alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re George SMALLWOOD, Sharon Smallwood, Debtors.

Bankruptcy No. 4-81-00401.

United States Bankruptcy Court, W. D. Kentucky.

May 10, 1982.

W. Gordon Iler, Owensboro, Ky., for creditor.

Richard A. Robertson, Owensboro, Ky., for debtors.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEWART E. BLAND, Bankruptcy Judge.

This bankruptcy case comes before the Court on objection of a creditor, Kentucky Finance Company, by counsel, to the avoidance of its lien by the debtors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

The issue before the Court relates to the nature or character of the interest involved —i.e., whether the interest is a purchase money security interest, and as such is not subject to avoidance under § 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The debtors purchased a General Electric washer and dryer from Star Television and executed a security agreement and financing statement which was then assigned to Kentucky Finance Company. The creditor asserts that it holds a nonavoidable purchase money security interest in these household goods, and the debtors assert that the assignment of the security agreement negates the character of the interest as “purchase money.” Thus, the debtors seek to avoid the lien of the creditor on the ground that the interest is a nonpurchase money, nonpossessory security interest in exempt household goods.

Although a factually dissimilar situation was ruled upon by this Court in *In Re Littlejohn,*Bkrtcy., 20 B.R. 695, case No. 3-81-02298, adversary proceeding No. 3-81-0525, issued March 6, 1982, in that a renewal or later extension of credit was asserted in that case, nevertheless, the reasoning as to the purchase money character of the original interest applies to the instant proceeding. Therefore, the case of *In Re Littlejohn, supra,*is applicable here and is attached and incorporated by reference as if set out in full herein.

This Memorandum and Order constitutes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Rule 752, Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Kentucky Finance Company is the holder of a valid purchase money security interest in household goods which is not subject to avoidance by the debtors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the debtors’ motion to avoid the lien of Kentucky Finance Company be and is overruled.
#### Styles v. Gerber Legendary Blades

(13084).

Affirmed. *Stupfel v. Edward Hines Lumber Co.,*288 Or 39, 602 P2d 264 (1979). (603 P2d 368, *rev den*288 Or 571 (1980))
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Japan and U.S. Conduct Bilateral Exercise 

By USINDOPACOM Public Affairs

**CAMP H.M. SMITH, Hawaii – **To showcase combined capabilities to deter and counter regional threats, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command aircraft conducted a bilateral exercise with Japan’s Air Self-Defense Force 25 May, 2022 in the Sea of Japan.

This exercise was conducted to demonstrate our nation’s rapid reaction capabilities, high levels of force readiness, close coordination, bilateral interoperability, and credible deterrent capacity.

The United States and Japan remain committed to jointly working to ensure peace and security throughout the Indo-Pacific region.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 93291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27854]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: December 4, 2024; 1:00 p.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be held at the Surface Transportation Board at 
the address below and also streamed live on the Federal Maritime 
Commission's YouTube channel.

Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Room #1042 (Hearing 
Room), Washington, DC 20423

STATUS: The meeting will be held on December 4, 2024, beginning at 1:00 
p.m. in the Hearing Room of the Surface Transportation Board. The 
meeting will be open for public observation and streamed live on the 
Federal Maritime Commission's YouTube channel. Any person wishing to 
attend the meeting in person should register in advance by submitting 
their name to [email protected] no later than 5 p.m. EST on December 2, 
2024. In-person attendees should report to the Surface Transportation 
Board with enough time to clear building security procedures. If 
technical issues prevent the Commission from streaming live, the 
Commission will post a recording of the meeting on the Commission's 
YouTube channel following the meeting.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
1. Oral argument in Docket No. 22-12, International Longshoremen's 
Association v. Gateway Terminals, LLC, et al.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: David Eng, Secretary, (202) 523-
5725.

