alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1
 ENCORE ENERGY PARTNERS LP
 RATIO OF LOSS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Three months ended June 30,
    
    
    Six months ended June 30,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2008Loss before income taxes
    
    $
    (37,393
    )
    
    $
    (40,661
    )
    
    $
    (33,147
    )
    
    $
    (33,207
    )Adjustments:Add fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    
    2,351
    
    
    
    1,909
    
    
    
    4,567
    
    
    
    3,549Rental expense attributable to interest
    
    
    77
    
    
    
    72
    
    
    
    162
    
    
    
    131Total fixed charges
    
    
    2,428
    
    
    
    1,981
    
    
    
    4,729
    
    
    
    3,680Adjusted loss
    
    $
    (34,965
    )
    
    $
    (38,680
    )
    
    $
    (28,418
    )
    
    $
    (29,527
    )Ratio of loss to fixed charges (a)
    
    
    (14.4
    )
    
    
    (19.5
    )
    
    
    (6.0
    )
    
    
    (8.0
    )
 
 (a)
    
    For the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, earnings as defined were inadequate
to cover fixed charges as defined by $37.4 million and $33.1 million, respectively. For
the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, earnings as defined were inadequate to cover
fixed charges as defined by $40.7 million and $33.2 million, respectively.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SIMON LEVI,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-15242

D.C. No. CV-07-04378-MHP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

 Simon Levi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

action against the State Bar of California and Justices of the California Supreme

FILED

JUN 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-15242

Court as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.

2003), and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine

barred the action because it is a forbidden de facto appeal of the California

Supreme Court’s decision denying Levi’s application for admission to the bar, and

the remaining claims are inextricably intertwined with the forbidden appeal. See

id. at 1158; Craig v. State Bar of Cal., 141 F.3d 1353, 1354 (9th Cir. 1998)

(explaining that “[u]nder California law, only the state supreme court . . . has the

authority to grant or deny admission to the bar[,]” and holding that “[b]ecause

[plaintiff sought] review of the California Supreme Court’s decision to deny his

individual application, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction”

pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).

We do not consider issues raised in the opening brief for which Levi

developed no argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.

1992) (issues raised in pro se litigant’s brief but not supported by argument are

deemed waived).

Dismissals under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine are dismissals for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction, Kougasian v. TMSL, 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.
3 08-15242

2004), and thus, should be dismissed without prejudice, Freeman v. Oakland

Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 1999) (order). Accordingly, we

vacate in part the judgment, and remand for the limited purpose of dismissing the

action without prejudice.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED.
***Exhibit 32 (i)***

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the reporton Form 10-Q of Abakan Inc. for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2010, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, RobertMiller, do hereby 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 my knowledge andbelief:

 

(1)  This report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)  The information contained in thisreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition ofthe registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results ofoperations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.

 

Date: January 10, 2011

 

 

/s/ Robert Miller                                   

Robert Miller, ChiefExecutive Officer

 

This certificationaccompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or afterthe date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing.

 

 

 

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 99.1
 (COPANO LOGO)
    
    (NEWS RELEASE)
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    
    Contacts:
    
    Matt Assiff, SVP & CFOCopano Energy, L.L.C.713-621-9547Jack Lascar / jlascar@drg-e.comAnne Pearson / apearson@drg-e.comDRG&E / 713-529-6600
 COPANO ENERGY INCREASES QUARTERLY CASH DISTRIBUTION
Eleventh Consecutive Increase Since IPO
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

April 19, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40732 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FERNANDO AGUILAR, also known as David Fernandez,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-451-1

Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Fernando Aguilar plea ded guilty to one count of possession

with intent to distribute ninety-one kilograms of marijuana and was

sentenced to fifty-seven months o f imprisonment and two years of

supervised release. Aguilar appeals his sentence, asserting that

the district court clearly erred when it denied a reduction2

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) for a minor role in the offense.

Aguilar contends that his role was that of a mere courier.

We review the finding on a defendant’s role in an offense for

clear error. United States v. Deavours , 219 F.3d 400, 404 (5th

Cir. 2000). A two-level adjustment for a minor role applies in the

case of a defendant “who is less culpable than most other

p articipants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.”

