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

Calendar No. 539 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 86 

[Report No. 111–269] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 10, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AUGUST 5, 2010 

Reported by Mr. BINGAMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To eliminate an unused lighthouse reservation, provide management consistency by incorporating the rocks and small 

islands along the coast of Orange County, California, 

into the California Coastal National Monument managed 

by the Bureau of Land Management, and meet the original Congressional intent of preserving Orange County’s 

rocks and small islands, 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, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 86 RS

1 SECTION 1. PRESERVATION OF ROCKS AND SMALL IS2 LANDS ALONG THE COAST OF ORANGE COUN3 TY, CALIFORNIA. 

4 (a) CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIONAL MONUMENT.— 

5 The Act of February 18, 1931, entitled ‘‘An Act to reserve 

6 for public use rocks, pinnacles, reefs, and small islands 

7 along the seacoast of Orange County, California’’ is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘temporarily reserved’’ and all that 

9 follows through ‘‘United States’’ and inserting ‘‘part of 

10 the California Coastal National Monument and shall be 

11 administered as such’’. 

12 (b) REPEAL OF RESERVATION.—Section 31 of the 

13 Act of May 28, 1935, entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the 

14 Secretary of Commerce to dispose of certain lighthouse 

15 reservations, and for other purposes’’ is hereby repealed. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 539 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 86 

[Report No. 111–269] 

AN ACT 

To eliminate an unused lighthouse reservation, proposes. ty’s rocks and small islands, and for other pur- Congressional intent of preserving Orange Coun- reau of Land Management, and meet the original Coastal National Monument managed by the Bu- Orange County, California, into the California the rocks and small islands along the coast of vide management consistency by incorporating 

AUGUST 5, 2010 

Reported without amendment 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Ronald TURNER; Diana Turner, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS, BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-16688.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 24, 2018.*

Filed Oct. 04, 2013.

Ronald Turner, N. Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Diana Turner, N. Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Christina S. Bhirud, Esquire, Jacob D. Bundick, Esquire, Ariel Edward Stern, Esquire, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ronald and Diana Turner appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *King v. California,*784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Turners’ wrongful foreclosure and quiet title claims because the Turners failed to allege facts showing that they were not in default when defendants initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. *See Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp.,*112 Nev. 663, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (1996) (per curiam) (“In a quiet title action, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff to prove good title in himself.”); *Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*99 Nev. 284, 662 P.2d 610, 623 (1983) (wrongful foreclosure claim requires allegation that a lender exercised the power of sale or foreclosed upon property when the homeowner was not in default); *see also Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon,*286 P.3d 249, 260 (Nev.2012) (en banc) (holding that, under Nevada law, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. may be a valid beneficiary of a deed of trust and that such a designation does not irreparably split the note and the deed of trust).

The district court properly dismissed the Turners’ civil conspiracy claim after dismissing the underlying wrongful foreclosure claim. *See Eikelberger v. Tolotti,*96 Nev. 525, 611 P.2d 1086, 1088 & n. 1 (1980) (civil conspiracy claim must arise from an underlying wrongful act).

The Turners’ contentions regarding the district court’s denial of their motion to remand and application of federal, rather than state, pleading standards are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

ACTIVE DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES

Westaff
(USA), Inc.
MediaWorld International
Westaff Support, Inc.

INACTIVE DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES

Western Medical Services, Inc.
Western Medical Services (NY), Inc.

ACTIVE FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES

Australia:
Westaff (Australia) Pty Ltd

Denmark:
Westaff A/S

New
Zealand:
Westaff NZ Limited

Norway:
Westaff AS

Singapore:
Westaff (Singapore) Pte Ltd

United
Kingdom:
Westaff (U.K.)Limited
Western Staff Services (UK) Limited

INACTIVE FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES

Australia:
Western Personnel Services Pty. Ltd
Western Temporary Services Pty Limited

Mexico:
Westaff de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION





I, Fred
Zolla, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vemics, Inc;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:





a.  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b.
 evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period (the “Evaluation Date”); and





c.  
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;





5. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





a. all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and





b. any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.





6.  The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.










Vemics,
Inc.
                  (Registrant)Date:
      May 15, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Fred
      ZollaFred
      ZollaPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
Order entered March 19, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01191

- CR

DONALD LEWIS WASHING TON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. F13

- 53040

- H



### O RDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to pros ecute the appeal, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds appellant is not indigent, it shal l determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can be filed.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact,
any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRT Y DAYS of the date

of this order.
The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal
shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received,

whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS J USTICE
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHRISTOPHER M. OLSEN AND

CATHY A. OLSEN,

 Appellants,

v.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS (MERS),

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00258-CV

Appeal from

126th District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC # D-1-GN-13-003043)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appellee Mortgage Electronic Registration 

Systems’ (MERS) motion to dismiss and concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We 

therefore dismiss the appeal. We further order costs be assessed against the party incurring 

same. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice 

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge)

(Barajas, C.J., Senior Judge, sitting by assignment, not participating)
Serial: 190399

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

No. 2013-IA-00040-SCT

SAFECHOICE, INC. Appellant

v.

THE CITY OF MCCOMB, MISSISSIPPI Appellee

ORDER

Before the en banc Court is Safechoice, Inc.’s interlocutory appeal from the December

18, 2012, order of the County Court of Pike County, Mississippi, denying its “Motion for

Summary Judgment.” In its petition for interlocutory appeal, Safechoice presented two

issues:

(I) Whether SafeChoice, a foreign corporation, is able to defend this action

filed by McComb and to pursue compulsory counterclaims against

McComb, despite not having obtained a Certificate of Authority from

the Secretary of State to conduct business in the State of Mississippi?

