alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

TOMKINSON DODGE, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-174

)

ENCLOSED AUTO TRANSPORTS, LLC, )

and TERELL JONES, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was filed in this Court on May 29, 2013, based on diversity jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 1.) The Complaint alleges that “Enclosed Auto

Transports, LLC (“Enclosed Auto”) is a Missouri limited liability company with its principal

place of business in St. Louis, Missouri,” and that, “[u]pon information and belief, all the

members of Enclosed Auto are citizens of Missouri.” (Compl. ¶¶ 2-3.) 

The Complaint, however, is inadequate as to the citizenship of Defendant Enclosed Auto. 

Because Enclosed Auto is a limited liability company, its citizenship “for purposes of . . .

diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729,

731 (7th Cir. 1998). Although Plaintiff appears to recognize this fact, alleging that “all the

members of Enclosed Auto are citizens of Missouri,” it makes that allegation based on

“information and belief.” (Compl. ¶ 3.) 

But it is well-settled 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,

1

case 1:13-cv-00174-RLM-RBC document 6 filed 06/03/13 page 1 of 2
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., Inc., 142 F.R.D. 150, 152 (N.D.

Ill. 1992). Consequently, Plaintiff must amend its Complaint to allege the citizenship of all the

members of Enclosed Auto on personal knowledge rather than on information and belief. 

And, rather than merely alleging that all of Enclosed Auto’s members are citizens of

Missouri without identifying them, Plaintiff should affirmatively allege who Enclosed Auto’s

members are and what their citizenship is. This citizenship must then be “traced through

multiple levels” for those members of Enclosed Auto who are a partnership or a limited liability

company, as anything less can result in a dismissal or remand for want of jurisdiction. Mut.

Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). 

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

Complaint on or before June 17, 2013, properly alleging on personal knowledge all the members

of Defendant Enclosed Auto Transports, LLC, and their citizenship.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 3rd day of June, 2013.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2

case 1:13-cv-00174-RLM-RBC document 6 filed 06/03/13 page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                            9362
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             711
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     135710
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         217711
<ALLOWANCE>                                       2634
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  372642
<DEPOSITS>                                      211339
<SHORT-TERM>                                     25783
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               3268
<LONG-TERM>                                      93625
<COMMON>                                          4284
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       34343
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  372642
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   4871
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 2154
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    13
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  7038
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                2152
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3628
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             3410
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      150
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 290
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1559
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2281
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        2281
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1803
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.20
<LOANS-NON>                                        826
<LOANS-PAST>                                      2021
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  2490
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       70
<RECOVERIES>                                        64
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 2634
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              2634
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           1021
        

</TABLE>
[Cite as State v. Folino , 2021-Ohio-1451.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,

- vs -

MICHAEL FOLINO, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2020-12-132

D E C I S I O N 4/26/2021

APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2020-09-1247

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Governme nt Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee Engel & Martin, LLC, Mary K. Mart in, 4660 Duke Drive, Suite 101 , Mason, Ohio 45040, for appellant

Per Curiam. {¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal fil ed by appellant, Michael Folino, the transcript of the docket and jou rnal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review ofButler CA2020-12-132 the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any err ors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record i ndependently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and wit hout infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to w ithdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellan t. {¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no res ponse having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal i s dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

PIPER, P.J., M. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.
---

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Marchand Snyman, Chief Financial Officer of Northern Dynasty
Minerals Ltd. (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, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)         
 The Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and

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



| | By:    | /s/ M.
      Snyman    
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Name:  | Marchand Snyman        
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                        
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | March 31, 2010         



This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
40-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
40-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
##### 



Exhibit 10.40
 
 Amendment No. 1 Licensor Licensee party parties
  License Agreement
   Amendment to Section 7.08 of the License Agreement
 Guaranteed Minimum Royalties Guaranteed Minimum Royalties 2007 Guaranteed Minimum Royalty provided




---



##### 



Calendar Year
    
    AmountCalendar year ending December 31, 2007
    
    $9,000,000, plus interest on any amount thereof paid after December 1, 2007, from December 1, 2007 until the date of payment at the following interest rates:From December 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 - the then current prime rate as quoted in The Wall Street Journal(the Prime Rate) plus 3% per annum;From January 1, 2008 through January 31, 2008 - the then current Prime Rate plus 3.5% per annum;From February 1, 2008 through February 29, 2008 - the then current Prime Rate plus 4.0% per annum; andFrom and after March 1, 2008 - the then current Prime Rate plus 4.5% per annum.Calendar year ending December 31, 2008
    
