alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EUGENE J. KERNAN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-70574

Tax Ct. No. 19672-11

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted November 16, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Eugene J. Kernan appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a 

bench trial, confirming the Commissioner’s determination of deficiencies and 

additions for tax years 2001 through 2006. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, Kernan’s requests for 

oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, are denied. 

FILED

NOV 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-70574 

U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for 

clear error its factual findings. Johanson v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir.

2008). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly sustained the Commissioner’s determination of 

deficiencies and additions to Kernan’s taxes for tax years 2001 through 2006. See

26 U.S.C. §§ 1, 6012, 6651(a), 6654.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by striking Kernan’s briefs 

because they exceeded the length limitations imposed by the court. See Alexander 

Shokai, Inc. v. Comm’r, 34 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth standard 

of review).

AFFIRMED.
|  | (c) | Section      8.03.  Section 8.03(e) of the Credit Agreement is hereby amended      to read as follows: |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

|  | (c) | The      Borrower and the Guarantors hereby represent and warrant as      follows: |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

|  |   | same      instrument.  Delivery of an executed counterpart of this      Amendment by telecopy or other secure electronic format (.pdf) shall be      effective as an original and shall constitute a representation that an      executed original shall bedelivered. |
|--|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

----
• .REF ··-tn :A5221521 

·.z.A.R P'"L.Af.TS .Alm T::i..4..INIHG :CIVISI ON 

})ATE , , .,_ .,,. , j-..,,, 

TQ: ~ ·.~· .~• -~ '!'":~. 

FOR: 

Sxecut ive 0ff1cer 

Fiscal Section 

· :.:eteorological Division 

FersoP..nel Division 

?hot Of~ra,hic Di vi si 0::1 . 

Plant & Traffic Division 

Jesearch & Dev':llopt::.ent 

~upply Division . 

:·Ji vi" sion 

-.'!. ·.:•. ~-:Ie ssa.ge Genter 

; .ajor Crawford 

Captain l'::ora.n 

0aptain Baldivin 

Captain Borden 

I~~. Fri6d1ua.n 

I.':r • Row 1 et t 

Y;r. Sinl::ov 

rlr. Kullbach 

Mr. Hurt 

Hiss Newldrk 

Miss Pearson 

Idi ss Leslie 

Cla!'k 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . " I • 

. Concurrence or recom.'110ndation 

trour Div. 

Notation & File in Gen' l :l?iles 

?·!otat ion.& ·return ~e::>arat icp of draft of re:ply · ···-·a:tgriature ~Y • ··• · ·• • • • ~ 

Signal Corps Bullet i.11 

Your action · 

Your inf or:nation. 

fo:.. .. 

. . . 

pproved for 

elease by NSA on 

11-20-2013 
. . . . . . . . . . 

.... - ..... _... -: -_;_ 

•

,; .. 

-

'
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, 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.

 October 2, 2018

a0924

Order 

Clerk

October 2, 2018

156935

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 156935

COA: 339124

Berrien CC: 2013-015338-FC

DEREK LERON BISHOP,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 27, 2017 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 16, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 04-30652

In the Matter of: SEAREX ENERGY SERVICES, INC., SEAREX, INC., Debtors,

C. MICHAEL CHIASSON, Appellant,

VERSUS LOUISIANA MACHINERY COMPANY, INC., former known as Louisiana Machinery, Inc., Appellee,

In the Matter of: SEAREX ENERGY SERVICES, INC., SEAREX, INC., Debtors,

C. MICHAEL CHIASSON, Appellant,

VERSUS SUPERIOR FABRICATORS, INC., Appellee,

In The Matter of: SEAREX ENERGY SERVICES INC., SEAREX, INC., Debtors,* 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. 2 C. MICHAEL CHIASSON, Trustee, Appellant,

VERSUS SPECIALITY MARINE & SUPPLY, LLC, Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana

2:03:CV-1610

Before DAVIS, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * After reviewing the record in this case and based upon the briefs of the parties and argument of counsel, we affirm the Judgment of the District Court for essentially the reasons stated in its Opinion dated March 24, 2003. The Bankruptcy Court correctly concluded that the summary judgment evidence established that the funds used to make payments to appellees were not within the control of t he debtor and therefore were not owned by the debtor at the time of the transfer.
AFFIRMED.
_.... .......... 

REF ID:A63630 

ltfJ/IJllO (A) 

ml Cootl1let V;f.tb Mr .. Wltao P. hi~ 

....a;: AX>-/nKi(A) ~ ~ ~ject1 1.6 Sep 60. 

