alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
4937-1986-6628, v. 1

Page | 1

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

IN RE:

TGI FRIDAY’S INC.,

 Debtor.

§ 

§

§

§

§

§ 

 CASE NO. 24-80069-SGJ11

 

 CHAPTER 11

 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR SERVICE

OF NOTICES AND PLEADINGS

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby enters an appearance on behalf of

Sugarloaf Concessions, LLC, in the above-referenced proceedings. The undersigned hereby 

requests notice and copies of all motions, notices, reports, briefs, applications, adversary 

proceedings, proposed orders, confirmed copies of orders, any proposed disclosure statement or 

plan of reorganization that has been filed with the court, any other documents or instruments filed 

in the above-referenced proceedings and any other manner in which notice is required pursuant to 

11 U.S.C. Sec. 1109(b) and Bankruptcy Rules 2022(a) and (b), 3017(a), and 9013 of the Federal 

Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

Copies should be served by U.S. Mail, hand delivery, electronically or other appropriate 

means to the creditors in care of the undersigned at the address set forth below.

Case 24-80069-sgj11 Doc 307 Filed 12/06/24 Entered 12/06/24 14:48:17 Desc

Main Document Page 1 of 2
4937-1986-6628, v. 1

Page | 2

Respectfully submitted,

HOOVER SLOVACEK, LLP

By: /s/ Steven A. Leyh

Steven A. Leyh

State Bar No. 12318300

Email: leyh@hooverslovacek.com

Edward W. Engel

State Bar No. 06622300

Email: engel@hooverslovacek.com

Curtis W. McCreight

State Bar No. 00794980

Email: mccreight@hooverslovacek.com

Angeline V. Kell

State Bar No. 24040009

Email: kell@hooverslovacek.com

Galleria Tower II

5051 Westheimer, Suite 1200

Houston, Texas 77056

Telephone: (713) 977-8686

Facsimile: (713) 977-5395

ATTORNEY FOR SUGARLOAF 

CONCESSIONS, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on December 6, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

filed and served by the Electronic Case Filing System for the United States Bankruptcy Court for 

the Northern District of Texas on those parties registered to receive electronic notice.

/s/ Steven A. Leyh

Steven A. Leyh

Case 24-80069-sgj11 Doc 307 Filed 12/06/24 Entered 12/06/24 14:48:17 Desc

Main Document Page 2 of 2
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6838

JEREMY COLTON LIGHT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. C. O. MILINI; ANGELO J. VIANI; KATHERINE N. HESS; CAPTAIN D. BAILEY; JOHN ANDERSON; SALEM CORRECTIONAL CENTER; DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. ( 5:23

- cv - 00207

- JPB

- JPM )

Submitted : April 29, 2024 Decided: May 23, 2024

Before GREGORY and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Jeremy Colton Light , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6838 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Jeremy Light appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint after Light failed to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

. On appeal, Light contends that he did not timely receive the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and therefore did not have the opportunity to file objections. Light also filed a letter in the district court , which the court interpreted as a notice of appeal, sta ting that h e did not receive the report and asking for an appeal and for the court to reopen the case

. The timely filing of objections is necessary to preserve appellate review of a district court’s order adopting the recommendation. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985) ; s ee 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). However, the waiver of appellate rights for failure to object is a prudential rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985). And, when a litigant proceeds pro se, he must be accorded fair notice of the consequences of failing to object before he is barred from ap pellate review. Wright , 766 F.2d at 846

- 47. Within 28 days of the district court’s dismissal order , Light filed a letter in the district court stating that he did not receive the m agistrate judge’s report . This assertion is supported by the fact that the report was returned as undeliverable , and by Light’s change of address , which he submitted to the court. W e remand the case to the district court for it
to construe Light’s letter as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We express no opinion as to the appropriate disposition of the Rule 59(e) motion

. We dispense with USCA4 Appeal: 23-6838 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 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.
REMANDED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6838 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Accellent Corp. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Stewart A. Fisher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date:  August 9, 2005

 
| /s/ Stewart A. Fisher   |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|                    |   |
| Stewart A. Fisher       |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Case 7:04-cv-00014-R Document 13 Filed 06/13/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 52
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 6 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 6

