alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ 

)

MONIQUE WHITE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 19-cv-00900 (APM)

)

SECRET SERVICE, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________________ )

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant Secret Service removed this matter to this court from the Superior Court of the 

District of Columbia. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. For the reasons stated below, the 

court dismisses the Complaint and this action sua sponte. 

It is well-settled that “federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within 

their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, 

wholly insubstantial, [or] obviously frivolous.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974) 

(cleaned up). A complaint will be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) 

when it is “‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Best v. 

Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6

(1989)). Claims are patently insubstantial if they are “essentially fictitious,” for example, 

advancing “bizarre conspiracy theories,” “fantastic government manipulations of [one’s] will or 

mind,” or some type of “supernatural intervention.” Id. at 330. In such cases, a district court 

may dismiss the case sua sponte. See Lewis v. Bayh, 577 F. Supp. 2d 47, 54 (D.D.C. 2008)

(quoting Brown v. Dist. Unemployment Comp. Bd., 411 F. Supp. 1001, 1001–02 (D.D.C. 1975) 

(noting that “a district court has the power to dismiss a case sua sponte if it is frivolous”)).
2

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint rests on the kind of fantastic and delusional claims that warrant 

dismissal sua sponte. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that there was a “[m]icrochip place inside of 

[her] and [she] didn’t ask for it,” that the “Secret Service has been trying to kill [her] with 

‘CANCER’ and killed a lot of [her] family members,” and that “[t]he Russians have been and is 

still poisoning [her].” See Notice of Removal, Complaint, ECF No. 1-1 at 1. The court is 

permitted to dismiss a complaint containing such allegations. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at

325; see also Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307–08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“A court may dismiss 

as frivolous complaints . . . postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.”).

Accordingly, upon sua sponte review, this action is dismissed. 

A separate final, appealable order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

 

Dated: April 2, 2019 Amit P. Mehta

United States District Judge
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

February 8, 2061 

Robert D. Fletcher 

Deputy Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

P. 0. Box 28 15 

Sacramento, CA 958 12 

Dear Mr. kj: 

danuar y 7,20 1 1, the California Air Resources Board submitted revisions to 

the California State Implementation Plan (SP). We have reviewed materials submitted 

with the following negative declarations and found that they fulfill the completeness 

criteria in 40 CFR Part 5 1, Appendix V. 

This addresses all revisions in this submittal. In the coming months we will 

review the complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 1 1 O(k). 

APCDIAQMD 

Antelope Valley 

Antelope Valley 

Antelope Valley 

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Cynthia G. 

Allen at (415) 947-4120. 

1 Negative Declarations 

Ship Repair Operations 

Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof 

Tanks 

Petroleum Liquid Storage in External 

Floating Roof Tanks 

Director, Air Division 

cc: Mr. Eldon Heaston, 

Executive Director 

Mojave Desert AQMD 

Mr. Michael Guzzetta, Manager 

Rule Evaluation Section 

Stationary Source Division 

l'rrrttc,cl orr Kei.vc.led Paper
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2015-04172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2015-0007]

Notice of Availability of a Treatment Evaluation Document; Methyl 
Bromide Fumigation of Figs

Correction

    In Notice Document 2015-04172, appearing on pages 10661-10662, in 
the Issue of Friday, February 27, 2015, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 10661, in the third column, in the paragraph beginning 
with ``DATES:'', ``May 28, 2015'' should read ``April 28, 2015''.
    2. On page 10662, in the first column, in the forty-second line, 
``1.5 lb [square] 4.0 lb'' should read ``1.5 lb--4.0 lb''.
    3. On page 10662, in the second column, in the thirteenth line and 
in the twenty-first line from the bottom of the page, ``T101-i-2-22'' 
is corrected to read ``T101-i-2-2''.

