 1952.

*417L. B. Alexander, Paducah, for appellant.

Albert Karnes, Paducah, for appellee.

COMBS, Justice.

The sole question is whether the trial court erred in sustaining a special demurrer to appellant’s petition.

It is stated in the petition that appellant is the surviving wife of Thomas B. Russell, who died intestate; that he left no estate other than two insurance policies aggregating $1,828.51; that no beneficiary was designated in the policies and the proceeds were paid by the insurance company to the appellee, a sister of Thomas B. Russell, under the “facility of payment” clause contained in the policy; that the county judge of McCracken County entered an order dispensing with the appointment of a personal representative' of the estate and authorizing appellant, as the surviving wife, to administer and control the estate as fully as if she were the duly appointed adminis-tratrix; that the appellee fraudulently collected the proceeds of the two insurance policies, and that appellant is entitled to judgment against her in that amount; to wit, $1,828.51.

The special demurrer was sustained on the theory that the appellant, not having been appointed administratrix, has no capacity to, maintain the suit. Appellant, for reversal, relies on KRS 395.460 which authorizes the county court, in its discretion, to dispense with the administration of those estates where the amount of personal property does not exceed the amount set apart by statute to the widow and infant children. The statutory exemption to the widow is $1,500. KRS 391.030(c). ' But here it is alleged in the petition that the estate consists of the proceeds of the two policies which amount to more than $1,500. Under this state of facts, the county judge had no authority to dispense with administration of the estate and his order purporting to do so is void. Although the proceedings in the county court are not before us, it is obvious-that the order dispensing with administration was entered under a misapprehension as to the value of the estate.

The case of Crocker v. Crocker, 245 Ky. 191, 53 S.W.2d 356, cited by appellant, is not in point. In that case, the personal representative of the decedent’s estate was a defendant and the question of the capacity of the plaintiff to maintain the suit was not in issue.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27511]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-458]

Entergy Gulf States, Inc., et al.; Notice of Issuance of 
Amendment to River Bend Station, Unit 1, Facility Operating License 
NPF-47

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) has issued 
Amendment No. 114 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-47 issued to 
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. and Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOI, or the 
licensee), which revised the Technical Specifications for operation of 
the River Bend Station, Unit 1, located in Saint Francisville, 
Louisiana. The amendment is effective as of the date of issuance and 
shall be implemented no later than the start-up following the next 
refueling outage.
    The amendment modified the Technical Specifications to increase the 
maximum allowable thermal power from 2894 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 
3039 MWt.
    The application for the amendment complies with the standards and 
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 
and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made 
appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules 
and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter 1, which are set forth in the license 
amendment.
    Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing in connection with this 
action was published in the Federal Register on June 14, 2000 (65 FR 
37413). No request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene was 
filed following this notice.
    The Commission has prepared an Environmental Assessment related to 
the action and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact 
statement. Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission has 
concluded that the issuance of the amendment will not have a 
significant effect on the quality of the human environment (65 FR 
58298).
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
application for amendment dated July 30, 1999, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 3, May 9, July 18, and August 24, and October 2, 
2000, (2) Amendment No. 114 to License No. NPF-47, (3) the Commission's 
related Safety Evaluation, and (4) the Commission's Environmental 
Assessment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the 
NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of October 2000.
Jefferey F. Harold,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning, 
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-27511 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```
Viy-.-6Am--f 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0563

IN RE THE PARENTING PLAN OF:

S.N.,

ROBERT NEWHOUSE,

 Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

MARION KEEZER, k/n/a MARION 

SCOTT

 Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Anna M. Williams, whose name appears next on the 

list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Domestic Relations appeals which 

is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the 

mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this October 19, 2022.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Jami L. Rebsom, Karl Knuchel, Anna M. Williams

10/19/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0563
Unassociated Document


    EXHIBIT
      10.22

    


    Terms
      of Director Cash Compensation

    


    


    CN
      Bancorp Inc. does not currently pay any fees to its directors.

    


    County
      National Bank does not currently pay any fees to inside directors. An inside
      director is a director who is also an employee of the bank. At the present
      time
      there are two inside directors, Jan W. Clark and John G. Warner.

    


    Outside
      directors of County National Bank are paid $600 per month for meetings attended.
      Outside directors who are members of the executive committee of the board of
      directors receive an additional $300 per month. Outside directors who are
      members of the loan committee and perform appraisal review services receive
      an
      additional $250 per month regardless of the number of reviews performed. Outside
      directors receive $75 for any other committee meeting attended.