David Eng,
Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-27854 Filed 11-22-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
```
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# Navy Wounded Warriors Demonstrate Athletic Prowess at 2018 Invictus Games in Australia

By Kyle MalloyNavy Wounded Warrior-Safe Harbor Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
#### Susan Encao et al., Respondents, v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[632 NYS2d 994]

Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr.,*155 AD2d 435; *see also,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J. — Set Aside Verdict.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Washington, DC 20460

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION July7 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting between EPA and Exa FROM: Arvon Mitcham, Mechanical Engineer, and Sam Waltzer, Environmental

Engineer. TO: Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2010
- 0162 This memorandum documents the meeting held on July 6 , 2011, between representatives fro m the USEPA and Exa . This meeting was a discussion of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) test data and general simulation practices. Attendees included: Arvon Mitcham, USEPA Sam Waltzer, USEPA Doug Hatfield , Exa Kevin Horrigan , Exa
Docket No: FAA-2015-0246 Dir ID: 2014-NM-187-AD
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Antonio R. Alvarez, the Chief Executive Officer of Leadis Technology, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2008, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Annual Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Annual Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Annual Report.

In Witness
Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 31st day of March 2009.

|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/    ANTONIO R.
ALVAREZ                 
|Antonio R. Alvarez Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Leadis Technology, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after
the date of this Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Ronald W. Barrett, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of XenoPort, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting./s/ Ronald W. Barrett
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

05/29

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■ ■ ■

■

★

●

●

●

●

★ ● ● ●

●
No. 82-1116.

#### Altman *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**INSIGNIA SOLUTIONS PLC**

 

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 theQuarterly Report of Insignia Solutions plc (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard M. Noling, ChiefExecutive 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 Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

                           (2)  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

 
| /s/                     | Richard M. Noling |
|-------------------------|-------------------|
| Richard M. Noling       |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| August 14, 2002         |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 4, 2015

s0128 

# Order

Clerk February 4, 2015

148900 & (15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148900

COA: 318854

St Clair CC: 11

- 001804

- FC

JUSTIN TIMOTHY COMER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of October 3, 2014, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the

application for leave to appeal the January 27, 2014 order of the Court of Appeals. On

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is

again considered, and pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal,

we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ Nos. 97-41099, 97-41364 Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANK OTTESEN; ET AL., Defendants KENNETH MASAT, Defendant-Appellant

______________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

versus FRANK OTTESEN; ET AL., Defendants KENNETH MASAT; MARGARET OTTESON MASAT, Defendants-Appellants

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas (6:95-CV-528)

______________________________________________

July 20, 1998 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. PER CURIAM: *
After repeated efforts to hinder and delay litigation brought by the United States to recover unpaid taxes and to enforce tax liens, appellants appeal the judgment of the district court in favor of the United States. Appellants also appeal the order of the district court withdrawing the bankruptcy court reference and lifting the automatic stay related to appellant Kenneth J. Masat’s bankru ptcy petition, which was filed the day before the
Government’s case was set for trial. We affirm the actions of the district court for the cogent and compelling reasons set forth in its September 19, 1997, order. And, with respect to the claim that the appellant Margaret Masat has an interest in the fraudulently conveyed property or no minee-owned property pursuant to the community property laws of the St ate of Texas, we note that such claim was not raised in the district court, has no support in the record, and clearly does not constitute plain error. The appeals herein are patently frivolous and without merit.
AFFIRMED.
Order entered October 31, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00961

- CV

THE CITY OF BLUE RID GE, Appellant

V.

FRANK RAPPOLD AND OL GA RAPPOLD, INDIVIDU ALLY AND A S NEXT FRIEND OF K.R., A MINOR CHI LD, AND OF F.R., JR. , A MINOR CHILD, AND LINDA RAPPOLD, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 380

- 05678

- 2017



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellees ’ October 2 9, 2019 motion to extend time to file their

response brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time for appellees to file their response

brief to December 2, 2019.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
Exhibit 99.1

RESIN SYSTEMS INC.



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 Resin Systems Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended August 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Greg Pendura, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.





By: /s/ Greg Pendura

Greg Pendura

President and CEO

(Principal Executive Officer)





February 27, 2003



Exhibit 99.1

RESIN SYSTEMS INC.



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 Resin Systems Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended August 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith Gerrard, Controller (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.





By: /s/ Keith Gerrard

Keith Gerrard

Controller

(Principal Financial

and Accounting Officer)





February 27, 2003
Submitted on record and briefs June 22,

rules held valid September 12, 1990,

reconsideration denied January 30,

petition for review denied February 19, 1991 (311 Or 166)

#### Arlen Porter SMITH, Ernest Leroy Smith, Francis Rothauge, Philip McClure, Randell Brown, William Kennedy, Donald Sager, Kerry DiSorbo, Frank Swede Davidson and Gilbert Lane, *Petitioners, v.*OREGON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, *Respondent.*

(CA A60911)

796 P2d 1255

Arlen Porter Smith, Ernest LeRoy Smith, Francis Rothauge, Philip McClure, Randell Brown, William Kennedy, Donald Sager, Kerry DiSorbo, Frank Swede Davidson, and Gilbert Lane, Salem, filed the brief *pro sese*for petitioners.

Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Atkinson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Deits, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*448PER CURIAM

To the extent that petitioners challenge the rule-making process, the authority for the rules and the implementation of the rules, the issues in this case are resolved by *Clark v. Schumacher,*103 Or App 1, 795 P2d 1093 (1990). None of the other purported issues has any merit, and they do not require discussion.

Rules held valid.