alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN HENRY RYSKAMP,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-73059

Tax Ct. No. 8888-13

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted June 14, 2016** 

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

John Henry Ryskamp appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing

his petition challenging the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of

tax deficiency for tax year 2010 for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction

under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion, Noli v.

FILED

JUN 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Comm’r, 860 F.2d 1521, 1527 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Ryskamp’s petition

for failure to prosecute because Ryskamp failed to appear for trial twice and failed

to offer any excuse for his absence. See id. (noting “dismissal for failure properly

to prosecute will normally arise where a party fails to appear at trial”); Edelson v.

Comm’r, 829 F.2d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1987) (no abuse of discretion in dismissing

petition where taxpayer failed to produce records, failed to enter into a stipulation

of facts, and failed to appear for trial); see also T.C. R. 123(b) (Tax Court may

dismiss a case and enter a decision against a petitioner where the petitioner fails to

prosecute or proceed as required by the Tax Court), T.C. R. 149(a) (Tax Court may

dismiss a case for failure to prosecute where the petitioner’s absence from trial is

unexcused).

We reject as meritless Ryskamp’s contention that the Tax Court illegally

transferred the action to the Appeals Office.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-73059
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 3:13-cv-01276-PPS

 )

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official )

capacity as Secretary, United States )

Department of Health and Human Services, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL

On Friday, December 20, 2013, I entered an order denying Notre Dame’s motion for a

preliminary injunction against enforcement of the part of the Affordable Care Act that requires

employers to provide employees with health insurance that covers contraceptive services. (DE

40.) Within an hour, Notre Dame had filed its notice of interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and a motion for a preliminary injunction pending appeal. (DE 43, 41.)

Nothing had changed within that short span of time. I remain persuaded of my analysis of the

issues. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c) authorizes the trial court to grant an injunction pending an appeal of

the denial of an injunction. The appellate court has the same power under Rule 62(g). “[A]n

application with regard to an injunction ordinarily must be made in the first instance to the

district court under Rule 62(c) and it is only if relief is not obtained there that the appellate court

will consider acting under Rule 62(g).” Wright, Miller, et al., 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2904

(3d ed. 2013).

case 3:13-cv-01276-PPS-CAN document 49 filed 12/23/13 page 1 of 2
Notre Dame’s cursory motion offers no new arguments, relying entirely on its briefing

and oral argument in support of its earlier request for a preliminary injunction. (DE 42 at 2.) 

The same standard for preliminary injunctive relief is cited. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers,

Inc., 233 F.3d 456, 461 (7th Cir. 2000). I have already concluded, after as thorough an analysis

as I was able to muster, that the “low likelihood of Notre Dame’s success on the merits tips the

sliding scale towards denial of the preliminary injunction that Notre Dame seeks.” (DE 40 at

39.) The same conclusion precludes my issuance of the requested preliminary injunction pending

appeal. I will deny Notre Dame’s motion, and the university is of course free to request the same

relief from the Seventh Circuit. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff University of Notre Dame’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal

(DE 41) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: December 23, 2013

/s/ Philip P. Simon 

Philip P. Simon, Chief Judge

United States District Court

2

case 3:13-cv-01276-PPS-CAN document 49 filed 12/23/13 page 2 of 2
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12427]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. GT95-37-000]

Mississippi River Transmission Corp.; Notice of Proposed 
Flowthrough of Account No. 858 Refund

May 16, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 10, 1995, Mississippi River Transmission 
Corporation (MRT) submitted worksheets reflecting the proposed 
flowthrough of an Account No. 858 refund received by MRT from Natural 
Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    MRT states that subject to the receipt of Commission approval it 
proposes to refund by check on June 30, 1995 each customer's respective 
portion of the refund including interest through June 29, 1995.
    MRT states that a copy of this filing is being mailed to each of 
MRT's former jurisdictional sales customers and the state commissions 
of Arkansas, Illinois and Missouri.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 
All such motions or protests should be filed on or before May 23, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12427 Filed 5-19-95;8:45am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

KEITH BAXTER ALEXANDER,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

 State.

 

§

§

§

 

§

§

§ 

 

§

'

'

No. 08-14-00102-CR

Appeal from the

371st Judicial District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas 

(TC# 1337633D)

 O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief until 

July 3, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE STATE’S

BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Charles M. Mallin, the State’s Attorney, prepare the 

State’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before July 3, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4

th day of June, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

SHERESE ABRAMS,

 Petitioner

 v.

PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 499 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
Richard P. RUSSELL, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9709.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices of meetings published under

the ‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (Pub.

L. 94-409) 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3).

Sunshine Act Meetings Federal Register

26771

Vol.60, No. 96

Thursday, May 18, 1995

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, May 23, 1995

at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington,

D.C.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to

the public.

ITEM TO BE DISCUSSED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

§ 437g.

Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C.

§ 437g, § 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.

Matters concerning participation in civil

actions or proceedings or arbitration.

Internal personnel rules and procedures or

matters affecting a particular employee.

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, May 24,

1995 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington,

D.C. (Ninth Floor).

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the

Public.

ITEM TO BE DISCUSSED:

Future Meetings.

Correction and Approval of Minutes.

Presidential Primary and General Election

Regulations: Draft Final Rules and

Explanation and Justification (continued

from meeting of May 17, 1995).

Administrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer,

Telephone: (202) 219–4155.

Marjorie W. Emmons,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–12336 Filed 5–16–95; 11:05 am]

BILLING CODE 6715–01–M
----

----

| A.   | TRIO grants CPM a ninety (90) day non-exclusive right to earn a 40% undivided interest in the Claims as outlined in the Option Agreement. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| B.   | CPM understands and agrees that TRIO, by extending the time for CPM to fulfill its obligation, will seek funding by either a 3td party Joint Venture (exclusive of CPM) or by capital equity of shares. CPM further acknowledges that In the event that TRIO is successful in obtaining the funds to commence a drill program prior to CPM having contributed itsrequired capital of one million U.S. dollars, the rights of CPM to earn an interest in TRIO's Claims shall terminate without further notice, unless the Parties hereto agree to new terms for CPM to continue to earn an interest in the Claims. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| C.   | TRlO, for granting this Extended Agreement, will receive from CPM a total of 300,000 common shares of CPM subject to SEC Rule 144, to be issued immediately. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| D.   | CPM and TRIO acknowledge that, at TRIO's option, it may extend the terms of this Extended Agreement beyond the 90 day period. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| E.   | CPM acknowledges that its option to earn an interest through this Extended Agreement shall be 40%, not 45% as stated in the Option Agreement and that by completing a bankable feasibility it may increase its interest to 70%, not 75%. All other terms and conditions of the Option Agreement shall remain. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| For Coastal Pacific Mining Corp/s/ Joe Bucci         |
|------------------------------------------------------|
| Joe BucciCorporate Manager                      |
| for TRIO GOLD CORP./s/  Harry Ruskowsky    |
| Harry RuskowskyPresident and Chief Executive Officer |

----
EXHIBIT
32


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 Emerging Media Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Iurie Bordian, Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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: (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/ Iurie
      BordianIurie
      BordianChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


November
10, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOSE SHABARA,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF

PROBATION AND PAROLE,

Appellee :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 35 EAP 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of February, 2019

, the Application for Summary Relief is

GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                         162,225
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  289,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,935
<INVENTORY>                                    151,952
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               619,959
<PP&E>                                         311,308
<DEPRECIATION>                                 199,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 743,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          477,699
<BONDS>                                         95,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           943
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,475<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   743,168
<SALES>                                      1,680,679
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,680,679
<CGS>                                        1,482,751
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,482,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               174,311<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,444
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,269
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,175
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,175
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
<FN>
<F1>OTHER SE INCLUDES ADDITIONAL PAID-IN CAPITAL OF $878,019 UNREALIZED GAIN ON
INVESTMENTS IN EQUITY SECURITIES OF $13,234, AND ACCUMULATED DEFICIT OF         .
$771,778.
<F2>OTHER EXPENSES INCLUDE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF $110,285 AND SELLING,
GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF $52,958, AND STOCK COMPENSATION EXPENSE OF
$11,068.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 21214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10645]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 93F-0050]


