alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1086

Natural Gas Fixed Swap - MichCon - Platts Gas Daily

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the average price published by Platts Gas Daily for the 

location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the arithmetic average of the Platts 

Gas Daily MichCon published price for each calendar day of the corresponding contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each contract shall be valued 

as the contract quantity in MMBtus multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
#### Hoany G. CORTEZ, an individual, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC. and Saia Motor Freight Line, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-56356.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*247Submitted Oct. 6, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 8, 2010.

Gregg A. Farley, Esquire, Law Offices of Gregg A. Farley, Los Angeles, CA, Neal J. Fialkow, Esquire, Neal J. Fialkow Law Offices, Pasadena, CA, Sahag Majarían, Esquire, Law Offices Sahag Majarían, II, Tarzana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jesse E.M. Randolph, Esquire, Bryan Cave, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

The district court erred in failing to explain its reasons for denying the unopposed class-certification motion of plaintiff Hoany G. Cortez (“Cortez”). The district court’s conclusory assertion that this case presents “no common questions” of law or fact under Rule 23(a) falls far short of the “rigorous analysis” required in the class-certification context. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a); *Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon,*457 U.S. 147, 161, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982). Nor is this a case where the “issues [a]re so plain and the analytical framework so clear that the record,” standing alone, enables effective appellate review. *Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co.,*402 F.3d 952, 961 (9th Cir.2005). Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, the record suggests a number of possible common issues, such as whether defendant Saia Motor Freight Line, LLC maintains an official policy of refusing to reimburse workers for required footwear and whether federal OSHA regulations legitimize such a policy.1 The district court also omitted any mention of the remaining Rule 23(a) factors and did not discuss any of the prongs of Rule 23(b). *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)-(b).

The dearth of substantive analysis in the district court’s March 24, 2008 hearing and March 28, 2008 order prevents this court from engaging in “meaningful appellate review” and requires that we vacate the decision and remand for reconsideration of Cortez’s motion. *See Narcuz v. Charter Commc’ns, LLC,*591 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir.2010). Given the circumstances of this case, we are not convinced that it is necessary to reassign this case to a different judge on remand. *See United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*785 F.2d 777, 780 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam).

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

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

1

. We express no view on the merits of the underlying certification motion.
| (1)   | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Windstar, Inc. for the quarter                ended                December 31, 2007 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended December 31, 2007, fairly presents in all material                respects,                the financial condition and results of operations of Windstar,                Inc.. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Siew Mee Fam                                                                |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                |
| Name:  | Siew                Mee Fam                                                                         |
|   |                                                                                                |
| Title: | Principal                Executive Officer, Principal                Financial Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                                                |
| Date:  | February                1, 2008                                                                     |
```

[Federal Register: March 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 13587]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16mr06-36]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, April 28, 2006.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered: Surveillance matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-2615 Filed 3-14-06; 1:18 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
32.a
            
            Certification
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002


CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Ronald A. Davis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bella
Viaggio, Inc. (the "Company") certify that:





1.
I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bella Viaggio,
Inc.;





2.
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report; and





3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of,
and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.





Date:  August
14,
2008











/s/
Ronald A. Davis


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


Ronald A.
Davis,


Chief
Executive Officer


Chief
Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 16, 2019

No. 04-18-00481-CR

Dorothy A. HOLLOWAY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR0541

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. No 

further extensions of time will be granted absent extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of April, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Bella Viaggio, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth Stead, 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, to the best of my knowledge that:

1.          The
Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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 results of operations of the Company.

This
certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be
disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as
specifically required by law.

|      |              |  |     |                                                            
|----- | ------------ |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |              |  |    
|      |              |  |     |                                                            
|By:   | May 17, 2010 |  | By: | /s/ Kenneth
 Stead                                         
|      |              |  |     |                                                            
|      |              |  |     | Name:
 Kenneth Stead                                       
|      |              |  |     | Title: Chief
 Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Randolph Carpenter, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 382]—

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated September 11, 2007, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The hearing court correctly determined that the People met their burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the defendant’s designation as a level two sex offender *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly assessed 15 points for the “drug or alcohol abuse” risk factor, based on his admission that he was abusing alcohol at the time of the incident *(see People v Conway,*47 AD3d 492, 492-493 [2008]; *People v Morales,*33 AD3d 982, 983 [2006]). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court also properly assessed 20 points for the “conduct while confined/supervised” risk factor, based on evidence that while he was in custody, he was involved in, and disciplined for, inappropriate sexual behavior *(see*Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 16-17 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

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

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Lantis Laser Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Stanley B. Baron, CEO and CFO ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Stanley B. Baron

Stanley B. BaronCEO and CFODated: May 13, 2009

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Lantis Laser Inc. and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
#### Felise Garage LLC et al., Appellants, v Leonard Litwin et al., Respondents.

[874 NYS2d 89]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered February 27, 2008, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In a 2006 action, Felise Garage LLC (Felise), of which entity Jacob I. Sopher is the sole member, sued Quik Park (Leaseco II) LLC (Leaseco), of which entity Rafael Llopiz and Marathon/ Quick Park NYC LLC are sole members. The action related to Felise’s right of first refusal (ROFR) in connection with certain real property, alleged that the full terms of a proposed transaction involving the transfer of the property were being withheld, and sought injunctive relief and damages. There, the court found that Felise’s contractual ROFR was never triggered. Nonetheless, Leaseco offered Felise a ROFR, which Felise accepted but then allowed to lapse by failing to pay the requisite $20 million deposit by December 18, 2006.

On or about December 21, 2006, after Felise allowed the *417ROFR to lapse, the parties and related entities entered into the release wherein plaintiffs “unconditionally” and “irrevocably” released all claims arising out of the property, including the ROFR, and covenanted not to sue in connection therewith. Plaintiffs now seek to, inter alia, rescind the release on the ground that a material misrepresentation was made concerning the nature of benefits which would flow to Llopiz in connection with the transfer of the property.

Plaintiffs’ claims for fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and aiding and abetting those claims, are premised upon the assumption that plaintiffs had an exercisable ROFR which they were defrauded into giving up. In the absence of a contractual ROFR and given the lapse of the ROFR which was extended to them, plaintiffs cannot sustain any claims arising from its loss *(see Weinstock v Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton,*255 AD2d 508, 509 [1998]).

Moreover, the release cannot be rescinded based on fraudulent inducement as plaintiffs’ unconditional and irrevocable relinquishment is inconsistent with their present claim to have relied on an oral representation concerning the terms of the transfer *(see Citibank v Plapinger,*66 NY2d 90, 92 [1985]). Even if the release were subject to rescission, no claim for fraudulent inducement would lie as plaintiffs’ reliance upon the very issue on which the prior action was based was not reasonable *(see Eastbrook Caribe, A.V.V. v Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.,*11 AD3d 296, 297 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 844 [2005]).

We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Buckley, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.
```