[FR Doc. C1-2015-04172 Filed 3-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-P
```
NANOMATERIAL STANDARD EXPOSURE REPORT Page 1 of 1

P-08-0199 2/20/2008

Assessor: R. Wormell

Production Volume:

USE:

OTHER USES:

Chemical Name:

Fate Assessment :

Due to the novel nature of nanomaterials, it is not possible at this time to make assumptions about their behavior in the envir onment without the collection of physicochemical (p-chem) and fate data. The p-chem properties which seem most important for fate assessment are: surface reactivity, aggregat ion/agglomeration, physical form, particle size distribution, surface area solubility, dispersabi lity, shape, adsorption tendency and surface charge porosity.

These p-chem properties are novel to nanomater ials and are not estimated by our current collection of fate models, EPI Suite. Therefore, specific data on the ac tual behavior of the nanomaterial in waste water treatment plants (e.g., biodegradation, sorption to sludge, volatilization, etc.) and drinking water treatment plants (e.g., eff ect of chlorination, oxygenation, etc.) are needed to determine removal rates. Ad ditionally, data are needed to assess the potential for ground water migration. Testing methods typical ly used for these parameters (e.g., ready biodegradation test, porous pot, etc.) may or may not apply. If the amount of the nanomaterial released is of concern, EAB recommends that th e submitter evaluate the current OPPT guidelines for fate testing and then submit fate testing pr otocols based on their specific knowledge of the nanomaterial to the EAB’s fate experts for their revi ew prior to the actual testing. It is possible

that after several nanomaterials have gone through p-chem and fate testing, that models in EPI Suite could be validated for use, or, more likely, a new fate mode l or models could be developed

to estimate the fate of a new na nomaterial in the environment.

General Population and Environmental Exposure
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOHN TAIT
,
Defendant Below
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE
,
Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § No. 77, 2018 § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No s

. 1703018349 (N) and § 1703018373 (N) § §

Submitted: March 7 , 2018 Decided: March 22 , 2018

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN , Justices.

ORDER

This 22 nd day of March 201 8
, upon consideration of the notice to show cause
and the parties’ responses, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On February 15 , 2018
, counsel for the a ppellant, John Tait
, filed a
notice of appeal from a Superi or Court sentence imposed on December 14, 2017

. A
timely notice of appeal should have been filed on January 16, 2018

. 1 T he Senior

1 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii i ) (providing notice of appeal must be filed “[w]ithin 30 days after a sentence is imposed in a direct appeal of a criminal conviction”). The thirtieth day after Tait’s sentencing, January 13, 2018, was a Saturday and Monday , January 15, 2018, was a holiday (Martin Luther King, Jr. Day). Tait’s notice of appeal therefore had to be filed on or before Tuesday, January 16, 2018. Supr. Ct. R. 11(a).2

Court Clerk issued a notice directing Tait’s counsel to show cause why this appeal
should not be dismissed as untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6.
(2) In his response to the notice to show cause, Tait’s counsel states that
although Tait was sentenced on December 14, 2017, the Superior Court did not sign
and docket the sentencing order until January 16, 2018. As a result of “excusable
error or neglect,” Tait’s counsel “ interpreted and applied the final Order date
[January 16, 2018] as the date triggering the 30 day appellate period.” 2 Tait’s
counsel requests that this Court recognize the appeal.
(3) The State was asked to respond to the position of Tait’s counsel

. As

the S tate recognizes, the failure of Tait’s counsel does not fall within the exception
to the general rule requiring the timely filing of a notice of appeal. The State also
recognizes that this failure, if not remedied, would leave the Court without
jurisdicti on to hear Tate’s direct appeal. Under these circumstances, the State
recommends that the matter be remanded to the Superior Court with direction to
vacate its December 14, 2017 sentence and to resentence Tait. This will allow Tait
to pursue a timely dir ect appeal.

2 March 6, 2018 Letter, D.I. 5.3

(4) We agree that the proper course of action is to remand this matter to the
Superior Court. Upon remand, the Superior Court shall vacate the December 14,

2017 sentence and resentence Tait

. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within matter i s REMANDED to the Superior Court for further action in accordance with t his order.

Jurisdiction is not retained

.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1997                            CONTACT:  JEANNE BUCHANAN
                                                                 (713) 653-5095



UNITED MERIDIAN INCREASES 1997 CAPITAL BUDGET,
AMENDS RIGHTS PLAN



Houston, TX - United Meridian Corporation (UMC) today announced that the
company's Board of Directors has approved increasing the 1997 capital spending
program from $250 million to $359 million.

The increase is prompted by the company's continuing emphasis on exploration,
aggressive development program and recent acquisitions of interests in producing
properties.  Of the total budget, $116 million has been tagged to fund
exploration, 57% of which is designated for international operations. UMC has
allocated $186 million for field development and $57 million for property
acquisitions.

John B. Brock, chairman and chief executive officer of UMC, explained, "We
currently have an aggressive, company-wide seismic data acquisition program
underway which is critical for defining our 1998 exploratory drilling program.
In Equatorial Guinea, for example, we are acquiring some 4,200 square kilometers
of 3-D data and 2,100 line kilometers of 2-D data.  At the same time, we have
more than doubled our development drilling year-over-year and have initiated
'consolidation' acquisitions to increase our interest in areas where we already
hold interests and where we feel there is upside potential."


The Board of Directors also agreed to amend UMC's Rights Plan, which was adopted
in February 1996 to protect the company's stockholders in the event of takeover
action that would deny them the full value of their investment.  The original
Rights Plan provided for granting one Right for each 
<PAGE>
 
share of UMC voting common stock held; the Rights became exercisable in the
event an acquiring party accumulated 15% or more of UMC's voting stock. At its
recent meeting, the Board voted to lower the threshold for triggering the
exercise of Rights to 10% of UMC's voting stock.

Brock emphasized that he is not aware of any effort to acquire control of the
company nor was the Rights Plan amended to prevent an acquisition of the
company.  "When we originally  designated the 15% threshold in the Rights Plan
adopted almost two years ago, we were trying to accommodate a major shareholder
who already held just under 10% of our stock and was interested in possibly
increasing his position," he explained.  "This amendment makes our Plan similar
to those adopted by a number of other companies, both in and outside of  the oil
and gas industry."

United Meridian Corporation is a Houston-based independent energy company
engaged in the exploration, exploitation and acquisition of crude oil and
natural gas properties in the United States and Canada.  UMC also has
exploration and development activities in West Africa's Cote d'Ivoire and
Equatorial Guinea, and has recently commenced exploration programs in Pakistan
and Bangladesh.  The company's common stock is traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol UMC.


                                      -2-
# C_2023235EN.01000701.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/7

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Shortcut — Consultadoria e Serviços de Tecnologias de Informação, Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-690/22, (1) Shortcut)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 178(a) - Right to deduct - Conditions of exercise - Article 226(6) - Details which must appear on the invoice - Scope and nature of the services provided - Invoices containing a generic description of the services provided)

(2023/C 235/09)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Shortcut — Consultadoria e Serviços de Tecnologias de Informação, Lda

Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the order

Articles 178(a), 219 and 226(6) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the national tax authorities from refusing the right to deduct value added tax on the ground that invoices containing details such as ‘application development services’ do not comply with the formal requirements referred to in the latter provision.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 9.11.2022.

---
#### Jeffery A. BROUSSARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ike BROWN; Samuel Lacy; Sergeant Holmes; Bill Harrison; Sergeant Smith; Henry Bates, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-30061 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 6, 2018

Jeffery A. Broussard, Pro Se

Timothy Richardson, Usry, Weeks *&*Matthews, A.P.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jeffery Broussard, Louisiana prisoner #613311, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Broussard avers that the district court erred in granting summary judgment and dismissing his action as barred by limitations. With the benefit of liberal construction, Broussard contends that the doctrines of continuing tort and *contra non valentem*operate to suspend limitations and render his action timely. He also contends that the district court erred in denying discovery motions.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment based on limitations. *See United States v. Lawrence,*276 F.3d 193, 197 (6th Cir. 2001); *Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am.,*114 F.3d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1997). Further, Broussard abandons any challenge the dismissal of his action against Bill Harrison oh the basis of res judicata. *See Brinkmann v. Dall. Cty. Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Additionally, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Broussard’s discovery motions in order to enforce a scheduling order. *See Turnage v. Gen. Elec. Co.,*953 F.2d 206, 208-09 (5th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Broussard’s motion to reconsider an extension of time to file a reply brief is GRANTED, and we have considered that brief; his motion to file a supplemental brief is DENIED as moot.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
exh_1012.htm


Exhibit 10.12


 




2014 SALES INCENTIVE PLAN







Irv Alpert












Compensation







Five bonus opportunities:








	
  

	
1.

	
Retention of current content licensing partnerships.







 



	 	
2.

	
The following four bonus opportunities are from new sales generated in 2014.







 



	
  

	
·

	
Five percent of every new sales dollar generated up to 50% of sales plan achievement.








	
  

	
