alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IN RE: CAPITAL OPTIONS, LLC, Debtor, Capital Options, LLC, Appellant, v. C. Dennis Loomis; et al., Appellees.

No. 16-60053

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted October 17, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed January 10, 2018

H. Lee Horner, Jr., Esquire, Goldstein, Horner *&*Horner, Cortaro, AZ, for Appellant

Steven D. Jerome, Attorney, Snell *&*Wilmer L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, for Appellees C. Dennis Loomis, Baker Hostetler, LLP

Warren John Stapleton, Esquire, Attorney, Osborn Maledon, PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Appellee George H. Goldsmith

Before: WALLACE, CALLAHAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

This is an appeal by Capital Options, LLC (Capital) from the Bankruptcy Court’s order denying confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization that was to be funded by the proceeds of Capital’s adversary proceedings against George H. Goldsmith and G2, LLC. The Bankruptcy Court, having dismissed Capital’s adversary proceeding with prejudice, found the reorganization plan to be infeasible under 11 U.S.C, § 1129(a), and also dismissed the administrative proceeding.

The denial of confirmation of a Chapter 11 reorganization plan is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *See In re Marshall,*721 F.3d 1032, 1045 (9th Cir. 2013). In a contemporaneously filed memorandum disposition in *In re Capital Options, LLC,*No. 15-60054, we affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of the Capital’s adversary proceeding. As this confirms the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that the reorganization plan was infeasible, the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of the confirmation plan is AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,

WALLACE, J.,

dissenting.

While I agree with the majority on the merits, I would instead dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This appeal is from the denial of plan confirmation without prejudice. The Supreme Court held in *Bul-*
      *482
      *lard v. Blue Hills Bank*that the denial of plan confirmation with leave to amend is categorically not a final order. — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1686, 1692, 191 L.Ed.2d 621 (2015). While *Bullard*involved a Chapter 13 case, the Court’s reasoning applies with equal force to Chapter 11 cases, such as ours. *See id.*at 1693 (“These concerns [relating to piecemeal appeals] are heightened if the same rule applies in Chapter 11, as the parties assume”). Although not binding on us, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reached this same conclusion, citing *Bullard,*and held it had jurisdiction only by granting leave to review an interlocutory appeal. Unlike the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, we cannot review interlocutory appeals, except in circumstances not applicable here. *See In re Gugliuzza,*852 F.3d 884, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2017), citing 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
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.                  

###### Surface Transportation Board

          - [Docket No. EP 290 (Sub-No. 5) (2022-2)]

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board.

# ACTION:

Approval of rail cost adjustment factor.

# SUMMARY:

The Board has approved the second quarter 2022 Rail Cost Adjustment Factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads. The second quarter 2022 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 1.197. The second quarter 2022 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.493. The second quarter 2022 RCAF-5 is 0.467.

# DATES:

*Applicability Date:*                         April 1, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245-0333. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available at                     *www.stb.gov.*

Decided: March 16, 2022.

By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.

Regena Smith-Bernard,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2022-05944 Filed 3-18-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 13 - 00439 - CV
Wise Electric Cooperative, Inc.

v.

American Hat Company § § § § From the 97th District Court of Montague County (2007

- 0000383M

- CV) September 17, 2015 Opinion by Justice Walker



### JUDGMENT This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there was error in part of the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the trial court’s judgme nt is affirmed in part and reversed , severed, and remanded in part. We reverse the trial court’s award of $2,578,067.00 to Wise Electric Cooperative, Inc. on its counterclaim for offset. We order that counterclaim
severed from the judgment and we remand W ise Electric Cooperative, Inc. ’s counterclaim to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.On remand, the trial court shall assign a new cause number to Wise Electric

Cooperative, Inc.’s counterclaim for offset. We affirm th e portion s of the trial court’s judgment that American Hat Company have judgment against Wise Electric Cooperative, Inc. for $1 8 , 437 , 160. 06 in compensatory damages ( $13,385,969.3 7 in personal property damages plus $5,100,379.0 0 in past lost

- profits damages l ess a $49,188.31
credit to Wise Electric ) , pre - judgment interest on that amount, post