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.5). The defendant bears the burden

of proving that he was a minor participant in the offense. U nited

States v. Garcia , 242 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 2001).

Aguila r’s admissions demonstrate that he acted in a greater

capacity than a mere courier. Aguilar did not demonstrate that the

information in the presentence report was unreliable. U nited

States v. Young

, 981 F.2d 180, 185 (5th Cir. 1993). Further,

holding only a courier-type role does not automatically entitle a

d efendant to the U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) reduction for a mi nor

participant. S ee United States v. Rojas

, 868 F.2d 1409, 1410 (5th

Cir. 1989); United States v. Gallegos

, 868 F.2d 711, 713 (5th Cir.

1989). The district court’s implicit finding that Aguilar was not

entitled to the U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) reduction is plausible in light

of the record viewed as a whole. B urton v. United States

, 237 F.3d

490, 500 (5th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sente nce is

AFFIRMED. This action is REMANDED for the sole purpose of allowing3

the district court to correct the written judgment to reflect that

the term of supervised release is two years.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR IN JUDGMENT.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22622]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 2, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 351 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-699, CP2024-708.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-22622 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
USA Hire

Transforming Government One Hire at a Time

SUCCESS STORIES

High Quality Entry-Level Hires

Agency: U.S. Department of Defense - Defense Finance and Accounting Service

The Problem:

Hiring managers at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) faced challenges in 

hiring quality job candidates. They repeatedly received certificates of eligibles with applicants 

who answered “E” (e.g., a self-rating of “expert” in that task) to all items on the questionnaire. 

Often during interviews, it became apparent the applicant was not the expert he/she claimed to 

be. Further, many applicants believed that answering “E” to every question was the only way to 

be referred and considered for a position. The self-assessment questionnaires were not 

providing a meaningful distinction to identify the quality applicants. 

The Solution: 

In 2011, DFAS elected to partner with OPM to begin using USA Hire standard assessments as a 

solution to this issue. DFAS used USA Hire, either as a stand-alone assessment or combined 

with a technical questionnaire, primarily for entry-level hiring. This approach allowed DFAS to 

assess soft skills (e.g., problem solving, decision making, mathematical reasoning), which can be

difficult to accomplish with a technical questionnaire. USA Hire often aids in identifying 

applicant qualities the hiring manager is seeking, such as someone with the critical thinking 

skills necessary to be successful in the positon. DFAS found that the typical technical 

questionnaire was not mature enough to achieve this. 

The Success:

As a result, DFAS experienced several benefits from implementing USA Hire in their 

recruitment process. First, hiring managers preferred the use of USA Hire from day one. They 

were able to select high quality applicants with the desired skills for the position. Additionally, 

human resources staff experienced a reduction in the volume of applicants to review. The 

applicant pool also included better qualified applicants referred to hiring managers. Further, 

some applicants remarked they believed the USA Hire assessments provided a more accurate 

assessment so applicants did not feel they had to inflate their responses to be referred. Overall, 

DFAS hiring managers have indicated high levels of satisfaction with USA Hire, which enables 

them to select high quality candidates for their entry-level workforce.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

LINDA McGUIRE

, *

* No. 16

- 1101 V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: November 25, 2019

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; influenza (“flu”) vaccine ;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * acute disseminated encephalomyelitis

* (“ADEM”); multiple sclerosis

* (“MS”).

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jeffrey A. Golvash

, Brennan, Robins & Daley, P.C.

, Pittsburgh, PA , for Petitioner;

Sarah C. Duncan , United S tates Dep ’ t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION 1

On November 25, 2019

, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the

petition for compensation filed by Linda McGuire on September 2, 2016

. Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine s he received on September 4,

2013 , which is contained in t he Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R.

§100.3(a), caused her to suffer acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”)

and multiple sclerosis (“MS”)

. P etitioner further alleges that s he suffered the

residual effects of this injury for more than si x months. Petitioner represents that

there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her

behalf as a result of her condition.

1 T he E

- Government Act

, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012 ) ( Federal Management and

Promotion of Electronic Government Services) , requires that the Court post this decision on its

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4).

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer from

ADEM, MS, or any other inju ry.

