alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 27 2003

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

SHANNON YOUNG,

Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellant,

v.

DORA GREEN; FRATERNAL

ORDER OF POLICE CREDIT

UNION,

Defendants-CounterClaimants-Appellees.

No. 03-2058

(D.C. No. CIV-02-941 MV/LFG)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before MURPHY , HARTZ , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 
-2-

Appellant Shannon Young, appearing pro se, appeals from the district

court’s order that dismissed his complaint with prejudice for failure to state a

claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To the extent we can decipher his briefs on

appeal, he argues that the dismissal is a violation of due process, and he should

have been allowed discovery to produce evidence in support of his claims so that

they could be tried to a jury. 

We review a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo , accepting all

well-pleaded factual allegations as true and viewing them in the light most

favorable to appellant. Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for Deaf & Blind , 173 F.3d

1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). Dismissal is not proper “unless it appears beyond

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief.” Id. (quotation omitted). 

The district court dismissed appellant’s complaint with prejudice because

all of appellant’s claims were based on the same specious premise that the car

loan he obtained from appellee Fraternal Order of Police Credit Union was not

valid because it was not paid to him in gold or silver. We have carefully

reviewed the parties’ materials and the record on appeal. We resolve that this

appeal is frivolous, and we affirm for substantially the same reasons thoroughly

discussed by the district court in its January 27, 2003 order. 
-3-

We construe appellant’s paper styled “Formal Notice to the Court” as a

motion for sanctions, and deny it. Appellant’s papers styled “Motion to Deny

Entry of Appearance and Standing” and “Motion for Leave of Court” are also

denied.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue

forthwith. 

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT 2.1

                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                     DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

         PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ACTION 607. 1006, FLORIDA STATUTES, THIS
FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO ITS
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION:

         FIRST: AMENDMENT(S) ADOPTED: (INDICATE ARTICLE NUMBER[S] BEING AMENDED,
ADDED OR DELETED:

                  Article III is deleted in its entirety and substituted with
the following:

                           ARTICLE III. CAPITAL STOCK

                The maximum number of shares that this Corporation shall be
                authorized to issue and have outstanding at any one time shall
                consist of 50,000,000 shares of Capital Stock as follows:

                (a) 50,000,000 shares of common stock, having a par value of
                $.00l per share.

                       ARTICLE XV. AFFILIATED TRANSACTIONS

                  The Corporation expressly elects not to be governed by SECTION
607.0901 of the FLORIDA BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT, as amended from time to time,
relating to affiliated transactions.


                     ARTICLE XVI. CONTROL SHARE ACQUISITIONS

                  The Corporation expressly elects not to be governed by SECTION
607.0902 of the FLORIDA BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT, as amended from time to time,
relating to control share acquisitions.

                                       1

<PAGE>

         The foregoing was adopted by Resolutions of the Board of Directors
dated August 22, 2003, and by consent of the shareholders dated August 22, 2002,
representing a majority of the Corporation's shares issued and outstanding which
voted in favor thereof and which number of votes cast for the amendment by the
shareholders was sufficient for approval, all pursuant to Sections 607.0704 and
607.0821.

Dated this 22nd day of August, 2003.

                                                   /s/ Leo Greenfield
                                                   --------------------------
                                                    Leo Greenfield, President

STATE OF FLORIDA                            )
                                            SS:
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE                        )

         The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 22nd day of
August, 2003, by Leo Greenfield as President of Distribution Management
Services, Inc., a Florida corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He is
personally known to me and did take an oath.

                                     /s/
                                    ---------------------------------------
                                    Notary Public State of Florida at Large
                                    My commission Expires:

                                       2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001064048
<NAME> DIAMONDS BRANDS OPERATING COPPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,665
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,354
<INVENTORY>                                     12,084
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,245
<PP&E>                                          36,398
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,219
<BONDS>                                        173,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   (110,423)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,294
<SALES>                                        104,694
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               104,694
<CGS>                                           64,952
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,946
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   686
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,565
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,545
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,307
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,238
<DISCONTINUED>                                (16,144)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,906)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### State ex rel. Martin, Attorney General, Appellant, vs. Grossen, Respondent.

*March 14-*—

April *29, 1946.*

For the appellant there were briefs by the *Attorney General, James Ward Rector,*deputy attorney general, *W. E. Torkel-son,*assistant attorney general, and *J. Norman Basten,*district attorney of Brown county, and oral argument by *Mr. Rector.*

*Clement Dwyer*of Green Bay, for the respondent.

