alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11037]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5203-4]


Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Notice of Public Meeting and 
Extending the Expiration Date of Subcommittee

    Under Section (10)(a)(2) of Title 5 U.S.C. App 2, ``The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act,'' notice is hereby given that the Subcommittee 
on Mobile Source Emissions and Air Quality in the Northeastern States 
of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee will meet on Thursday, May 25, 
1995 beginning at 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. at the Hyatt Regency 
Washington Hotel, located near Capitol Hill at 400 New Jersey Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, 202/737-1234. This meeting is open to the 
public. For further information concerning the meeting, please contact 
the individuals listed below.
    Public notice is also given extending the expiration date of the 
Subcommittee on Mobile Source Emissions and Air Quality in the 
Northeastern States to June 15, 1995.

Further Information and Providing Comments

    For additional information concerning these meetings, please 
contact Mike Shields, Designated Federal Official, Office of Mobile 
Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW. 
Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 260-7645.

    Dated: April 27, 1995.
Rob Brenner,
Director, Office of Policy Analysis and Review, Office of Air and 
Radiation, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
[FR Doc. 95-11037 Filed 5-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Gerald Blace WEST, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 12-9171.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

SHANE MOSIER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-83

)

FORGE INDUSTRIAL STAFFING, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was removed to this Court from the Allen Superior Court by Defendant based

on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 2.) The Notice of Removal

alleges that “[o]n information and belief, and based upon the allegations in the Complaint,

[Plaintiff Shane] Mosier is a resident of the State of Indiana.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 4.)

Defendant’s Notice of Removal, however, is inadequate for two reasons. First, it is wellsettled that “[a]llegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be made on the basis of

information and belief, only personal knowledge.” Yount v. Shashek, No. Civ. 06-753-GPM,

2006 WL 4017975, at *10 n.1 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2006) (citing Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of

Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992)); Ferolie Corp. v. Advantage Sales & Mktg.,

LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2004); Hayes v. Bass Pro

Outdoor World, LLC, No. 02 C 9106, 2003 WL 187411, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2003); Multi-M

Int’l, Inc. v. Paige Med. Supply Co., 142 F.R.D. 150, 152 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Consequently,

Defendant must amend its Notice of Removal to allege the Plaintiff’s citizenship on personal

knowledge rather than on information and belief. 

1
The Notice of Removal is also insufficient because the “residency” of each party is

meaningless for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, as “citizenship is what matters.” Guar. Nat’l

Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that statements

concerning a party’s “residency” are not proper allegations of citizenship as required by 28

U.S.C. § 1332); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “It is well-settled that when the parties allege residence

but not citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit.” Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir.

1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see generally Smoot v. Mazda Motors of

Am., Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 677-78 (7th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the Court must be advised of

Plaintiff Shane Mosier’s citizenship, rather than his residency, which “[f]or natural persons . . . is

determined by one’s domicile.” Dausch v. Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993); see Heinen

v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (“But residence may or may not

demonstrate citizenship, which depends on domicile—that is to say, the state in which a person

intends to live over the long run.”); Am.’s Best Inns, Inc., 980 F.2d at 1074 (“In federal law

citizenship means domicile, not residence.”). 

Therefore, Defendant is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an Amended

Notice of Removal on or before April 16, 2013, properly alleging on personal knowledge the

citizenship of Plaintiff Shane Mosier.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 2nd day of April, 2013.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELISSA L VIGIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02697-MMC 

RELATED CASE ORDER

A Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related has been filed, 

requesting a determination as to whether the following cases are related within the 

meaning of Civil L.R. 3-12(a):

C 16-02697 MMC Melissa L. Vigil v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

C 17-00929 JSW Melissa L. Vigil v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

The time for filing a statement to support or oppose the motion has passed. On 

the basis of the material submitted to the Court, as the Judge assigned to the earliest 

filed case, I find that the cases:

[ X ] ARE NOT RELATED as defined by Civil L.R. 3-12(a), the earlier 

action having been voluntarily dismissed prior to the Court’s consideration of any 

substantive matters.

[ ] ARE RELATED as defined by Civil L.R. 3-12(a). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2017

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-00929-JSW Document 18 Filed 03/08/17 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11603]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. PR95-10-000]


Enogex, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

May 5, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 1, 1995, Enogex filed pursuant to Section 
284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's Regulations, a petition for rate 
approval requesting that the Commission approve as fair and equitable a 
maximum rate of $0.6760 per Mcf for transportation services performed 
under Section 311(a)(2) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).
    Enogex states that it is an intrastate pipeline within the meaning 
of Section 2(16) of the NGPA and it owns and operates an intrastate 
pipeline system in the State of Oklahoma. Enogex proposes an effective 
date of May 1, 1995.
    Pursuant to Section 284.123(b) (2) (ii), if the Commission does not 
act within 150 days of the filing date, the rate will be deemed to be 
fair and equitable and not in excess of an amount which interstate 
pipelines would be permitted to charge for similar transportation 
service. The Commission may, prior to the expiration of the 150-day 
period, extend the time for action or institute a proceeding to afford 
parties an opportunity for written comments and for the oral 
presentation of views, data, and arguments.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene in accordance with Sections 385.211 and 
385.214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures. All 
motions must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission on or before 
May 19, 1995. The petition for rate approval is on file with the 
Commission and is available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11603 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Steven EDWARDS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9649.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

OSG AMERICA L.P.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS AMENDED

 

I, Jonathan P.Whitworth, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Kof OSG America L.P.

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theRegistrant and we have:

 

a.               Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;

 

b.              Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c.               Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.               The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofRegistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a.               All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare 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 involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | March 12, 2008     |   | /s/ Jonathan P.  Whitworth |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
|   | Jonathan P. Whitworth   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
T.M.C., Appellant/Petitioner(s),

v.

In re: GUARDIANSHIP OF A.M.C., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NOS.: 2D18-1117 2D18-1112

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 1998 for May Drilling Partnership  1983-2 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000711309
<NAME>                        May Drilling Partnership 1983-2
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         206
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               375
<PP&E>                                         16,658
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     831
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   831
<SALES>                                        197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               200
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  75
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                125
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            125
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  6.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  6.25
        


</TABLE>
D.W. NEVEN, Warden, et al., petitioners, v. Christopher Noel WENTZELL.

No. 12-352.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<CIK>                        0000710507
<NAME>                       First Banks, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                         126,128
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,118
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                81,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    424,240
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          21,362
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            21,204
<LOANS>                                      4,222,304
<ALLOWANCE>                                     73,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,134,843
<DEPOSITS>                                   4,460,311
<SHORT-TERM>                                    98,612
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            140,026
<LONG-TERM>                                    127,653
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     13,063
<COMMON>                                         5,915
<OTHER-SE>                                     289,263
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               5,134,843
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 89,678
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,870
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,169
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                97,717
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              40,023
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,287
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           55,430
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,582
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 379
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 37,793
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,619
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      23,619
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,587
<EPS-BASIC>                                     608.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   589.52
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.54
<LOANS-NON>                                     31,281
<LOANS-PAST>                                     3,143
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 73,349
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                68,611
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,214
<RECOVERIES>                                     4,081
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               73,859
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            64,434
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          9,425



</TABLE>
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 836 

Permitting the collection of clothing, toys, food, and housewares during the 

holiday season for charitable purposes in Senate buildings. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2022 

Mr. TESTER (for himself and Mr. MORAN) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Permitting the collection of clothing, toys, food, and 

housewares during the holiday season for charitable purposes in Senate buildings. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. COLLECTION OF CLOTHING, TOYS, FOOD, AND 

3 HOUSEWARES DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON 

4 FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES IN SENATE 

5 BUILDINGS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi7 sion of the rules or regulations of the Senate— 

8 (1) a Senator, officer of the Senate, or em9 ployee of the Senate may collect from another Sen10 ator, officer of the Senate, or employee of the Senate 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 836 ATS 

1 within a Senate building or other office secured for 

2 a Senator nonmonetary donations of clothing, toys, 

3 food, and housewares for charitable purposes related 

4 to serving persons in need or members of the Armed 

5 Forces and the families of those members during the 

6 holiday season, if the charitable purposes do not oth7 erwise violate any rule or regulation of the Senate 

8 or Federal law; and 

9 (2) a Senator, officer of the Senate, or em10 ployee of the Senate may work with a nonprofit or11 ganization with respect to the delivery of donations 

12 described under paragraph (1). 

13 (b) EXPIRATION.—The authority provided by this 

14 resolution shall expire at the end of the second session 

15 of the 117th Congress. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Jorge LOPEZ, petitioner, v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.

No. 12-9094.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Maurice Jerome McDONALD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-8270.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Toree SIMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9236.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

               ALPHA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., AND SUBSIDIARIES

                  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
         For the Quarters Ended January 26, 1997 and January 25, 1998


                                  (Unaudited)
                     (In Thousands, Except per Share Data)




 
                                                   January 26,       January 25,
                                                      1997              1998
                                                   -----------       -----------
Shares:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding      6,675                6,693
 
     Net common shares issuable on exercise of
        stock options                                                       132
                                                   -------               ------

Weighted average common and common equivalent        
   shares outstanding                                6,675                6,825
                                                   =======               ======
 
 
 
 
Income (loss)before discontinued operation         $(1,679)              $  397
Discontinued operation                                  27                    -
                                                   -------               ------
Net income (loss)                                  $(1,652)              $  397
                                                   =======               ======
 
 
 
 
Basic and Diluted Net Income (Loss) Per Share:
   Income (loss)before discontinued operation      $ (0.25)              $ 0.06
   Discontinued operation                                -                    -
                                                   -------               ------
   Net income (loss)                               $ (0.25)              $ 0.06
                                                   =======               ======
Trevor LUCAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 11-1536.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7512

BRET MICHAEL BARRON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RALPH S. BEARDSLEY; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney

General of the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-02-2109-8-23BI)

Submitted: February 9, 2004 Decided: March 16, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Dewey Elliott, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bret Michael Barron seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barron has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
Catherine Denise RANDOLPH, petitioner, v. Douglas F. GANSLER, Attorney General of Maryland, et al.

No. 12-7434.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Case 3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document 39 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 3Case 3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document 39 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 3Case 3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document 39 Filed 08/03/06 Page 3 of 3