(II) Whether the Court’s overruling of SafeChoice’s Motion for Summary

Judgment and failure to consider Request for Admission Number 4

admitted was proper?

After further review, the record reveals that the county court’s December 18 order did

not dismiss Safechoice’s counterclaims. As there is no order dismissing those claims, issue

I is not properly before the Court.

Issue II asks this Court to address a matter of discovery on interlocutory appeal. “This

Court has a history of applying strict standards for interlocutory appeals” such that “[r]arely
2

will we entertain an interlocutory appeal regarding a discovery matter.” Blossom v. Blossom,

66 So. 3d 124, 126-27 (Miss. 2011) (quoting Miss. State Bar v. Attorney L., 511 So. 2d 119,

121 (Miss.1987)). After reviewing the record and briefs presented by the parties, and in the

absence of addressing issue I, we find that this interlocutory appeal does not warrant

consideration of issue II. Accordingly, the interlocutory appeal is dismissed, with costs

assessed to Safechoice, Inc. 

SO ORDERED, this the 1 day of May, 2014. st

/s/ Michael K. Randolph

MICHAEL K. RANDOLPH, 

PRESIDING JUSTICE

FOR THE COURT

TO AGREE: ALL JUSTICES
# C_2010309EN.01000301.xml

| 13.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/3

---

State aids — Decisions to propose appropriate measures pursuant to Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty where the Member State concerned has accepted those measures

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 309/02

| Date of adoption of the decision | 28.10.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | E 2/08 |
| Member State | Austria |
| Region | Austria |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Finanzierung des öffentlichen Rundfunks (ORF) |
| Legal basis | ORF-Gesetz |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Services of general economic interest |
| Form of aid | Parafiscal levy |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 503,9 million
  Overall budget: EUR 2 519,5 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration (period) | 2008-2012 |
| Economic sectors | Media |
| Name and address of the granting authority | — |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

28.10.2009

Reference number of State Aid

E 2/08

Member State

Austria

Region

Austria

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Finanzierung des öffentlichen Rundfunks (ORF)

Legal basis

ORF-Gesetz

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Services of general economic interest

Form of aid

Parafiscal levy

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 503,9 million

Overall budget: EUR 2 519,5 million

Intensity

—

Duration (period)

2008-2012

Economic sectors

Media

Name and address of the granting authority

—

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 22

- 1215

___________________________
United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.
Kermit Clay

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________
Submitted: October 6 , 2022 Filed: October 12, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________
Before ERICKSON

, GRASZ , an d STRAS , Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kermit Clay received a 15

- year supervised

- release sentence after he violated
the release conditions previously placed on him . He challenges the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.-2- We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States
v. Perkins , 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (reviewing the reasonableness of a revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion and stating that a within

- Guidelines

range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes that the district

court 1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(c), (e)(3), (h), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judg ment. See United States v. Larison , 432 F.3d 921, 923

– 24 (8th Cir. 2006). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
No. 75-1707.

#### Ohio Bureau of Employment Services et al. *v.*Hodory.

Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ohio. Motions of Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Republic Steel Corp., and United States Steel Corp. for leave to file briefs as *amici curiae*granted. Motions of Republic Steel Corp. and United States Steel Corp. for leave to intervene denied. Motion of appellee for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Probable jurisdiction noted.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



---

Form 8-K

---



Current Report

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):05/22/2008



---

BAYLAKE CORP

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



Commission File Number:001-16339



WI
        39-1268055(State or other jurisdiction of
        (IRS Employerincorporation)
        Identification No.)




217 North Fourth Avenue, P O Box 9, Sturgeon Bay, WI 54235-0009

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)



920-743-5551

(Registrants telephone number, including area code)



(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)



---

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:



oWritten communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)



oSoliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))



oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))







---

Item 4.01. Changes in Registrants Certifying Accountant



The Companys prior independent registered public accounting firm, Crowe Chizek and Company LLC (Crowe Chizek), notified the Company on April 30, 2008 that it will resign no later than the completion of its review of the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ended March 31, 2008. A Form 8-K was filed on May 5, 2008 regarding the resignation. The review was completed on May 12, 2008 and the Companys Form 10-Q was filed on that date.



On May 20, 2008, the Audit Committee of Baylake engaged Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP (VK) as Baylakes new independent registered public accounting firm. During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, and through May 20, 2008, neither Baylake nor anyone acting on its behalf consulted with VK regarding the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, the type of audit opinion that might be rendered in the financial statements, or any matter that was either the subject of a disagreement with Crowe Chizek on accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedures, which, if not resolved to the satisfaction of Crowe Chizek, would have caused Crowe Chizek to make reference to the matter in their report, or a reportable event as described in Item 304 (a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K promulgated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.





---



Signature(s)



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





BAYLAKE CORPDate: May 22, 2008
        
        By:
        /s/    Kevin L. LaLuzerneTreasurer and Chief Financial Officer






---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-426-004]

Take notice that on May 11, 2001, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet to become effective May 11, 2001. 

First Revised Sheet No. 40

Texas Gas states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect the new negotiated rate/non-conforming contract in its tariff as required Section 154.112(b) of the Commission's regulations and as directed by Commission Letter Order dated April 27, 2001.

Texas Gas states that copies of the revised tariff sheet is being mailed to Texas Gas's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 proceedings. 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 in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-12780 Filed 5-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Form SEF: Exhibit J**

Exhibit J-Page 1

101650997