- judgment interest on that amount computed at the rate of 5% per year, and trial court costs. It is further ordered that American Hat Company shall have and recover of

a nd from Wise Electric Cooperative, Inc. and its surety National Union Fire Insurance Comp any of Pittsburgh, PA from the supersedeas bond, the amount of this judgment plus applicable prejudgment and post

- judgment interest and court costs and from Wise Elect ric Cooperative, Inc. the remainder after computation of interest for which let execution issue. Each party shall bear their own costs of appeal.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

________________ Justice Sue Walker
No. 11-10384.

#### Hamm *v.*Obama, President of the United States, et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
Order entered January 2 8 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 01691 - CV DAVID W. BARNETT, M. D., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A TEXAS NEUROSUR GERY, Appellant V. JAMES TIMOTHY EDGE A ND MAI LYNETT EDGE, Appellee s On Appea l from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 13 - 04671 - A 

### O RDER We GRANT appellant’s January 23, 2014 unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than February 16, 2014

. Appellant is cautioned that no further extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
#### UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Darrel FISHER, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 17-7212

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 2, 2018

*173Darrel Fisher, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Dodson, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darrel Fisher appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. *See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc.,*538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials .before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6125

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID M. HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Senior District 

Judge. (1:01-cr-00115-BEL-3; 1:10-cv-03657-BEL)

Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David M. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John Romano, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David M. Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order granting in part, and denying in part, relief on his 28 

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 261

To express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Agriculture should

allow livestock producers who had qualified for emergency livestock feed

assistance in the 1995 crop year to be eligible for emergency livestock

feed assistance in the 1996 crop year, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 12, 1996

Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. DOMENICI, and Mr. PRESSLER) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of

Agriculture should allow livestock producers who had

qualified for emergency livestock feed assistance in the

1995 crop year to be eligible for emergency livestock

feed assistance in the 1996 crop year, and for other

purposes.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK

3 FEED ASSISTANCE.

4 It is the sense of the Senate that, as part of the or5 derly termination of the emergency livestock feed assist6 ance program established under title VI of the Agricul-
2

•SRES 261 ATS

1 tural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.), livestock pro2 ducers who were eligible for emergency livestock feed as3 sistance for the 1995 crop year, but were unable to apply

4 for the assistance for the 1996 crop year, and who have

5 suffered a qualifying loss as determined by the Secretary,

6 should be eligible to receive assistance under the program

7 through at least August 31, 1996.

Æ
## I♦/ 

# ~ OSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program Prioritization Guideline — 2007"

Did the incident meet USFA criteria for on-duty? 

## Yes

Trauma Was Incident Trauma or Cardiovascular

Cardlovascular Related? ~

Incident involve Multiple ~ Yes InjuryiDeath ' 

## No i,..,•. ~<,tr

--, Was Incident Related to Yes i Structure FlrerMVA ' 

### i t .----... .. _ ......---- • 

## No

Incldent Unique or an Yes Emerging Issue►

~
No Investtgate

Simllar Incidents No Investigated► ~ 

## Yes Invesetqate 

### _t_ 1 NoSpecific Request for I Yes ~ 

### Investigation Recelved

~ - ---.... ... .__. -.._.._. _ ---- •
Investi9ate No Determmation 

### Yes

~ made to

invest gate T n:estigatr 

### ---- _ __ ----T- -_ ----.._ , Cause of Death Yes Hyperthermia or Hypotherm ia 

### - 

## ~ No

Cause of Death: Y 

## ~ s Selzure, Diabetes or Medication Overdose 

## No

Sudden Cardiac Death Yes During Physical Fitness i► Tra ining 

## No

Sudden Cardiac Death Yes During Emergency i► 

### ~ Response Training J 

## No

.T

~ No i Proxlmity to Another Yes

Case Being Investigated j



## •

"Personnel and financial resources limit tlie

number of investigations. Prioritizations will change depending upon fatality data v Investiga t r
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID A. CALHOUN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 113 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of September, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
531 P.2d 548

#### Saul GUERRERO and Maria De Lourdes Guerrero, minors, by their Guardian Ad Litem, Teodoro Guerrero, Appellants, v. COPPER QUEEN HOSPITAL, a division of Phelps Dodge Corporation, a New York Corporation; John Doe I through X, and Jane Doe I through X, Individually, and as agents, employees or servants of the Copper Queen Hospital, a division of Phelps Dodge Corporation, a New York Corporation; ABC Corporation, Appellees.