A brief was filed by *Paul E. Jorgensen*of Racine, attorney for the Tavern League of Wisconsin, Inc., as *amicus curiae.*

*A*brief was also filed by *Clarence Simon,*district attorney of Taylor county, as *amicus curiae'.*

Barlow, J.

This case was argued and submitted with the case of *State ex rel. Martin v. Barrett, ante,*p. 621, 22 N. W. (2d) 663, decided herewith, and is ruled by the decision therein.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to enter judgment enjoining defendant from selling, dealing, or trafficking in intoxicating liquor, as demanded in the complaint.

Rector, J., took no part.
No. 884.

#### Helbros Watch Co., Inc., et al. *v.*Federal Trade Commission,

372 U. S. 976. Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing denied.
#### Will of Klofanda: Stenicka and another, Appellants, vs. Thomas and wife, Respondents.

*April 14*

May 11, *1948.*

For the appellants there was a brief by *Wilbershide & Baumblatt*of Racine, and oral argument by *L. P. Baumblatt.*

*Oscar M. Edwards*of Racine, for the respondents.

Per Curiam.

Upon this appeal the members of the court are equally divided. Mr. Chief Justice Rosenberry, Mr. Justice Fritz, and Mr. Justice Fairchild are of the view that the trial court’s findings of fact are not against the great *542weight'and clear preponderance of the evidence and that therefore the judgment should be affirmed. Mr. Justice Wick-hem, Mr. Justice Barlow, and Mr. Justice Hughes are of the contrary view and are in favor of reversal of the judgment. This situation necessarily results in the affirmance of the Judgment. *Zohrlaut v. Mengelberg,*148 Wis. 592, 134 N. W. 1135; *Carpenter Baking Co. v. Bakery Union,*238 Wis. 367, 299 N. W. 30, 300 N. W. 225.

Judgment affirmed.
From: Jones, Danielle [mailto:Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 3:57 PM

To: Cogliano, Gerain <Cogliano.Gerain@epa.gov>

Cc: Jutras, Nathaniel <Jutras.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Farber, Glenn <Farber.Glenn@epa.gov>

Subject: RE: EO 12866 Review of the RMP Rule---Clean versions of the RMP NPRM and RIA

Gerain,

The package in ROCIS is now open for Agency Amendment. Please inform OP that the files are ready to 

upload.

Best,

Danielle

From: Cogliano, Gerain [mailto:Cogliano.Gerain@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 3:22 PM

To: Jones, Danielle <Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Jutras, Nathaniel <Jutras.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Farber, Glenn <Farber.Glenn@epa.gov>

Subject: EO 12866 Review of the RMP Rule---Clean versions of the RMP NPRM and RIA

Hi Danielle,

Sorry for the delay. We are have computer issues with getting the redlined versions. So while we 

continue to work through the issues, here are the clean copies of the RIA and NPRM.

Gerain
Exhibit 32.1Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and 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 on Form 10-QSB
of Advant-e Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), the undersigned, Jason K. Wadzinski, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certifies 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 Company.



|                       |  |     |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 14, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jason K. Wadzinski 
|                       |  |     |  | Jason K. Wadzinski     
|                       |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer



15
Exhibit
10.16  Amendment to the Mason Slaine Employment Agreement  This Amendment (the Amendment) to the Employment Agreement by and
between Information Holdings, Inc. (the Company) and Mason Slaine (the
Executive), dated as of April 30, 2002 (the Employment Agreement), is
entered into as of this 17th day of January, 2003.  WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are presently parties to the
Employment Agreement; and  WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment
Agreement as set forth herein.  NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual
agreements hereinafter contained, the parties do hereby amend the Employment
Agreement as follows:  1.By
deleting the last paragraph of Section 6(e) in its entirety, and replacing it
with the following:  In the event that Executive resigns pursuant
to this Section 6(e) or if the Company terminates Executives employment
without Just Cause following a Change of Control, the company shall pay to
Executive in a lump sum an amount equal to three times (i) the Salary in effect
immediately prior to the termination of employment plus (ii) the Bonus
Executive received for the fiscal year immediately prior to the fiscal year in
which his termination of employment occurred; provided, however,
that if such Change of Control occurs in calendar year 2003, the Salary
described in clause (i) above shall equal the Salary as in effect at the time
of such Change of Control, and the Bonus described in clause (ii) above shall
equal 50% of the Salary as in effect at the time of such Change of
Control.  Payments pursuant to this
Section 6(e) shall not apply to termination of Executives employment on
account of his death.  2.Except
as provided herein and to the extent necessary to give full effect to the
provisions of this Agreement, the terms of the Employment Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.  *              *              *  [Signatures appear on the following page.]  
   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement
effective as of the date first above written.  INFORMATION HOLDINGS, INC./s/ Vincent A. ChippariBy: 
  Vincent A. ChippariTitle: 
  Executive V.P. & CFO/s/ Mason SlaineMason Slaine  2
(logo)

MIDLAND
LOAN SERVICES INC.