    $
    9,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2009
    
    $
    9,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2010
    
    $
    18,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2011
    
    $
    18,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2012
    
    $
    18,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2013
    
    $
    22,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2014
    
    $
    22,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2015
    
    $
    22,000,000Calendar year ending December 31, 2016
    
    $
    22,000,000Every calendar year thereafter during the Term
    
    The Guaranteed Minimum Royalty for the immediately previous calendar year plus five percent (5%)
 Amendment to Section 7.13 of the License Agreement
 Late Payments provided
 2




---



##### 



Effect of Amendment
 Governing Law
 Execution in Counterparts
  3




---



##### 



LICENSOR
ELVIS PRESLEY ENTERPRISES, INC.By:
    /s/ Thomas P. BensonName:
    Thomas P. BensonTitle:
    Executive Vice President and TreasurerLICENSEE
FX LUXURY REALTY, LLCBy:
    FX Real Estate and Entertainment Inc.,Managing MemberBy:
    /s/ Paul C. KanavosName:
    Paul C. KanavosTitle:
    President
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1778 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1778

           To suspend temporarily the duty on Foramsulfuron.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2005

 Mr. Hulshof introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on Foramsulfuron.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FORAMSULFURON.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.52      Benzamide, 2-       Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (((((4,6-                                                          31/2008
                         dimethoxy- 2-
                         pyrimidinyl)amino
                         )carbonyl)-
                         amino)sulfonyl)-4-
                         (formylamino)-
                         N,N-dimethyl-
                         (foramsulfuron)
                         (CAS No. 173159-
                         57-4), in bulk or
                         put up in forms
                         or packaging for
                         retail sale
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2935.00.75 or
                         3808.30.15)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jack Scott et al., Appellants, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 61888.)

— Judgment of the Court of Claims dated August 3, 1983, affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated in the memorandum decision of Lengyel, J. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION & ORDER October 2012

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

 

 Plaintiff(s), 

v.

 

 Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: _______________

APPLICATION FOR

ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY

PRO HAC VICE

(CIVIL LOCAL RULE 11-3) 

I, , an active member in good standing of the bar of 

 , hereby respectfully apply for admission to practice pro hac vice in the 

Northern District of California representing: in the 

above-entitled action. My local co-counsel in this case is __________________________________, an 

attorney who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who maintains an office 

within the State of California. 

MY ADDRESS OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S ADDRESS OF RECORD:

MY TELEPHONE # OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S TELEPHONE # OF RECORD:

MY EMAIL ADDRESS OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S EMAIL ADDRESS OF RECORD:

I am an active member in good standing of a United States Court or of the highest court of 

another State or the District of Columbia, as indicated above; my bar number is: . 

A true and correct copy of a certificate of good standing or equivalent official document from said 

bar is attached to this application.

I agree to familiarize myself with, and abide by, the Local Rules of this Court, especially the 

Standards of Professional Conduct for attorneys and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Local Rules. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated: 

APPLICANT

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application of is granted, 

subject to the terms and conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate 

appearance pro hac vice. Service of papers upon, and communication with, local co-counsel 

designated in the application will constitute notice to the party.

Dated: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MAQUET CARDIOVASCULAR LL

16-cv-07213

SAPHENA MEDICAL, INC., et al.

Christopher C. Ziegler Christopher C. Ziegler Christopher C. Ziegler Western Dist N. Carolina Plaintiff, Maquet Cardiovascular LLC

Alston & Bird LLP, Bank of Am. Plaza, Ste.

4000, 101 S. Tryon St., Charlotte, NC 28280

Alston & Bird LLP, 1950 University Ave.,

5th Fl., East Palo Alto, CA 94303 (704) 444-1000 (650) 838-2000 Chris.Ziegler@alston.com Xavier.Brandwajn@alston.com46519 01/11/17 Xavier M. Brandwajn January 12, 2017.

Case 3:16-cv-07213-WHA Document 27 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.65


 


 


Loan Agreement between Barbara A. Caulfield
and Affymetrix, Inc.


 


As part of the
Employment Offer dated July 16, 2001, Affymetrix, Inc. agrees to loan Barbara
A. Caulfield $1,200,000.00 for a term of four years or to the date Barbara A.
Caulfield leaves Affymetrix, Inc., which ever comes first.  The loan term begins the day the loan is
disbursed.  The rate of interest is at
the IRS imputed interest rate on the first day of the term of the loan.


 


Barbara A.
Caulfield will begin paying accrued interest 2 years after the first day of the
term of the loan.