No. 2 CA-CIV 1643.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Jan. 29, 1975.

ORDER

This court’s opinion filed December 19, 1974, 22 Ariz.App. 611, 529 P.2d 1205, 1206, held that “liability on the part of a private hospital may be predicated on the refusal of service to a patient in case of an unmistakable emergency, if the patient has relied upon a well-established custom of the hospital to render aid in such a case.” Hence, we decided that the case should proceed to trial for the development of those allegations which had been made, and if proven, would enable appellants to recover.

Appellees are wrong in their assertion that no allegation had been made regarding reliance. In appellants’ First-Amended Complaint, it was alleged that the “general public” knew and understood that appellee Copper Queen Hospital held itself out to the public as an emergency care facility. We hardly think it necessary that appellants redundantly claim they are members of the general public. Therefore, the allegation of reliance has been included from the start of the lawsuit.

We would also quarrel with counsel’s argument that our decision completely eliminates a private hospital’s choice in accepting patients. Our decision is limited to a very narrow circumstance — that one in which a private hospital itself has chosen *173to offer its emergency care services to all who need them. Our intention is not to change the common law rule in this state. However, we choose to give effect to those actions of private hospitals which tend to show their desire to erase the common law’s application as to them. Appellants, then, by their allegations, have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that the motion for rehearing be denied.

LAWRENCE HOWARD, Chief Judge

HERBERT F. KRUCKER, Judge

JAMES D. HATHAWAY, Judge.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00085-CR

Jerry Paul Lundgren

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Court at Law

of Wise County (CR-66896)

August 21, 2014

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT ON REMAND

This appeal is on remand from the Court of Criminal Appeals.

This court has again considered the record on appeal in this case and 

holds that the trial court erred. It is ordered that the trial court’s order denying 

Appellant’s motion to quash is reversed and the the motion to revoke Appellant’s 

community supervision is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel___________________

 Justice Lee Gabriel
#### Vanessa HOLLOWAY, Appellant v. HOWARD UNIVERSITY, et al., Appellees

No. 17-7134

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: December 15, 2017

Vanessa Holloway, Pro Se

BEFORE: Rogers and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court order filed August 28, 2017 be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed the complaint under the doctrine of res judicata. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (“Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigat-ing issues that were or could have been raised in that action.”). Appellant provides no reason to question the district court’s conclusion that her current and previous cases share the same nucleus of facts. See Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“Whether two cases implicate the same cause of action turns on whether they share the same ‘nucleus of facts.’ ”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
EPA Review of HC Refrigerant Recovery and Re

- Charge Gosselin, Pete
to: Monica Shimamura 03/13/2009 11:43 AM Cc: "Gerrard, Alan", "Mark Konop" Show Details

Follow Up: Normal Priority.

History: This message has been replied to. Hello Monica, I am sorry it has been a while since we talked on this topic, but several "ice cream emergencies" have kept me occupied for most of January and February. In December '08 we made some tentative plans to do a physical review of the venting/recovery and re- charge process for HC ice cream cabinets. I would like to follow through on our goal of presenting a demonstration of these processes.

I was wondering if the key EPA representatives would be available on Thursday, March 26 to review this process at our area distributor's facility (Berliner's) in Hyattsville, MD. Could you check with the relevant folks and get back in touch with me?

I will be in DC on the 27th but have other meetings. I was hoping to be able to coordinate our demonstration around my other appointments.

Talk with you soon,

Pete Gosselin Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc. 30 Community Dr. South Burlington, VT 05403 802 846 1543 x7636 802 345 5858 - Mobile Page 1 of 1

4/2/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\jarling\Local Settings\Temp\notesB53680\~web3868.htm
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         655,033
<SECURITIES>                                 6,800,767
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,455,800
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,464,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,748
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,464,272
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                67,019
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                191,774
<INCOME-TAX>                                    65,271
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            126,503
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   126,503
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal L 228/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.228.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 228 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5523 August 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.228.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 228

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5523 August 2012

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 741/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 August 2012 amending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex I thereto | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 741/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 August 2012 amending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex I thereto

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.