alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

BROWARD DIVISION

In re:

SEVEN STARS ON THE HUDSON

CORPORATION, d/b/a ROCKIN’ JUMP Case No19-17544 - SMG

Chapter 11

Debtor,

____________________________________/

SEVEN STARS ON THE HUDSON Adversary Proceeding

CORPORATION, d/b/a ROCKIN’ JUMP, No. 19-01230

 Plaintiff

v.

MDG POWERLINE HOLDINGS, LLC

AND XBK MANAGEMENT LLC,

d/b/a XTREME ACTION PARK,

Defendants.

___________________________________

DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN A. DALY IN SUPPORT OF

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

KATHLEEN A. DALY, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1764, I hereby declare as 

follows:

1) I am the attorney for the Debtor, Seven Stars on the Hudson, LLC 

(the “Debtor”) in the above-referenced adversary proceeding. 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 36-1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 1 of 2
2

2) I submit this sworn Declaration in further support of the Debtor’s 

Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary 

Injunction (“Emergency Motion”) arising out the actions of XBK Management, 

LLC a/k/a Xtreme Action Park (“Xtreme”).

3) Attached as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the proposed Temporary 

Restraining Order.

4) Attached as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the proposed Preliminary Injunction 

Order.

5) Attached as Exhibit 6, is a copy of the First Amended Complaint, 

dated December 5, 2019 (without exhibits).

6) Attached as Exhibit 7, is a copy of an email sent to Xtreme’s counsel 

dated December 11, 2019.

Executed on December 17, 2019

____/s/ Kathleen A. Daly

Kathleen A. Daly

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 36-1 Filed 12/17/19 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-51035

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

FRANKLIN ROBLIN JOHNSTON, also known as Johnny Johnston,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(A-95-CR-154-2)

February 11, 1999

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

After reviewing the reco rd in this case and considering the

arguments and briefs of counsel, we conclude that even if the

district court committed error in this case, that error was

harmless. Both counsel assured us at argument that Johnson will

serve no additional time as a result of this sentenc e because it

runs concurrently with a previously imposed sentence and Johnston

is entitled to full credit for time served on the previous

conviction.

AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

July 1, 2005

Before

HON. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

HON. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

HON. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 02-4146

United States of America, Appeal from the United States

Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Eastern District

of Wisconsin.

v.

No. 01 CR 140

Michael Imperl,

Defendant-Appellant. Lynn Adelman,

Judge.

O R D E R

After concluding that the district court had correctly calculated the applicable

range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, we ordered a limited remand

so that the district court could determine whether Michael Imperl’s sentence

remains appropriate now that United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), has

relegated the United States Sentencing Guidelines to advisory status. See United

States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005).

The district court judge has replied that he would impose the same sentence

today knowing that the Guidelines are not mandatory. Therefore, “we will affirm

the original sentence against [Imperl’s] plain error challenge provided the sentence

is reasonable, the standard of review prescribed by Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765.” 

Paladino, 401 F.3d at 484. 

On June 13, 2005, we invited the parties to file, within seven days, any

arguments concerning the appropriate disposition of the appeal in light of the

district court’s decision. We have received each party’s submission.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 02-4146 Page 2

Imperl contends again that his sentence was improper under Booker because

the findings of fact upon which sentences are imposed must be found by juries, not

judges, and that his sentence was reimposed largely based upon judge-found facts. 

He asks that we vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing. Imperl’s

argument has no merit. Booker recognized that the Sixth Amendment is violated

when a sentencing judge imposes an enhanced sentence under the United States

Sentencing Guidelines based on a sentencing judge’s determination of a fact (other

than a fact of prior conviction) neither found by a jury nor admitted by the

defendant. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756. The remedy for such a violation lies not

in a new trial or a resentencing based on only jury-found or defendant-admitted

facts, however. Rather, the Supreme Court held that excision of two provisions of

the Sentencing Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § § 3553(b)(1) and 3742(e), thereby making

the Guidelines advisory, constituted the proper remedy. Id. at 756-57.

The Guidelines sentencing range applicable here is 46 to 57 months. 