Report of Management Compliance with the Minimum  Servicing  Standards Set Forth
in the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers

We, as members of  management of Midland Loan  Services,  Inc.  (MLS),  a wholly
owned subsidiary of PNC Bank Corp.  (PNCBC),  are responsible for complying with
the minimum servicing standards as set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association
of America's  Uniform  Single  Attestation  Program for Mortgage  Bankers (USAP)
except  for  commercial  loan  and  multifamily  servicing,   minimum  servicing
standards V.4 and VI.1,  which the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of America has
interpreted as  inapplicable  to such  servicing.  We are also  responsible  for
establishing  and maintaining  effective  internal  control over compliance with
these  standards.  We have performed an evaluation of MLS'  compliance  with the
minimum servicing standards as set forth in the USAP as of December 31, 1998 and
for the year then  ended.  Based on this  evaluation,  we assert that during the
year ended December 31, 1998, MLS complied,  in all material respects,  with the
minimum servicing standards set forth in the USAP except as described below.

With  regard to  standard  1.4,  reconciling  items  exist  which  have not been
resolved within ninety calendar days of their original identification.

As of and for this  same  period,  PNCBC had in  effect a  fidelity  bond in the
amount of  $300,000,000  and an error  and  omissions  policy  in the  amount of
$20,000,000.

C.J. Sipple
Senior Vice President

Paula  J. Mickelson
Vice President

March 30, 1999


210 W. 10th Street Kansas City  MO 64105 Phone: 816/435-5000 FAX: 816/435-2327
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Pinpoint Recovery Solutions Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
Jon D. Leslie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to
his 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 result of operations of the Company.




August
13, 2008





/S/ JON D.
LESLIE






[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Pinpoint Recovery Solutions Corp. and will be retained by Pinpoint Recovery
Solutions Corp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
! 1 

### SERVED: March 24, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION DOCKETNO. FAA-2014-0864 

### (Civil Penalty Action)



### ORDER REASSIGNING PROCEEDING Administrative LawJudge Richard C. 

### Goodwinhas transferred to the Food and Drug Administration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge Goodwin to Administrative LawJudge Douglas M. Rawald. Any dates set for hearing orprehearing conference are suspended until further notice. All other orders remain in full force and effect absent further order. 

### SO ORDERED.

Attachment-Service ListI ,



### SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. 

### MAIL ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl000 1

Greg Stofko,

### Respondent's Counsel 1700 PennsylvaniaAve., N.W. Suite 950 Washington, D.C. 20006 TEL: 202-393-9285 FAX: 202-628-0654 EMAIL: greg.stofko@fedex.com James Archier, 

### Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Enforcement Division, Southwest 10101 Hillwood Parkway FortWorth, TX 76177 TEL: 817-222-5074 FAX: 817-222-5945 

### ONE COPY

TheHonorable Douglas M. Rawald,

### Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0864 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. MaiL For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W 1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/03/2010 12:52 PM

-----

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|"Bromberg, Kevin L." <kevin.bromberg@sba.gov>

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|"Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, "Kymn, Christine J."

<Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov> |

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Cc: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael

Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA |

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|08/03/2010 12:37 PM

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|

|

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

Here is the information about the 4SLB “new data” floor data from the Thunder

Creek compressor site with the five controlled engines. These

are located in two earlier RICE dockets. As far as I know, as of

several days ago, this data has not yet appeared in the current rulemaking

docket. It was not provided “after” the MACT proposal to EPA – it may have

been re-discovered by EPA since the proposal.

Memorandum to Jaime Pagan, USEPA from Lucy Adams, Alpha-Gamma Technologies,

Inc. re: summary of the Thunder Creek FB-1156 compressor station, Spotted

Horse, Wyoming compressor engines test report (April 25, 2007)

Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0030-0186

Document Type: SUPPORTING & RELATED MATERIALS

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0030

The State of Wyoming - Dept of Env. Quality (WDEQ)

Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0590

This is comment on PROPOSED RULE: National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines;

Proposed Rule

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059 (See attached file:
2005-0030-0186_Thunder Creek AG Summary Memo.pdf)(See attached file:

4SLB xls_Thunder Creek_072710.xls)