alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 – OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

VINCENT L. WEBB,

No. 3:15-cv-02380-SB

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER 

v.

MARLON RECREATIONAL 

PRODUCTS USA, LTD., et al.,

 Defendants. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On October 4, 2016, Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued her Findings and 

Recommendation (“F&R”) [57], recommending that I deny Defendant Marty Dotterweich’s 

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction [15]. Defendant objected to the F&R [60], and 

Plaintiff responded [62]. 

DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

Case 3:15-cv-02380-SB Document 63 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 2
2 – OPINION AND ORDER 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Beckerman’s recommendations and I ADOPT 

the F&R [57] as my own. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction [15] is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this _______ day of December, 2016. 

_____________________ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN 

Chief United States District Judge 

6th

/s/ Michael W. Mosman

Case 3:15-cv-02380-SB Document 63 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains summary information extracted from the
condensed  consolidated balance sheet at June 30, 2000, and the
condensed  consolidated  statements  of income for the 3 months
ended  June  30,  2000  and 1996. Both  are  qualified in their
entirety by reference to such.
</LEGEND>


<S>                              <C>             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 MAR-31-2001     MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-2000     JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                104,894               0
<SECURITIES>                                0               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      57,425,609               0
<ALLOWANCES>                       12,448,596               0
<INVENTORY>                                 0               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            0               0
<PP&E>                                754,973               0
<DEPRECIATION>                        414,761               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     59,592,144               0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              47,810,450               0
<BONDS>                                     0               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0               0
<PREFERRED>                                 0               0
<COMMON>                            3,662,697               0
<OTHER-SE>                          8,118,997               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       59,592,144               0
<SALES>                               116,810         135,448
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    4,026,324       2,970,630
<CGS>                                  25,857          15,531
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       1,622,413       1,242,355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       27,000          24,140
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      371,710         250,678
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    835,023         623,509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     1,144,321         814,417
<INCOME-TAX>                          441,007         312,270
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   703,314         502,147
<DISCONTINUED>                              0               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0               0
<CHANGES>                                   0               0
<NET-INCOME>                          703,314         502,147
<EPS-BASIC>                               .30             .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .28             .20

        <FN>

<F1> Receivables are presented net of unearned finance charges,
     non-refundable  dealer  reserve and allowance for doubtful
     accounts.

<F2> Allowances are total reserves for credit losses, comprised
     of   non-refundable  dealer  reserve  and  allowances  for
     doubtful accounts.




</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 3.2(b)


                                AMENDMENT OF BY-LAWS
                                         OF
                          PACKAGING RESOURCES INCORPORATED


     Section 2.4 of the By-laws of the Company shall be deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following:

     "Section 2.4  SPECIAL MEETINGS. Special meetings of the Board of
Directors may be called at any time by the Chairman.  Each special meeting
shall be held at such date, time and place either within or without the State
of Delaware as shall be fixed by the Chairman."

     Section 2.6 of the By-laws of the Company shall be deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following:

     "Section 2.6  QUORUM; VOTE REQUIRED FOR ACTION. Unless otherwise
required by law, at each meeting of the Board of Directors, the presence of
one-third of the total number of directors shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that if Howard P. Hoeper does not
have authority, directly or indirectly, to appoint a majority of the
directors, the presence of all directors shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business.  The vote of a majority of the directors present at
a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of the Board of
Directors, unless the vote of a greater number is required by law or the
certificate of incorporation; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that if Howard P. Hoeper
does not have authority, directly or indirectly, to appoint a majority of the
directors, the vote of 66 2/3% of the directors shall be the act of the Board
of Directors, unless the vote of a greater number is required by law or the
certificate of incorporation.  In case at any meeting of the Board of
Directors a quorum shall not be present, the members of the Board of
Directors present may by majority vote adjourn the meeting from time to time,
without notice other than announcement at the meeting, until a quorum shall
attend."
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JUDITH TRACKWELL, 2:15-CV-02168-SU

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

 

HOSTETTER LAW GROUP, LLP;

HOSTETTER KNAPP LLP; 

D. ZACHARY HOSTETTER; 

D. RAHN HOSTETTER;

REBECCA KNAPP; AC3, INC.;

MARILYN PRESTON SUAREZ;

CHARLES WIKSTROM; and CHARLENE

WIKSTROM,

 Defendants.