·

	
Ten percent of every new sales dollar generated between 50% and 100% of sales plan achievement.








	
  

	
·

	
A one-time bonus upon 100% achievement of sales plan.








	
  

	
·

	
Fifteen percent of every new sales dollar in excess of sales plan achievement.
# C_2022340EN.01001302.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/13

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Austria) — CM v Finanzamt Österreich

(Case C-25/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to provide reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 340/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CM

Defendant: Finanzamt Österreich

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Bundesfinanzgericht (Federal Finance Court, Austria), by decision of 31 December 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  Date of filing: 10.1.2022.

---
# C_2023035EN.01003301.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Katowice — Wschód w Katowicach (Poland) lodged on 2 November 2022 — Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe A. v P. S.A.

(Case C-677/22)

(2023/C 35/38)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Katowice — Wschód w Katowicach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowe A.

Defendant: P. S.A.

Question referred

Must Article 3(5) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (recast) (1) be interpreted as meaning that a period for payment longer than 60 days may be expressly stipulated by undertakings only in contracts in which the contractual terms are not determined unilaterally by one of the contracting parties?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1.

---
<PAGE>





                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

Press Release

SOURCE: MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company and Dynegy Inc.

MidAmerican and Dynegy Complete Northern Natural Gas Transaction

HOUSTON & DES MOINES, Iowa--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 16, 2002--MidAmerican Energy
Holdings Company and Dynegy Inc. (NYSE:DYN - News) today announced the
completion of MidAmerican's acquisition of Northern Natural Gas Company (NNG).
The transaction was closed following early termination of the Hart-Scott-Rodino
waiting period by the Federal Trade Commission.

MidAmerican purchased NNG for $928 million in cash, subject to adjustment for
working capital, and also assumed $950 million in debt. MidAmerican acquired all
of the common and preferred stock of NNG.

"Northern Natural Gas is an excellent addition to our growing interstate gas
transmission business," said David L. Sokol, chairman and chief executive
officer of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company. "It provides a great complement
to our Kern River Gas Transmission Company, and is an example of MidAmerican's
strategy of acquiring top-performing assets, investing in them and operating
them well."

Dan Dienstbier, interim chief executive officer of Dynegy Inc., said, "The
completion of this asset sale is an important step in Dynegy's ongoing efforts
to improve its financial profile."

NNG's 16,600 miles of pipeline extend from the Permian Basin in Texas
to the upper Midwest, providing extensive service to major utilities and
industrial customers. NNG provides transportation and storage services to its
customers and cross-haul and grid transportation between other interstate and
intrastate pipelines in the Permian, Anadarko, Hugoton, and Midwest areas. Its
storage capacity is 59 billion cubic feet and its market area capacity is
approximately 4.3 billion cubic feet per day.

MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company is based in Des Moines, Iowa, and is a
privately owned global provider of energy services. Through its energy-related
business platforms -- CalEnergy Generation, Kern River Gas Transmission Company,
Northern Natural Gas Company, MidAmerican Energy, and Northern and Yorkshire
Electric -- MidAmerican provides electric and natural gas service to more than 5
million customers worldwide. Information on MidAmerican is available on the
Internet at www.midamerican.com. Information on HomeServices, the company's
wholly owned residential real estate brokerage business, is available on the
Internet at www.homeservices.com.

Dynegy Inc. is a global energy merchant. Through its owned and contractually
controlled network of physical assets and its marketing, logistics and risk
management capabilities, Dynegy provides solutions to customers in North
America, the United Kingdom and Continental Europe. The company's Web site is
www.dynegy.com.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21
                                                                    ----------

                               PGI INCORPORATED
                               ----------------
                                 SUBSIDIARIES
                                 ------------


                                        State of               Relationship
                                        ---------              ------------
                                        Incorporation
                                        -------------

Sugarmill Woods, Inc.                   Florida                Wholly owned (1)
Burnt Store Marina, Inc.                Florida                Wholly owned (1)
Punta Gorda Isles Sales, Inc            Florida                Wholly owned (1)
Burnt Store Utilities, Inc              Florida                Wholly owned (1)
Gulf Coast Credit Corporation           Florida                Wholly owned (1)

<FN>
---------------------------------------
(1) Included in the Company's consolidated financial statements.