[Federal Register: March 17, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 12604]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17mr97-62]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Public Information Collection Requirement

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Notice of intent to renew information collection #3038-0019:
Stocks of grain in licensed warehouses.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is planning to renew
information collection 3038-0019, Stocks of Grain in Licensed
Warehouses, which is due to expire on May 31, 1997. The information
collected is used to detect potential problem market situations.
Without this information the Commission would not be aware of the
amount of deliverable grain and ungraded grains in federally licensed
warehouses. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Commission solicits comments to:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (2) evaluate
the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
collection of information including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of
the collection of the information on those who are to respond,
including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other
forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this information collection
should contact the CFTC Clearance Officer, 1155 21st Street NW,
Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5160.
    Title: Information Concerning Warehouses.
    Control Number: 3038-0019
    Action: Extension.
    Respondents: Contract Markets.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 1,768 hours.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 11, 1997.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-6593 Filed 3-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO    INDEX ========**

----
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 amended Quarterly Report of Chay Enterprises, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the Company), on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Philip J. Dav is, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Philip J. Davis Date: April 22, 2008 Philip J. Davis Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Petition of GARY CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation, and James E. Higby, a resident of California, to perpetuate testimony.

Civ. A. No. 82-X-218.

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

Jan. 25, 1983.

Alan N. Jensen, Colorado Springs, Colo., Martin M. Ostrow, Los Angeles, Cal., Tom W. Lamm, Boulder, Colo., for petitioner.

*433Pamela N. Huitín, Dufty, Schoeriwald & Huitín, Denver, Colo., for “proposed” defendants.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

CARRIGAN, District Judge.

Petitioners have invoked Fed.R.Civ.P. 27(a) in a petition to perpetuate the testimony of twenty-four persons. They state that they anticipate filing an action against five named “proposed” defendants. The “proposed” defendants and witnesses (“respondents”) have filed both a motion for a protective order and a response to the Rule 27 petition. On December 10,1982,1 heard oral argument on the issue whether Rule 27 applies in these circumstances. At that hearing, I gave the petitioners leave to file an amended petition and gave the respondents leave to respond to that amended petition. Those additional pleadings have now been filed. After reviewing the entire file, I find that further oral argument would not materially assist in deciding this matter.

Petitioners allege that they expect to sue the proposed defendants for civil conspiracy and abuse of process in appealing a state district court’s decision. Petitioners assert that they cannot currently anticipate the damages they may incur from the “wrongful” appeal. They state, however, that they will know the extent of those damages in a few months and could then file their complaint.

Currently, there are other actions pending between the petitioners and respondents in which they are litigating issues similar to those on which discovery or perpetuation of evidence is sought through this proceeding. If the petitioners need to depose the respondents immediately, they may be able to depose them in those related cases.

Rule 27(a) proceedings are not intended as a means of discovery to ascertain facts for use in framing a complaint. *In re Boland,*79 F.R.D. 665 (D.D.C.1978); *Petition of the State of North Carolina,*68 F.R.D. 410 (S.D.N.Y.1975); *Petition of Exstein,*3 F.R.D. 242 (S.D.N.Y.1942). Admittedly, Rule 27 may be employed where the purpose is both to perpetuate testimony and discovery. *See*4 J. Moore, *Federal Practice,*¶¶ 27.07[4], 27.07[7] (2d ed.1982). But after examining the pleadings and hearing oral argument, I find and conclude here that the petitioners’ attempted invocation of Rule 27 is simply an attempt to conduct discovery before filing suit. Petitioners are not using Rule 27 to perpetuate testimony or “to prevent a failure or delay of justice.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 27(a)(3).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioners’ request for an order allowing them to take Rule 27(a) depositions is denied and this proceeding is dismissed. Each party shall bear his, her, or its own costs. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
Order entered August 14, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01259-CR

CHRISTOPHER ALAN LUPER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 062211

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s second motion to continue oral argument. We DENY the 

motion without prejudice to counsel waiving oral argument.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE