alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
--- -)1A- 0



# / Douglas Gibbons

. J. , J. evidence for abuse of discretion, and . . . will not interfere with the district court's exercise of its discretion absent a showing of palpable abuse." M.C. Multi-Family Dev. v. Crestdale Assocs., 124 Nev. 901, 913, 193 P.3d 536, 544 (2008). The record on appeal does not support appellant's contention that the district court abused its discretion in requiring certain exhibits to be redacted or in limiting the evidence to be presented or the testimony of appellant's treating physicians. Further, the record on appeal does not show that appellant properly objected to any of the instructions given to the jury or that she filed written requests that the district court include certain instructions, and appellant has not indicated in her appeal statement which of the instructions she objects to or what instructions she sought that were denied. NRCP 51; Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) (recognizing that arguments not presented to the district court are considered waived on appeal). As to appellant's arguments regarding any improper contact between respondent's counsel and a juror, the record on appeal shows that the juror at issue was dismissed and replaced by the alternate juror.

Accordingly, as we perceive no abuse of discretion by the district court, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A •

. 2

### cc: Hon. Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge Consita B. Brooks Samuel B. Benham Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 

### 3
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.                  

###### Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

# AGENCY:

Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Commission will hold its next public meeting on Thursday, November 16, 2000, and Friday, November 17, 2000, at the Ronald Reagan Building, International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The meeting is tentatively scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m on November 16, and at 9:00 a.m. on November 17.

Topics for discussion include: draft report to Congress on risk adjustment; draft report to Congress on post-surgical recovery care centers; Medicare issues in rural areas including access to care; analysis of costs for hospital services in rural areas; coinsurance for hospital outpatient department services; updating Medicare payments for physician services; methods for determining payment adequacy and updates for hospital inpatient services; technology costs and hospital inpatient and outpatient services; and payments to skilled nursing facilities.

Agendas will be mailed on November 7, 2000. The final agenda will be available on the Commission's website (www.MedPAC.gov)

# ADDRESSES:

MedPAC's address is: 1730 K Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006. The telephone number is (202) 653-7220.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane Ellison, Office Manager, (202) 653-7220.

Murray N. Ross,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 00-28430  Filed 11-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-BW-M
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 24, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50170

 

RALPH CRESSMAN; PAULA SCHNIZER;

JOE MAGOURIK; GREG MOSBY; JIMMY DAWS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

MARTHA ELLIS; CHARLES REED; DONNY HARLAN,

also known as Dony Harland; RICHARD MORRIS;

RAY RUSHING,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Western District of Texas

(02-CV-275)

_______________________________________________________
 

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellees point out in their petition for rehearing that the judgment fails to

address the state law claims of Appellant, for invasion of privacy and intentional

infliction of emotional distress and the 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim. Because

these claims were not raised or argued on appeal by Appellant, the judgment of the

district court dismissing them is affirmed.

The petition for rehearing is granted. The judgment of the district court is

reversed and the cause is remanded only as to the federal privacy invasion claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 2510 as well as the state law claim under

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 123.002. 

Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part. Remanded.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________) PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ) ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1999 (RWR) ) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ) AGENCY, ) ) Defendant. )

_____________________________ )
ORDER On October 21, 2009, plaintiff filed its complaint, alleging that the defendant had failed to disclose records responsive to its Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request. After both parties filed dispositive motions related to the plaintiff’s FOIA claim, the defendant filed a notice of document production, stating that it had released to the plaintiff an unredacted copy of a document responsive to the plaintiff’s FOIA request. In light of the defendant’s notice of document production, the plaintiff was directed to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as moot. The plaintiff’s response to the show cause order states that the defendant has disclosed the requested document and that the only remaining issue in the case relates to attorneys’ fees and expenses. Because the plaintiff has received documents responsive to its FOIA request, its FOIA claim is now moot and the complaint must be dismissed in the absence of a live- 2 -

controversy. See Drake v. F.A.A., 291 F.3d 59, 62 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (noting that the plaintiff’s “requests for information are moot, because he [had] received all the documents to which he is entitled” under FOIA); Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 125 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (stating that the controversy becomes moot once the disclosure which the suit seeks has already been made). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s motion [4] to dismiss be, and hereby is, GRANTED, and plaintiff’s motion [12] for summary judgment be, and hereby is, DENIED as moot. The complaint is DISMISSED as moot. It is further ORDERED that the June 17, 2010 show cause order be, and hereby is, DISCHARGED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion [18] for attorneys’ fees be, and hereby is, REFERRED to a magistrate judge under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(D) for a report and recommendation. This is a final, appealable Order. See Budinich v. Becton Dickinson and Co., 486 U.S. 196, 202-03 (1988) (holding that “a decision on the merits is a ‘final decision’ . . . whether or not there remains for adjudication a request for attorney’s fees attributable to the case”). SIGNED this 30 day of June, 2010. t h ________/s/_________________

RICHARD W. ROBERTS United States District Judge
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350
  (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: March 15, 2006
    / s / Frank E. Verdecanna
Frank E. Verdecanna
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7561
CHARLES WOODROW TAGGART, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. R. GUILLORY, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-341) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 19, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Woodrow Taggart, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Taggart v. Guillory , No. CA96-341 (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## VIEW

U.S. Dept. ofTransportation, Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 1200 New Jeresy Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 March 15"d. 2016 Re: DocketFAA 2015-0630, Petition for Amendment to Exemption No. 11666A Dear Sir or Madam: AeroVicw Services, LLC received FAA Exemption No. 11666A on September 11th, 2015 authorizing AeroView Services, LLC under section 333 ofthe FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to operate an unmanned aircraft system ("UAS"), the Trimble Navigation UX5, Trimble Navigation UX5 HP and Sensefly eXom for various commercial purposes. Inthis presentpetition for an amendment to Exemption No. 11666A, AeroView Services, LLC seeks to any aircraft identified on the List of Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) under Section 333 at regulatory docket FAA

- 2007

- 3330 at www .regulations
.gov, (which is updated regularly) when weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. AeroView Services, LLC will comply with all of the conditions and limitations imposed in Exemption 11666A except that condition/limitation number one will need to be revised to include any aircraft identified on the List ofApproved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) under Section 333 at regulatory docket FAA-2007

- 3330 at www.regulations.gov. Other than this revision, there will be no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public safety that were the basis for the initial grant of exemption. AeroView Services, LLC has operated UAS commercially since July, 2015, without incident. Supporting our amendment request arc the following exemptions that permit the operator to use the List ofApproved Unmanned Systems (UAS):

• Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-5236 Exemption No. 15237 • Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-5360 Exemption No. 15234 • Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-5272 Exemption No. 15235 • Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-5253 Exemption No. 15236 • Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015-5418 Exemption No. 15233 Because the requested amendment would not set any new precedent or otherwise raise any novel issue, and because AeroView Services, LLC seeks to begin these operations without delay, AeroView Services, LLC respectfully requests the FAA to determine that good cause exists to

## VIEW

dispense with publication of the summary of this petition in the Federal Register and grant the requested amendment expeditiously by summary means. Thank you for your consideration ofthis petition
.



# . , Respectfully submitted,

AeroView Services, LLC Encl: cc: Zach Pieper
JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

LAND GORILLA, INC §

§

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 5:22-cv-000333-C

§

COMMUNITY TRUST BANK, INC. §

§ Ex Parte Filing

§

Garnishee. §

JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

COMES NOW, Land Gorilla, Inc. (“Judgment Creditor”), through undersigned counsel, 

who respectfully files this Notice of Related Case and identifies the following related case in which 

judgment was entered on January 31, 2022, in favor of Judgment Creditor in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, before the Honorable Sam R. 

Cummings:

Siwell, Inc. d/b/a Capital Mortgage Services of Texas v. William Berthelette and Land 

Gorilla, Inc., Cause Number 5:19-CV-025-C (herein after, the “Underlying Case”).

This case and the Underlying Case involve common questions of law and fact. Specifically, 

the basis for the Writ of Garnishment After Judgment filed by Judgment Creditor is that the 

judgment entered in its favor is in all things final, valid, and subsisting, and it is wholly unsatisfied 

and unpaid. These proceedings are the result of the effort by Judgment Creditor to satisfy the 

judgment.

Case 5:22-cv-00033-C Document 3 Filed 03/03/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 18
JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE PAGE 2

In light of the foregoing, the Underlying Case and this case arise from a common nucleus 

of operative fact, and Judgment Creditor respectfully requests that the Court take notice of the 

filing of this Related Case.

Dated: March 3, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Michael L. Hood

Jonathan M. Herman (TX Bar No. 24052690)

Michael L. Hood (TX Bar No. 09943435)

THE HERMAN LAW FIRM

1601 Elm Street, Suite 2002

Santander Tower

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 624-9805

Facsimile: (469) 383-3469

jherman@herman-lawfirm.com

mhood@herman-lawfirm.com

Counsel for Defendant

Land Gorilla, Inc.

Case 5:22-cv-00033-C Document 3 Filed 03/03/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 19
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 of Stanadyne Holdings, Inc. (Holdings) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), we, M. David Jones, President of Holdings, and Stephen S. Langin, Chief Financial Officer of Holdings, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

(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 Holdings.



|                   |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|/s/ M. David Jones |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen S. Langin  
|M. David Jones     |  |  |  | Stephen S. Langin      
|President          |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
|March 31, 2008     |  |  |  | March 31, 2008
JULY TERM, 1714.

#### William Clayland’s Lessee *against*Daniel Pearce.

EJECTMENT for a tract of land in *Kent*County, called *Utrick.*

It appears by the special verdict found by the Jury, that the plaintiff in this cause claimed title to the land in question, under the will of *William*Ladds, dated the 20th day of *August,*1679, signed, sealed, and published, in the presence of *two*witnesses only, and proved by them on the 30th of *August,*1680. The question for the Court was, whether the will was sufficiently executed to pass the land.

The Court.

The matter of law insisted on the special verdict, being only on the act of parliament, relating to frauds and perjuries of 29 *Charles*II. for that it seemed to the Court, that the will was made within *two years and a half*after the making of the said statute, and before publication, or notice thereof in this Province, and before the making of the act of Assembly, directing the manner of pleading the laws of *England*in the Commissary’s Court; and also in the infancy of the country, when evidences were harder to come by than now, the Court were induced *30by these motives to overrule the argument on the said statute.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Lib. V. D. No. 1. folio 297.
**Exhibit 21—List of Subsidiaries**

LaSalle Hotel Properties 

LaSalle Hotel Operating Partnership 

LHO Hollywood Financing, Inc. (QRS) 

LHO New Orleans Financing, Inc. 

LHO Financing, Inc. 

LHO Hollywood LM, LP 

LHO New Orleans LM, LP 

LHO Financing Partnership I, LP 

LHO Viking Hotel, LLC 

LHO Harborside Hotel, LLC 

LHO Mission Bay Hotel, LP 

LHO San Diego Financing, LLC 

LaSalle Washington One Lessee, Inc. 

LaSalle Washington Two Lessee, Inc.

LaSalle Washington Three Lessee, Inc. 

LaSalle Washington FourLessee, Inc. 

LHO Washington Five Lessee, LLC 

LHO WashingtonHotel One, LLC 

LHO Washington Hotel Two, LLC 

LHO WashingtonHotel Three, LLC 

LHO Washington Hotel Four, LLC 

I&GCapital, LLC 

LaSalle Hotel Lessee, Inc. 

LHO Dallas One LesseeLLC 

LHO Dallas Beverages, Inc. 

LHO Bloomington One Lessee,LLC 

LHO Leesburg One Lessee, Inc. 

LHO Washington Hotel Six,LLC 

LHO Washington Six Lessee, Inc. 

LHO Indianapolis OneLessee, LLC 

LHO Indianapolis Hotel One MM LLC 

LHOIndianapolis Hotel One CMM Inc. 

LHO Indianapolis Hotel One LLC 

LHO Alexandria One, LLC 

LHO Alexandria One Lessee, LLC 

LHO Santa Cruz Hotel One, LLC 

LHO San Diego Hotel One, LLC 

LHO San Diego Hotel One, L.P. 

LHO Santa Cruz Hotel One, L.P. 

LHO San Diego One Lessee, Inc 

LHO Santa Cruz One Lessee, Inc. 

LHO Grafton Hotel, L.P. 

LHO Grafton Hotel Lessee, Inc. 

LHO Grafton Hotel, L.L.C. 

LHO Onyx One Lessee, L.L.C. 

LHO Onyx Hotel One, L.L.C. 

LHO Badlands, LLC 

LHOBadlands Lessee, LLC 

LHO Le Parc, LLC 

LHO Le Parc, LP

LHO Le Parc Lessee, Inc. 

Westban Hotel Investors, LLC

LHO Backstreets, LLC 

LHO Backstreets Lessee, LLC 

LHO Tom Joad Circle DC Lessee 

LHO Tom Joad Circle DC, LLC 

LHO Mission Bay Rosie Hotel LLC 

LHO Mission Bay Rosie Hotel, LP 

LHO Mission Bay Rosie Lessee, Inc. 

LHO Alexis Hotel, LLC 

LHO Alexis Lessee, LLC 

LHO Chicago River, LLC 

LHO Chicago River Lessee, LLC 

LHO Michigan Avenue Freezeout Lessee, LLC

LHO Michigan Avenue Freezeout, LLC 

Lucky Town Burbank, LP

Lucky Town Burbank Lessee, Inc. 

Lucky Town Burbank, LLC

NYC Serenade Lessee, LLC 

NYC Serenade, LLC 

Souldriver Lessee, Inc. 

Souldriver, L.L.C. 

Souldriver, L.P. 

Modern Magic Member, LLC 

Modern Magic Hotel, LLC 

Magic Member Lessee, LLC 

Modern Magic Hotel Lessee, LLC
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 11 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 11

  Declaring the sense of Congress regarding periods of silence in the 
                            public schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

     Mr. Neal of North Carolina submitted the following concurrent 
 resolution; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Education 
                      and Labor and the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Declaring the sense of Congress regarding periods of silence in the 
                            public schools.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress--
            (1) that the Constitution of the United States does not 
        preclude periods of stillness and silence in the public schools 
        to be used at the discretion of individual students for quiet 
        and private prayer, meditation, contemplation, or 
        introspection; and
            (2) that individual religious conscience should not be 
        violated or compromised in the establishment or operation of 
        such periods of stillness and silence.

                                 <all>
```
Order entered October 6 , 2015

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00497

- CR

HECTOR RIVAS

- MACIAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 064769



### O RDER

Appellant was convicted of indecency with a child. Appellant’s brief identifies the

complaining witness by her full name. Accordingly, we STRIKE the appellant’s brief filed on

September 30, 2015. We ORDER appellant to fil e, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order,

amended briefs that identify the complaining witness by initials only.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 09/30/2008 

 

Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version

Packaged Terminal Air 

Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps Energy 

Conservation Standard 

Final Rule Analytical 

Spreadsheets

The Department of Energy 

prepared the analytical 

spreadsheets below for the Final 

Rule stage of its energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

on packaged terminal air 

conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps. 

Final Rule Analytical 

Spreadsheets

Life-Cycle Cost Spreadsheet 

(Excel 2.1 MB)

National Impact Analysis 

Spreadsheet (Excel 3.7 MB)

Manufacturer Impact 

Analysis Spreadsheet 

(Government Regulatory 

Impact Model) (Excel 5.3 

MB)

Printable Version

EERE Information Center

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and... Page 1 of 1

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/ptacs_pthps_final_s... 10/3/2008

 EERE-2007-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 29