Imperl’s 46 month sentence lies at the low end of this range. On remand, the

district court judge provided a thorough, nine-page memorandum detailing why he

believed a 46 month sentence was still appropriate even with the knowledge that

the Guidelines are only advisory. We have considered the defendant’s

circumstances and the district court’s reasoning, and we do not believe the 46

month sentence should be deemed “unreasonable.” Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE0395 5 .A1

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19503-19504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9721]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service


Notice of Intent to Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Circle 
One Global, Inc. of Cuthbert, Georgia, an exclusive license to U.S. 
Patent No. 7,361,499, ``Non-Aflatoxigenic Aspergillus Flavus 
Isolates'', issued on April 22, 2008, and to U.S. Patent Application 
Serial No. 11/848,866, ``Water Dispersible Formulation for Delivery of 
Biocontrol Fungi to Reduce Aflatoxin'', filed on August 31, 2007.

DATES: Comments must be received May 29, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
301-504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights in 
these inventions are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public 
interest to so license these inventions as Circle One Global, Inc. of 
Cuthbert, Georgia has submitted a complete and sufficient application 
for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-
bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 
and 37 CFR 404.7. The

[[Page 19504]]

prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) 
days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research 
Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that 
the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements 
of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Richard J. Brenner,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-9721 Filed 4-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the annual report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) of Intermost Corporation, a Wyoming corporation (the “Company”), for the period ended June 30, 2010:





1.           Fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.





Date: October 12 , 2011




By:
/s/ Chia Hsun WuChia Hsun Wu,Chief Executive Officer
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DEC 20, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-12917 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 5:07-cr-00004-RS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN B. MOORE,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Northern District of Florida

 ________________________

(December 20, 2010)

Before BLACK, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Ufferman, appointed counsel for Martin Brandon Moore in

Moore’s third direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further
representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967). Our independent review of the record of

Moore’s resentencing on Count II reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative

merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire

record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and Moore’s sentence is AFFIRMED. Moore’s motion to appoint

new counsel is DENIED as moot.

2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 5, 2022

No. 04-22-00724-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.A.W., ET AL., Children

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021PA01580

Honorable Raul Perales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental 

rights. The disposition of this appeal is governed by the standards set forth in Rule 6.2 of the 

Texas Rules of Judicial Administration. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. Accordingly, this appeal is 

required to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was 

filed. Id.

Appellant’s brief was originally due on November 28, 2022. Neither the brief nor a 

motion for extension of time to file the brief has been filed. It is therefore ORDERED that 

appellant’s brief must be filed no later than December 12, 2022. Given the time constraints 

governing the disposition of this appeal, requests for extension of time will be disfavored.

It is so ORDERED on December 5, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK

FILE COPY
### No.03-14-00202-CV
IN THE COURT OFAPPEALS THE THIRD DISTRICT OFTEXAS AUSTIN TEXAS
NEMERMASSAAD, and all other OCCUPANTS Appellant V. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOROPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-3, ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-3 Appellee. Appeal from the County Court atLawNumber One Travis County, Texas Trial Court Case No. C-I-CV-14-000401 Hon. Joe Carroll, presiding 

### MOTIONTOALLOW APPELLANT'S BRIEF TOEXCEED WORD COUNT

Appellant's Motionto Exceed Word Count Page 1 ACCEPTED 03-14-00202-CV 5032109 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/24/2015 5:37:02 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKTO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: COMES NOW APPELLANT, NEMER MASSAAD, and files this Motion to Allow Appellant's Brief to Exceed Word Count, and respectfully shows the following: 1. Concurrently with this Motion, Appellant filed his Motion for Rehearing en bane. 2. Appellant's Motion for Rehearing en bane is approximately 5,202 words, excluding the parts ofthe briefexempted by Tex.R.App.P. 9.4(i)(2)(D). A motion for rehearing may typically not exceed 4,500 words. 3. It order to adequately address the Court's original holding and the Appellee's Brief, it was necessary to exceedthe word count as stated. 4. Appellant respectfully requests the Court to accept the Motion for Rehearing. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays this Court grant his Motionto Allow Appellant's Briefto Exceed Word Count.