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued Findings and

Recommendation (#8) on June 9, 2016, in which she recommends this

Court dismiss this matter without prejudice for failure to

effectuate service. The matter is now before this Court pursuant

1 - ORDER

Case 2:15-cv-02168-SU Document 11 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 2
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its

obligation to review the record de novo. See Dawson v. Marshall,

561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not

find any error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Findings and

Recommendation (#8). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this

matter without prejudice for failure to effectuate service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 5th day of July, 2016.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

2 - ORDER

Case 2:15-cv-02168-SU Document 11 Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Baumann *et al.*v. Gilmour.

*(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.*

June 2, 1890.)

Negligence—Evidence.

In an action for injuries to plaintiffs’ team sustained by a collision between it and defendant’s, evidence that defendant’s driver, having drawn out of a railway track to allow the passage of a car, attempted to return immediately thereafter, though the space was then occupied by plaintiffs’ light wagon, and that in making the attempt defendant’s heavy truck came in collision with it, is sufficient to sustain a finding that defendant was negligent.

Appeal from fourth district court.

Action by Leo Baumann and another against John G. Gilmour for inj uries to plaintiffs’ horse and wagon in a collision with defendant’s team. There was a judgment in plaintiff’s favor, and defendant appeals.

Argued before Larremore, G. J., and Allen and Bookstaver, JJ.

*Gruber, Bard*& *Landon,*for appellant. *Geo. Hahn,*for respondents.

Per Curiam.

The action was brought to recover damages for injuries received by pláintiffs’ horse and wagon, caused, as it is claimed, by the negligence of defendant’s servants. Appellant contends that no negligence on the part of the defendant or his servants was shown, and that negligence in such a case will not be inferred from the mere happeiiing of an accident. The latter proposition is true, but the record in this case shows such a state of facts as warranted the trial judge in finding that the collision occurred through the negligence of defendant’s servants in the absence of any explanation of them; and when this explanation was attempted it showed that the defendant’s servants, having drawn out of the railway track to allow a car to pass, immediately afterwards attempted to return to the track right after the car, as he claims he had a right to do, although the space was then occupied by plaintiffs' light wagon, and in making this attempt defendant’s heavy truck came in collision with it. We think there was sufficient evidence to warrant the justice in giving the judgment he did, and that it should be affirmed.
SAN JUAN RIVER AT FARMINGTON, NMLatitude: 36.723Longitude: -108.226Elevation: 5241

SAN JUAN RIVER AT FARMINGTON, NM

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Weminuche Creek Site Page...



Weminuche Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beartown Site Page...



Beartown

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cascade Site Page...



Cascade

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cascade #2 Site Page...



Cascade #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Idarado Site Page...



Idarado

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Middle Creek Site Page...



Middle Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mineral Creek Site Page...



Mineral Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Molas Lake Site Page...



Molas Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red Mountain Pass Site Page...



Red Mountain Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Scotch Creek Site Page...



Scotch Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Spud Mountain Site Page...



Spud Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Stump Lakes Site Page...



Stump Lakes

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Rio Grande Site Page...



Upper Rio Grande

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper San Juan Site Page...



Upper San Juan

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Vallecito Site Page...



Vallecito

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Summit Site Page...



Wolf Creek Summit

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Columbus Basin Site Page...



Columbus Basin
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 The Majestic Star Casino, LLC
and The Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp. (collectively, the "Registrant") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jon S. Bennett,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The Majestic Star Casino, LLC and
The Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the
Registrant.




By: /s/ Jon S. Bennett
   -----------------------------------------
   Jon S. Bennett, Vice President and
   Chief Financial Officer of The Majestic Star
   Casino, LLC and The Majestic Star Casino
   Capital Corp.
   Date: March 31, 2003



         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Opinion issued December 4, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 8
- 0 0 703
- CV

——————————— WALTER VARELA , Appellant

V. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON , Appellee

O n Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11 1 0 89 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Walter Varela , has failed to timely file his appella n t ’s brief. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6( a )(1), (d) , 38.8(a)(1). On November 6, 2018 , the Clerk of this
Court notified appellant that h is deadline to file h is appellant’s brief had expired and
that h is appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution if he faile d to timely2

file h is appella n t ’s brief or an extension within 10 days of the date of that notice.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3 (b). A ppellant failed to timely file a brief or request an extension