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The

undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $ 45 ,000.00 in the form of a check payable to

petitioner

. T his amount represents compensation for all damages that

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B,

the clerk is directed to enter judgment in cas e 16

- 1101 V according to this decision

and the attached stipulation. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED

.

s /Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Fed eral

Claims judge.
EXHIBIT 10.5
 
 PROMISSORY NOTE – B-2
 
 $35,000.00
May 22, 2012
 
 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, HPEV, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Borrower”), hereby promises to pay to the order of SPIRIT BEAR LIMITED (the “Lender”), the principal sum of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($35,000.00) together with interest thereon from the date of this Note on the unpaid principal balance.  Interest shall accrue at a rate of one and twenty-eight one hundredths of a percent (1.28%) per annum.  Principal and all accrued interest under this Note shall be due and payable on the sooner of (i) one hundred eighty (180) calendar days from the date of issuance first set forth above or (ii) three (3) business days after the Next Equity Financing (defined below).
  This Note is issued pursuant to that certain Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement dated August 9, 2012 (the “Purchase Agreement”).
  All payments shall be made in lawful money of the United States of America at the principal office of the Borrower, or at such other place as the holder hereof may from time to time designate in writing to the Borrower.  Payment shall be credited first to the accrued interest then due and payable and the remainder applied to principal.  This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California as applied to agreements among California residents entered into and to be performed entirely within California.
  The outstanding principal balance and unpaid accrued interest on this Note shall be due and payable within three (3) business days after the closing of the Borrower’s next transaction or series of related transactions in which the Borrower sells equity securities (excluding equity securities sold and issued pursuant to exercise of options issued under equity compensation plans, exercise of the Warrants issued under the Purchase Agreement, or under the terms of the Purchase Agreement) (the “Next Equity Financing”); provided, that the Borrower may, in its sole discretion, repay the principal and accrued interest on this Note at any time.  The Borrower hereby expressly waives presentment, demand for payment, dishonor, notice of dishonor, protest, notice of protest, and any other formality.
  Upon default, the unpaid principal balance of this Note together with all accrued but unpaid interest shall become due immediately at the option of the holder hereof.  Default shall be the failure of the undersigned to pay interest or principal when due, or the filing by or against the undersigned of a proceeding under any provision of the federal Bankruptcy Code, as amended, or under any other bankruptcy or insolvency law.
   HPEV, INC.By /s/ Timothy HassettTimothy Hassett, Chief Executive Officer
# Holland&

# Knight

800 17th Street, NW, Suite 1100 I Washington, DC 200061 T 202.955.3000 IF 202.955.5564 Holland & Knight LLP 1 www.hklaw.com Anita M. Mesner (202) 419-2604 anita.mosner@hklaw.com

Via www.regulations.gov Mr. Paul Gretch Director Office of International Aviation U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, DC 20590 January 26, 2015

Re: Etihad Airways- Garuda Indonesia Codesharing; Notice ofTermination (Docket No. OST-2013-0008) Dear Mr. Gretch: By Notice of Action Taken ("NOAT'') issued on January 17, 2013, the Department granted to Etihad Airways, P.J.S.C. ("Etihad") a Statement ofAuthorization permitting Etihad to carry the PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) TBK ("Garuda Indonesia") designator code on flights operated by Etihad between Abu Dhabi on the one hand, and New York and Chicago, on the other hand. 1 In accordance with the conditions attached to the NOAT, Etihad hereby advises the Department that the Etihad-Garuda Indonesia codeshare arrangement has been terminated.

cc: Service List Robert Finamore Respectfully submitted, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

Anita M. Mesner Attorney for Etihad Airways, P.J.S.C

Nana Haryana, Senior ManagerAlliance & International Affairs, PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) TBK

1 Notice ofAction Taken, Docket No. OST-2013-0008 (Jan. 17, 2013).CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date served the foregoing document on the persons identified below by causing a copy to be sent by electronic mail. robert.wirick@aa.com howard.kass@aa.com sharon.pasley@fedex.com sllunsford@fedex.com dan.weiss@united.com sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com rpommer@atlasair.com kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com jcanny@amerijet.com matwood@cozen.com (Counsel for Kalitta Air) john.s.duncan@faa.gov cristinasa@state.gov robert.finamore@dot.gov nana. hr@garuda-indonesia.com
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 Quarterly Report of Atlas Resources Public 17-2007 (A) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner,
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
      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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            August
      12, 2008