Clmeel lAR ae:lt.ct)Ce 14 ~ a .. 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 11-18-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

i 

I 

. I 

i 

I 

I 

_ _J
99-1367.

#### State ex rel. Thrower v. Rothgery.

In Mandamus. On motion for summary judgment. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Form 10-Q of Xerox Credit Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), for the quarter ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), Gary R. Kabureck, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John F. Rivera, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his/her knowledge, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Gary R. KabureckGary R. KabureckChief Executive OfficerNovember 7, 2005/s/ John F. RiveraJohn F. RiveraChief Financial OfficerNovember 7, 2005




This certification accompanies
this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by § 906
has been provided to Xerox Credit Corporation and will be retained by Xerox Credit Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PLD TELEKOM
INC.'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BE REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K AND THE AUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR PLD TELEKOM INC. AT AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
CONTAINED THEREIN.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          17,256
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,304
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,226
<INVENTORY>                                      2,802
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,071
<PP&E>                                         158,120
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,122
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 335,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,457
<BONDS>                                        122,214
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          4
<COMMON>                                           333
<OTHER-SE>                                     126,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   335,586
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,424
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,186
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,220
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,482
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,846
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,428)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,739
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,566)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,566)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
        

</TABLE>
99-902.

#### State v. Goodballet.

Columbiana App. No. 98C015. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On May 10,1999, appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending in the court of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this court stayed consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas appellant has neither notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B) nor filed a copy of the court of appeals’ order certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(C),

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that appellant show cause within ten days of the date of this entry why this court should not proceed to consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(6).
.. .. . --REF ID :A27244].. 

fOP bLLI (Lj . • 

J"V 

..2d"November -1947 

SUBJECT: Analysis and Discussions of Present and Future 

Status ot CCM 

TO: Ch1et of Naval COllllUl11c&t1ons 

t 

'. 

1. In response to your aeaorandua of l} November 1947,' 

it will be recalled that aaong the agreeaenta reached at the 

meeting held at your office on }O Septeaber 1947 vas "that a 

Joint attempt be as.de, with a fairly high priority, to arrive 

at the aost practicable iaproveaent or the CCM." Accordingly, 

d1scuaa1ons or representatives on a working level have been . held in connection with the various proposals for aod1f1cat1on 

of the CCM. The Army aeabera of the Inf"oraal Committee have nCJlr~ached certain definite conclusions Which they would like 

to present to the Navy aeabers of the co .. ittee at an early 

date in the hope that a mutually aat1aracto17 proposal on the 

subject can be presented to the British for their conaidera- 1 tion. If you v111 be kind enough to indicate whether l 

Deceaber 1947 at lOQO vill be satlafactory, the Aray Security Agenc~ will be glad to act aa host tor the aeet1ng, in Rooa 

117, Headquarters Building, Arlington Hall Station. 

2. In regard to an anaver to the letter of the Chief of 

Naval Ct;erati<;>ns on the •tter of formalizing our cryptocoaa1 ttee vork, thi• subject is still under atudy, but it is 

hoped tbat a reply vill soon be forthcoa1ng. 

j ~ ' I ; . I , 

HAROLD G. HAYES 

Colonel, Signal Corps , Chief, Aray Security Agenc~ 

- ~ .--·- - .. ·--·. ' ' 

' 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 09-19-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
<PAGE>   1
   
                                                                    Exhibit 23.5

The Board of Directors
Wireless Technology Corporations Limited:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (no.
333-35139) on Form S-8, in the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-4
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (no. 333-18713), in the registration
statement (no. 333-5396) on Form S-3, in the registration statement (no.
333-5400) on Form S-3, and in the registration statement (no. 333-5398) on Form
S-4 of PLD Telekom Inc. of our report dated February 18, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of  Wireless Technology Corporations Limited and
subsidiary as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, accumulated  deficit, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three year period ended  December 31, 1997, which report appears
in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A  (Amendment No. 2) for the year ended
December 31, 1997 of PLD Telekom Inc.