E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.; Withdrawal of Food Additive 
Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
withdrawal, without prejudice to future filing, of a food additive 
petition (FAP 3B4360) proposing that the food additive regulations be 
amended to provide for the safe use of perfluoroalkylethyl acrylate 
copolymer, produced by the copolymerization of perfluoroalkylethyl 
acrylate, octadecyl methacrylate, vinylidene chloride, 2-hydroxyethyl 
methacrylate and polyoxyethylene methacrylate, as an oil and water 
repellant in paper and paperboard intended for food-contact use.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hortense S. Macon, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-216), Food and Drug Administration, 
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3086.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal 
Register of March 12, 1993 (58 FR 13603), FDA announced that a food 
additive petition (FAP 3B4360) had been filed by E. I. Du Pont de 
Nemours and Co., Du Pont Chemicals, Jackson Laboratory, Chamber Works, 
Deepwater, NJ 08023. The petition proposed to amend the food additive 
regulations in Sec. 176.170 Components of paper and paperboard in 
contact with aqueous and fatty foods (21 CFR 176.170) to provide for 
the safe use of perfluoroalkylethyl acrylate copolymer, produced by the 
copolymerization of perfluoroalkylethyl acrylate, octadecyl 
methacrylate, vinylidene chloride, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, and 
polyoxyethylene methacrylate, as an oil and water repellant in paper 
and paperboard intended for food-contact use. Du Pont has now withdrawn 
the petition without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 171.7).

    Dated: April 11, 1995.
Alan M. Rulis,
Acting Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 95-10645 Filed 4-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

GEORGE SHOUN, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

 vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-463 RLM 

)

BEST FORMED PLASTICS, INC., )

 )

Defendant )

ORDER

Noting that nothing remains pending in this action, the court DIRECTS the

Clerk to enter judgment for Best Formed Plastics, Inc. based on the granting of the

company’s summary judgment motion on September 10, 2015. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: September 14, 2015 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, United States District Court

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00463-RLM document 71 filed 09/14/15 page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40473

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSÉ FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ-MADURAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-97-CR-9-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 10, 1998

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

José Francisco Hernandez-Maduran appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for reentry after deportation in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that he was charged with

and pleaded guilty to simple reentry under § 1326(a) and that he

could not be sentenced under § 1326(b)(2) because the indictment

did not allege that he had a prior aggravated-felony conviction. 

His argument is foreclosed by this court’s opinion in United

States v. Vasquez-Olvera, 999 F.2d 943, 946-47 (5th Cir. 1993). 
No. 97-40473

-2-

AFFIRMED.
James Edward THORNBERG, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10170.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(S)

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                    THE DIAL CORPORATION AMENDED AND RESTATED
                      DIRECTORS DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
               (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2002)

         WHEREAS, The Dial Corporation (the "Company") has entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of December 14, 2003 by and among the
Company, Henkel KGaA and Henkel Merger Corporation (the "Merger Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, upon consummation of the merger pursuant to the Merger
Agreement (the "Effective Time"), each share of the Company's common stock (a
"Share") will be converted into the right to receive $28.75 in cash, without
interest, subject to any applicable withholding taxes, and the Shares will no
longer be publicly traded; and

         WHEREAS, under Section 8.2 of The Dial Corporation Amended and Restated
Directors Deferred Compensation Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective January
1, 2002) (the "Plan"), the Company has the powers described therein to amend the
Plan;

         THEREFORE, on December 14, 2003, and effective as of that date, the
Board of Directors has taken action with respect to, and has amended, the Plan
as follows:

1. Effective as of the Effective Time, in accordance with the action taken by
the Company's chief executive officer under Section 6.7 of the Plan, the
individual or individuals who are selected by the Surviving Corporation (as
defined in the Merger Agreement) or its designee to serve as the Plan
Administrator of the Plan from and after the Effective Time are hereby approved.

2. Subject to obtaining any necessary consents from "Participants" and
"Beneficiaries" under the Plan (as such terms are defined therein), the Plan is
hereby amended to provide that "Deferral Amounts" for the "Plan Year" beginning
January 1, 2004, and subsequent Plan Years, shall be credited one hundred
percent (100%) to the respective Participants' "Cash Accounts" (as such terms
are defined in the Plan).

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing was executed as of the 14th day of
December, 2003.

                               THE DIAL CORPORATION



                               /s/ Bernhard J. Welle
                               ---------------------------------------------
                               By: Bernhard J. Welle
                               Its:Executive Vice President-Shared Services
Brian M. CASEY, Appellant, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 1D18-5277

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 29, 2019 Rehearing Denied July 03, 2019

Brian M. Casey, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

*687DISMISSED . *See**Villareal v. Craig* , 813 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) ; *Sciabbarrasi v. Uddo* , 466 So.2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (holding an order denying leave to amend an answer/counterclaim is not appealable).

Lewis, Wetherell, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Mirwais MOHAMADI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-7388.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

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