Appellant's Motionto Exceed Word Count Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ James Minerve
James Minerve State BarNo. 24008692 115 Saddle BlanketTrial Buda, Texas 78610 (210) 336-5867 Page 2(888) 230-6397 (Fax) Attorney for Appellant, NemerMassaad CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE OnApril 23, 2015, the undersigned counsel for Appellant attemptedto Communicate with counsel for Appellee, Mark Cronenwett, concernmg the foregoing Motion. Mr. Cronenwett did not consentnor oppose. /s/ James Minerve James Minerve CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 24th day ofApril, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was sent via Efile.txcourts.gov electronic filing notification system and via facsimile transmittalto the parties ofrecord listed below: Philip Danaher MarkD. Cronenwett Mackie WolfZientz & Mann, PC 14160 North Dallas Parkway Parkway Office Center, Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75254

Appellant's Motionto Exceed Word Count s/s/James Minerve James Minerve

Page 3
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 19596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9791]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated December 22, 2008, and published in the Federal 
Register on December 31, 2008 (73 FR 80431), Johnson Matthey Inc., 
Pharmaceutical Materials, 2003 Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey 
08066-1742, has made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the basic 
classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thebaine (9333)..............................................         II
Noroxymorphone (9668)........................................         II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import analytical reference standards for 
distribution to its customers for research purposes.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the 
registration of Johnson Matthey Inc. to import the basic classes of 
controlled substances is consistent with the public interest, and with 
United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or 
protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated 
Johnson Matthey Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is 
consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included 
inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, 
verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and 
a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant 
to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, 
the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the 
basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: April 17, 2009.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-9791 Filed 4-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Opinion filed January 15, 2015



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____



### No. 11

- 1 4

- 00 107

- C V

_____ _

_____



### COVE MINI STORAGE, INC. ; GORDO N MICKAN ; MARCUS

MICKAN ; KEN CRAIG AND AMYE CRAIG AS TRUSTEES OF

THE KEN AND AMYE CRAIG TRUST ; KEN CRAIG ; AND

AMYE CRAIG

, Appellant s

V.

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

, Appellee

On Appeal from the 91s t District Court

Eastland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV

- 1042068A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A ppellant s ha ve filed in this court a n unopposed m otion for dismis s al with

prejudice

. In the motion, Appellant s “move for dismissal with prejudice of this

lawsuit.” I n accordance with Appellant s ’ request to dismiss this lawsuit , we

dismiss th eir appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).2 The motion is granted, and th e appeal is dismissed

.

PER CURIAM

January 15, 2015

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J., and Bailey , J.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

April 9, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with Ford and Toyota on February 6, 2012

FROM: Ed Nam

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

This memo documents a meeting held on February 6, 2012 between representatives of Ford, 

Toyota, and EPA to discuss their technical comments on pickup hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). 

The discussion focused on test methods and metrics for full size pick-up truck mild and strong 

HEVs. The companies noted that they plan to discuss these topics in the public comments on the 

proposed rule. The meeting attendees from Ford included Nancy Homeister, Alyssa Werthman, 

and Mark Jennings, from Toyota included Matt Kevnick, and from EPA included Ed Nam, Bill 

Charmley, Ben Ellies, Byungho Lee, and Tony Fernandez.
Exhibit 32.2  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  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 quarterly report of Medizone International, Inc. (the ACompany@) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the AReport@), I, Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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.   /s/ Steve M. Hanni Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial Officer  Date: December 18, 2006  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2004180EN.01000901.xml

| 13.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3388 — FORD MOTOR COMPANY LTD / POLAR MOTOR GROUP LTD)

(2004/C 180/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 April 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 304M3388. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. For more information on how to access Celex, see ‘subscriber information’ links below: |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 304M3388. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. For more information on how to access Celex, see ‘subscriber information’ links below:

CELEX: subscriber information

http://publications.eu.int/general/en/eulaw_en.htm

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         106
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       72,395
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   894,769
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   106
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            39,845
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (39,857)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (39,857)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (39,857)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.01)


</TABLE>