KPMG

Moscow, Russia
July 22, 1998
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk December 26, 2012

s1217 

# Order

December 26, 2012

145351 & (52)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145351

COA: 297743

Wayne CC: 09

- 028032

- FC

TARRANISHA DAVIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 1, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to

remand is DENIED.
Motion Granted; Order filed April 14 , 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00054

- CV

____________ DAVID GREEN, ANNIE M. BRANCH A/K/A ANNIE GREEN, CHANDRA WARE D/B/A SAPPHIRE REALTY A/K/A SAPPHIRE REALTY HOUSTON AND D'ADREI NNE M. TRUITT

- SW EATT , Appellant s
V. TAMEIKA EVANS AND DAVID EVANS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT

FRIEND OF DAVION EVANS, A MINOR CHILD, TIMOTHY EVANS, A MINOR CHILD, UNIQUE EVANS, A MINOR CHILD, DAVID EVANS, II, A MINOR CHILD, AND TATIANA EVANS , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 11 th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018

- 26231



### ORDER

On March 31 , 2020, this court issued an opinion dismissin g this appeal. On April 1, 2020 , ap pellant filed a motion for rehearing. The motion is GRANTED

. Thi s court’s opinion filed M a rch 31, 2020 is WITHDRAWN , an d our judgment of that date is VA CATED. The appeal is ordered REINSTATED.
The appellant ’ s brief is due May 14, 2020

.
PER CUR IAM

P anel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,813
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,813
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          883,763
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,250
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,504,460
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                (4,418,660)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (162,405)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (162,405)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (162,405)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (162,405)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>PEACHTREE FIBEROPTICS, INC. USES THE LIQUIDATION BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
</FN>


</TABLE>
1... See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-282-CV

IN RE J. THOMAS KNIGHT, M.D., RELATORS

J. THOMAS KNIGHT, M.D., P.A., 

AND MEDICAL IMAGING OF DALLAS, LLP

----------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT 1

----------

We have considered “Relators’ Agreed Motion For Dismissal Of Petition

For Writ Of Mandamus.” It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be

granted; therefore, we dismiss this original proceeding. Having dismissed this

original proceeding, “Relators’ Motion For Emergency Relief” is denied as moot.

Costs of this original proceeding shall be paid by the party incurring the

same, for which let execution issue. 

PER CURIAM

PANEL A: MCCOY, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ. 
DELIVERED: July 31, 2008
EXHIBIT 10.7

 

ENDORSEMENT TO 10% SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE

 

Precision Optics Corporation, Inc.
 New York, New York
 July 25, 2011

 

The 10% Senior Secured Convertible Note dated June 25, 2008 and amended December 11, 2008, June 25, 2010, July 26, 2010, September 15, 2010, October 15, 2010, November 15, 2010, November 30, 2010, December 1, 2010, December 3, 2010, December 17, 2010, January 10, 2011, January 24, 2011, February 7, 2011,  February 25, 2011,  March 11, 2011, March 31, 2011, April 15, 2011, April 29, 2011, May 13, 2011, June 3, 2011, June 28, 2011, July 6, 2011, and July 20, 2011 (the “Note”) of Precision Optics Corporation, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), payable to the order of Arnold Schumsky (the “Holder”) in an aggregate principal amount of $50,000 and to which this Endorsement is affixed is hereby amended in the following respects:

 

1.                                       The term “Stated Maturity Date” is hereby restated to be “July 29, 2011.”

 

2.                                       Except as expressly amended by this Endorsement, the Note remains in full force and effect and the Company hereby reconfirms its obligations thereunder.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Endorsement to be duly executed, and the Holder has caused this Endorsement to be duly accepted, by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written.

 

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
PRECISION OPTICS CORPORATION, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
By
    	
/s/ Joseph N. Forkey
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Name: Joseph N. Forkey
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Title: Chief Executive Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Accepted:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Arnold Schumsky
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Arnold Schumsky
Exhibit 10.1


[on Comtex News Network, Inc. letterhead]

















September 16, 2009





Dr. C.W. Gilluly


415 First Street, SE


Washington, DC 20003-1827





Dear C.W.:





I am pleased to inform you the Compensation Committee has decided to renew your agreement through June 30, 2010.  The effective date will be July 1, 2009 and as a condition of this renewal we are increasing your compensation from $3,250 per month to $5,000 per month.  Additionally, you will be eligible to participate in
any employee benefit plans sponsored by the Company for the benefit of its employees upon the same terms and conditions as other employees of the Company.





Thanks for your continued support of the business and I look forward to another productive year working together.





Sincerely,











/s/Chip Brian


CEO and President
Order entered May 31, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00072-CV

SHANIKA MONTGOMERY, Appellant

V.

PC THE RIDGE ON SPRING VALLEY, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-07116-A

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated May 13, 2019, we 

informed appellant the court reporter notified us that the reporter’s record had not been filed 

because appellant had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid for or made arrangements to pay 

for the record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with written verification showing the 

reporter’s record had been requested and that appellant had paid for or made arrangements to pay 

for the record or had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned 

appellant that failure to provide the required documentation within ten days might result in the 

appeal being ordered submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellant has not 

provided the required documentation nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the 
status of the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal submitted without a 

reporter’s record.

Appellant’s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE