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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1-

Mark E. Ellis —127159

Amanda N. Griffith - 288164

Anthony P. J. Valenti - 284542

ELLIS LAW GROUP, LLP

740 University Avenue, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95825

Tel: (916) 283-8820

Fax: (916) 283-8821

Attorneys for Defendant NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA ARLENE TIMLICK, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

Federal Case No.:

Lake County Case No.: CV416920

v.

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC.,

an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,

inclusive,

Defendants.

DEFENDANT NATIONAL ENTERPRISE

SYSTEMS, INC.'S JURY DEMAND

Defendant NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC., hereby demands a jury trial in this

1 matter.

I Dated: February 3, 2017

ELLIS LAW GROUP, LLP

By /s/ Amanda N Griffith

Amanda N. Griffith

Attorney for Defendant

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC.

DEFENDANT NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC.'S JURY DEMAND

Case 1:17-cv-00559-NJV Document 1-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jennifer Mueller, declare: I

I am a citizen of the United States, am over the age of eighteen years, and am not a party to or

interested in the within entitled cause. My business address is 740 University Avenue, Suite 100,

Sacramento, CA 95825.

On February 3, 2017, I served the following documents) on the parties in the within action:

DEFENDANT NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC.'S JURY DEMAND

BY MAIL: I am familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of mail.

The above-described documents) will be enclosed in a sealed envelope, with first class

X postage thereon fully prepaid, and deposited with the United States Postal Service at

`Sacramento CA on this date addressed as follows:

Fred W. Schwinn Attorneys for Plaintiff

Raeon R. Roulston Lisa Arlene Timlick

Matthew C. Salmonsen

Consumer Law Center, Inc.

12 South First Street

Suite 1014

San Jose, CA 95113-2404

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is

a true and correct statement and that this Certificate was ecuted on February 3, 2017.

By.

-2-

DEFENDANT NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC.'S JURY DEMAND

Case 1:17-cv-00559-NJV Document 1-2 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 2
Case 4:17-mj-70037-MAG Document 6 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**ROBERT M. BOCHTER, II; MATTHEW PASQUINELLI; VENTURE ENERGY**  **SOLUTIONS, LLC; AND CONFLUENCE ENERGY CONSULTANTS, LLC,** 

**Petitioners :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 432 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 1st day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowa nce of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
Derrell D. HUNT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4560

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 3, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jonathon BRAY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Najla BRAY, k/n/a Najla Murray, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1422

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1583

DIANE S. ROSENBERG, Substitute Trustee; MARK D. MEYER, Substitute Trustee; JOHN A. ANSELL, III, Substitute Trustee; STEPHANIE MONTGOMERY, Substitute Trustee; KENNETH SAVITZ, Substitute Trustee , Plaintiffs

- Appellees ,

v. KEVIN CHRISTOPHER BETSKOFF , Defendant

- Appellant , and
LUCREZIA IONA CANADY , Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv
- 00672

- GLR )

Submitted : October 23, 2018 Decided: October 25, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Kevin C. Betskoff , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Kevin C. Betskoff appeals from the district court’s order remanding the underlying foreclosure proceeding back to state court. We dismiss the appeal. Remand orders are generally “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Co urt has explained that the appellate restrictions of “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) [i.e., lack of subject matter jurisdiction and defects in removal procedures] are immu ne from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca , 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). Whether a remand order is reviewable is not based on a district court’s explicit citation to § 1447(c); “[t]he bar of § 1447(d) applies to any order invoking substantively one of the grounds specified in § 1447(c).” Borneman v. United States , 213 F.3d 819,
824

- 25 (4th Cir. 2000). Here, the district court clearly remanded this case based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we lack jurisdictio n to review the merits of the district court’s order. Thus, we deny leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis
and we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials b efore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Gordon Tattersall, President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Blue Moose Media, Inc., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: November 1, 2010  /s/ Gordon Tattersall Gordon Tattersall President and Chief Executive Officer Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Blue Moose Media, Inc. and will be retained by Blue Moose Media, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RICHARD WAYNE GARZA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00095

- C R

Appeal from the

35th Judicial District Court

of Brown County, Texas

(TC# CR24923 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We

further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2023.

L ISA J. SOTO

, Justice

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
Kevin Michael MALPASS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1429

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Amended and Restated Commitment Letter, dated January 23,2009



 Exhibit 10.1 
 SEQUOIA ENTERPRISES, L.P. 
 VESSEL PARTNERS, L.P. 
 January 23, 2009 
 BDO Seidman, LLP 
 Ladies and gentlemen: 
 In connection with BDO Seidman, LLP’s audit of
the consolidated financial statements of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the “Company”) as of and for the year ended June 25, 2008, Sequoia Enterprises, L.P. (“Sequoia”) and Vessel Partners, L.P. (“Vessel” and collectively
with Sequoia, the “Lenders”) make the following commitments. This letter amends, restates and supersedes the Lenders’ letters to you dated as of October 8, 2008 and November 10, 2008. 
  

	 	1.	The Lenders commit to provide additional financial support to the Company on commercially acceptable terms not to exceed $5 million until April 8, 2010. Such amount will
provide cash flow sufficient to operate the Company on a going concern basis during that period. 

  

	 	2.	To evidence the commitment in the paragraph above, the Lenders will enter into a $5 million commitment letter or note agreement with the Company as soon as possible and no later
than March 31, 2009. 

  

	 	3.	In addition to the above, Sequoia will also extend the maturity date on commercially acceptable terms on the $2 million note purchase agreement with the Company that is set to
expire on March 31, 2009. The maturity of the note will be extended to at least March 31, 2010. 

  

	 	4.	The Lenders will not require that the Company agree to any covenants more onerous than those presently existing in the agreements between the Company and Sequoia.


  

	 	5.	The Lenders have the intent and the ability to fully fund the financial commitments that are outlined in this letter. 

  

	 	6.	I have the authority as the General Partner of each of Sequoia Enterprises, L.P. and Vessel Partners, L.P. to make investment decisions and financial commitments outlined in this
letter. 

  

	 	7.	The Lenders’ commitments set forth in this letter shall immediately cease and terminate if the Company receives gross proceeds from any transaction of $5 million or more or
enters into a credit or loan agreement with a party other than the Lenders for at least $5 million. 

  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Paul Heeschen
	 Paul Heeschen
 General Partner, Sequoia Enterprises,
L.P.
 General Partner, Vessel Partners, L.P.
Jerome Lloyd ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-201

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Robert E. DALY and Bridget McNeff-Daly, Appellants, v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3577

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 12, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Erik Olsson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of RSC HoldingsIII, LLC and RSC Equipment Rental, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [Not Applicable]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: March 14, 2008         /s/ Erik Olsson   Erik Olsson                           President and
Stephen MIZNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2516

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 5, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00700

- CV

IN RE Stephen Patrick BLACK

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Relator

, Stephen Patrick Black, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on October 9, 2018, and the State of Texas has filed a response. In accordance with the court’s opinion of this date,

the writ of mandamus requested by relator is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED IN PART

. We

ORDER the Honorable Gary L. Steel to rule, within ten days of the date of this order, on Relator’s Motion to Appoint Counsel that was filed on January 5, 2018. The writ will issue only if we are notified that Judge Steel has not complied within ten days from the date of this order.

In all other respects, Relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought, and the petition for a writ of mandamus is in all other respects therefore DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on December 5, 2018

.

__________ ___________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of December, 2018

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. CV

- 15

- 1805, styled In re Commitment of Stephen Patrick Black , in the 274th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable G ary L. Steel presiding.
# L_2017128EN.01001901.xml

| 19.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 128/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 128/19

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/858

of 18 May 2017

on the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the ninth partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1),

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1240 of 18 May 2016 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to public intervention and aid for private storage (2), and in particular Article 32 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3) has opened the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 (3) has opened the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure.

| (2) | In the light of the tenders received for the ninth partial invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the light of the tenders received for the ninth partial invitation to tender, a minimum selling price should not be fixed.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the ninth partial invitation to tender for the selling of skimmed milk powder within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080, in respect of which the period during which tenders were to be submitted ended on 16 May 2017, a minimum selling price has not been fixed.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 May 2017.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Jerzy PLEWA

Director-General

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 206, 30.7.2016, p. 71.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 of 25 November 2016 opening the sale of skimmed milk powder by a tendering procedure (OJ L 321, 29.11.2016, p. 45).

3

---
EXHIBIT 32





BWI HOLDINGS, INC.





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 Annual Report of BWI Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jim Can, as Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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




Date: December 20, 2010
By:
/s/ Jim CanName:
Jim CanTitle:
Principal Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code 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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Nasser Chehab v. BBVA USA

Appellate case number: 01-20-00766-CV

Trial court case number: 2020-39917

Trial court: 189th District Court of Harris County

On November 5, 2020, appellant, Nasser Chehab, filed a pro se notice of appeal

challenging two trial court orders, including: (1) an October 7, 2020 order granting 

appellee, BBVA USA’s “Motion for Sanctions for [Appellant] Filing Yet Another 

Frivolous Lawsuit and/or Motion to Declare [Appellant] a Vexatious Litigant and Motion 

for Security,” and (2) an October 15, 2020 “Final Summary Judgment” order granting 

appellee’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a or, in the 

alternative, motion for summary judgment.

The appellate record was due to be filed by December 14, 2020. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 35.1. After being notified by the Clerk of this Court that the clerk’s record was past due, 

the clerk’s record was filed on January 26, 2021; however, a reporter’s record has not been 

filed.

On January 22, 2021, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the court reporter 

responsible for preparing the reporter’s record had not filed a reporter’s record because 

appellant has not requested preparation of a reporter’s record and has not paid, or made 

arrangements to pay, the fee for preparation of the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

The Clerk further notified appellant that unless he provided written evidence that he had 

paid, or made arrangements to pay, for the reporter’s record, or provided proof that he is

entitled to proceed without payment of costs by February 22, 2021, the Court might 

consider the appeal without a reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). Appellant 

has not responded.
Accordingly, the Court will consider and decide those issues or points that do not 

require a reporter’s record for a decision. TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3. Appellant’s brief in 

appellate case number 01-20-00766-CV is due to be filed no later than thirty days 

from the date of this order. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a), (d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ______/s/ Amparo Guerra_____

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __March 9, 2021____