Providing for certain procedures for bringing debate to a close on any 
  question in the House of Representatives and Senate, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2025

Ms. Williams of Georgia submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
              which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for certain procedures for bringing debate to a close on any 
  question in the House of Representatives and Senate, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This resolution may be cited as the ``Majority Rule Resolution''.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives or the Standing Rules of the Senate, the House 
of Representatives and the Senate may not require that more than a 
majority of the Members of either House of Congress voting, a quorum 
being present, is required to bring debate to a close on any question 
in such House.
    (b) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--This section is 
enacted by Congress--
            (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
        and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such is 
        deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
        applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in 
        that House in the case of the bill or joint resolution 
        involved, and supersede other rules only to the extent that it 
        is inconsistent with such rules; and
            (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
        either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
        procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
        to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
        House.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7646

ALICE WHEELER CAIRNS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-208) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alice Wheeler Cairns, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Alice Wheeler Cairns seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Cairns that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Cairns failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Cairns has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2021252EN.01000401.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/4

---

Appeal brought on 10 September 2020 by Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções, Lda. and Others against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T-90/20 REC, Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Others v ECB and Banco do Portugal

(Case C-450/20 P)

(2021/C 252/05)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellants: Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções, Lda., Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo, Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo, Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo (represented by: M. Ribeiro, advogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank, Banco do Portugal

By order of 5 May 2021, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible.

---
# C_2023063EN.01004501.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/45

---

Order of the General Court of 6 December 2022 — CX v Commission

(Case T-735/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Removal from post - Decision to reduce the remuneration of the applicant - No need to adjudicate)

(2023/C 63/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CX (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU the applicant requests annulment, first, of the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2015, in that it reduced his remuneration for a period of six months, and, second, in so far as necessary, of the decision of 12 July 2016 rejecting his claim.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | CX and the Commission are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

CX and the Commission are to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.

---
BTXN 163 (rev. 04/04)

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

In Re: §

§

§

§

American Workforce 401(k) Profit Sh Case No.: 91−34904−rcm7

 Chapter No.: 7

Debtor(s)

ORDER AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF A DIVIDEND FROM UNCLAIMED FUNDS

 At Dallas , Texas, in said District, came on to be considered the Application For Payment Of A Dividend From

Unclaimed Funds by:

 NAME: George T. Haddon

 MAILING ADDRESS: c/o APL, Inc.

3855 S. Boulevard, #200

Edmond, OK 73013

 Claimant, for payment of a dividend from unclaimed funds in the amount of $1,621.17.

 It appearing to the Court that the said claimant is entitled to receive payment of the dividend in the amount stated

above, and

 that said funds are now on deposit in the United States Treasury, and

 that notice of the Application was given to the United States Attorney, and

 that no objection to the Application has been filed, it is

 ORDERED that the Clerk of Court direct issuance of a draft upon the United States Treasury in the amount

stated above, payable to this claimant.

# # # End of Order # # #

Signed March 04, 2011

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ENTERED

TAWANA C. MARSHALL, CLERK

THE DATE OF ENTRY IS

ON THE COURT'S DOCKET

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 3:04-cr-00114-S Document 79 Filed 11/21/19 Page 1 of 1 PageID 611
Andrea JABLONSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-128

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(a)/15d-14(a)

I, Paul G. Anderson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report
on Form 10-Q of FCStone Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other
certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation: and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: July 17, 2006



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Paul G. Anderson         
|Paul G. Anderson             
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)



35
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Hugh Panero, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of XM Satellite Radio Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and



b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: March 28, 2005



|    |  |                                                  
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Hugh Panero                                  
|    |  | Hugh Panero President and Chief Executive
Officer
# C_2016364EN.01001901.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/19

---

Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Bena Properties v Council

(Case T-412/16)

(2016/C 364/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;

| — | as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant raises five pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-411/16, Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council.

---