 


 


	
  /s/ GREGORY T. SCHIFFMAN

  	
   

  	
  /s/ BARBARA A. CAULFIELD

  	
   

  
	
  Gregory T. Schiffman

  	
  Barbara A. Caulfield

  
	
  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

  	
  EVP & General Counsel

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:  January 7, 2004
DENIED and Opinion Filed August 28, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-20-00662-CV

No. 05-20-00689-CV

IN RE RODNEY DEAN BETHANY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. W04-00122-W(C) & W04-00123-W(C)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Evans

Opinion by Justice Molberg

In these original proceedings, relator Rodney Dean Bethany filed a July 7, 

2020 notice of petition for writ of mandamus and a July 20, 2020 petition for writ of 

mandamus. In both filings, relator seeks the Court’s assistance to compel the trial 

court to complete tasks assigned to it by the court of criminal appeals in a remand of 

an article 11.07 habeas writ proceeding. We deny relief.

The court of criminal appeals remanded to the trial court relator’s 11.07 

habeas applications “to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiary investigation 

and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law.” See Ex parte Bethany, No. WR69,480-07, 2019 WL 2362007, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. June 5, 2019) (order). Relator 
–2–

complains that the trial court’s deliberations are taking too long despite receiving 

numerous reminders from the court of criminal appeals.

Our mandamus jurisdiction does not extend to ordering a trial court to rule on 

matters associated with a pending article 11.07 writ application. Padieu v. Court of 

Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117–18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see 

also In re Ward, No. 12-15-00142-CR, 2015 WL 3505189, at *1 (Tex App.—Tyler 

June 3, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re 

Hamilton, No. 03-13-00384-CV, 2013 WL 3336839, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin June 

26, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op).

Because we lack jurisdiction over the habeas proceeding for which relator 

seeks our assistance, we deny his notice of petition for writ of mandamus and his 

petition for writ of mandamus. 

200662f.p05

2000689f.p05

/Ken Molberg//

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11252]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

49 CFR Part 821


Aviation Rules of Practice; General Revisions

AGENCY: National Transportation Safety Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This revision corrects an inadvertent change. By Federal 
Register notice published November 15, 1994 (59 FR 59042), the Safety 
Board revised a number of its rules of practice, including 49 CFR 
821.48(e). The Board inadvertently failed to retain a part of that 
rule. This notice reinstates the sentence that was dropped.

DATES: The new rule is effective on May 12, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane F. Mackall, (202) 382-6540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective January 17, 1995, the Safety Board 
implemented numerous revisions to its rules of practice. The rule at 49 
CFR 821.48(e) was revised to permit the filing, subsequent to briefs, 
of citations to supplemental authorities. Unintentionally, the 
paragraph did not retain then-current language prohibiting other 
briefs, unless authorized on a showing of good cause. To avoid any 
future misinterpretation, by this notice, that sentence is reinstated.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 821

    Administrative practice and procedure, Airmen, Aviation safety.

    Accordingly, 49 CFR Part 821 is amended as set forth below.

PART 821--RULES OF PRACTICE IN AIR SAFETY PROCEEDINGS

    1. The authority citation for Part 821 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Title VI, Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended 
(49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.); Independent Safety Board Act of 1974, 
Pub.L. 93-633, 88 Stat. 2166 (49 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), and FAA Civil 
Penalty Administrative Assessment Act of 1992, Pub.L. 102-345 (49 
U.S.C. 46301), unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 821.48 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:

Sec. 821.48  Briefs and oral argument.

* * * * *

    (e) Other briefs. Subsequent to brief filing, parties may file 
citations to supplemental authorities. This procedure may be used only 
for identifying new, relevant decisions, not to correct omissions in 
briefing or to respond to a reply. No argument may be included in such 
filings. Parties shall submit, with any decision, a reference to the 
page of the brief to which the decision pertains. Any response shall be 
filed within 10 days and shall be similarly limited. With this 
exception, no further briefs may be filed, except with specific 
permission of the Board and on a showing of good cause.

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on this 2nd day of May, 1995.

Daniel D. Campbell,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 95-11252 Filed 5-11-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
#### BESSEMER COAL, IRON & LAND CO. V. DOAK.

*Damages for Personal Injury.*

(Decided July 2, 1907.)

Appeal from Bibb Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. B. M. Miller.

Percy & Benners, for appellant.

B. M. Allen, and Lavender & Thompson, for appellee.

Simpson, J.

Reversed and remanded on the authority of *Bessemer Coal, Iron & Land Co. v.*Doak, 152 Ala. —, 44 South. 627.

Tyson, C. J., Haralson and Denson, JJ., concur..