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(c). Accordingly, w e dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file an appellant’s brief

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higl ey , Lloyd , and Caughey

.
DOLORES TUNNEL OUTLET NEAR DOLORESLatitude: 37.46Longitude: -108.542Elevation: 6921

DOLORES TUNNEL OUTLET NEAR DOLORES
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                          61,296
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     47,524
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               159,324
<PP&E>                                         712,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                 568,435
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,672,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,004,062
<BONDS>                                      3,143,322
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,393,889
<COMMON>                                    12,296,098
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,433,039
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,672,692
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,666
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,242,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             273,037
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,176,108)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,001,189)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0




</TABLE>
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1844 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

to designate high priority corridors on the National Highway System 

in the State of North Carolina, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 16, 2015 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD (for himself, Mr. JONES, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. HOLDING, 

Mr. ROUZER, Ms. ADAMS, and Mr. PRICE of North Carolina) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 to designate high priority corridors on the 

National Highway System in the State of North Carolina, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Corridor 

5 Transportation Improvement Act of 2015’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 1844 IH

1 SEC. 2. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGH2 WAY SYSTEM. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal 

4 Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 

5 2032) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(81) United States Route 117/Interstate 

7 Route 795 from United States Route 70 in Golds8 boro, Wayne County, North Carolina, to Interstate 

9 Route 40 west of Faison, Sampson County, North 

10 Carolina. 

11 ‘‘(82) United States Route 70 from its intersec12 tion with Interstate Route 40 in Garner, Wake 

13 County, North Carolina, to the Port at Morehead 

14 City, Carteret County, North Carolina.’’. 

15 (b) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ROUTE SEGMENTS ON

16 INTERSTATE SYSTEM.—Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the 

17 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

18 (105 Stat. 2031; 109 Stat. 597; 115 Stat. 872; 118 Stat. 

19 293; 126 Stat. 426) is amended in the first sentence by 

20 striking ‘‘and subsection (c)(57)’’ and inserting ‘‘sub21 section (c)(57), subsection (c)(81), and subsection 

22 (c)(82)’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-60628

Summary Calendar

HADEN ABLAVI,

Petitioner,

VERSUS

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(A72 802 190)

July 17, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On February 20, 1996 the immigration judge issued his oral

decision and filed a written summary of his Order which denied

Haden’s application for asylum; denied Haden’s application for

withholding the deportation; and granted Haden’s application for

voluntary departure by May 1, 1996. On February 29, 1996 Haden
g:\opin\97-60628.opn 2

filed her notice of appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. A

brief for Haden was filed in May and a brief for the INS was filed

in August of 1996. On March 13, 1997 the Board of Immigration

Appeals issued an Order which dismissed Haden’s appeal and

concluded that the decision of the immigration judge on all matters

was correct. On April 11, 1997 Haden filed a motion to reopen and

reconsider with the Board of Immigration Appeals. On August 19,

1997 the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Haden’s motion to

reconsider. On September 17, 1997 Haden filed a petition for

review in this Court.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs and relevant portions of

the record itself. For the reasons stated by the immigration judge

in his oral Order, we are satisfied that the decision of the

immigration judge to deny application for asylum and deny the

application for withholding of deportation were supported by

substantial evidence. Likewise, we are persuaded that the Board of

Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying Haden’s

motion to reopen and reconsider. According, the petition for

review by this Court is DISMISSED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay of deportation pending

disposition of this petition for review previously granted by this

Court is lifted.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DALE T. SUNDBAKKEN,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2021-1782

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 19-4071, Judge Joseph L. Falvey 

Jr.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Law Offices of Carpenter 

Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant. 

 EVAN WISSER, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, MARTIN F. HOCKEY,

JR; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, DEREK SCADDEN, Office of General 

Case: 21-1782 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 02/08/2022
Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Washington, DC. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and 

PROST, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

February 8, 2022 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-1782 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 02/08/2022
# C_2009212EN.01001601.xml

| 5.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/16

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5496 — Vattenfall/Nuon Energy)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 212/05

On 22 June 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5496. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5496. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---