alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-0080

Filed September 28, 2016

DUANE M. HUFFER AND HUFFER LAW, P.L.C.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

MINNESOTA LAWYERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SUSAN 

CALHOUN, PATRICK GIBBS, AND SUSAN PARKS,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James C. Ellefson, 

Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal an adverse grant of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

AFFIRMED.

Duane M. Huffer of Huffer Law, P.L.C., Ames, for appellants.

Kevin J. Driscoll and Kellen B. Bubach of The Finley Law Firm, P.C., Des 

Moines, for appellees.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.
2

MCDONALD, Judge.

Duane Huffer, a lawyer, ceased employment with his father’s law firm, 

Huffer Law, P.L.C., in 2013. Huffer and his spouse, Angela Doss, also a lawyer, 

representing themselves and Huffer Law, filed this suit against Minnesota 

Lawyers Mutual and several of its employees, among a host of others.

1

 The 

plaintiffs’ claims against Minnesota Lawyers Mutual and its employees arise out 

of the insurance company’s removal of Huffer as an insured on Huffer Law’s 

malpractice insurance policy, done at Huffer Law’s direction, after Huffer was no 

longer associated with the firm. The petition was prolix, rambling, incoherent, 

irrational, and failed to set forth any facts supporting a non-frivolous legal claim 

against Minnesota Mutual or its employees. See generally Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.413 

(“Counsel’s signature to every motion, pleading, or other paper shall be deemed 

a certificate that: counsel has read the motion, pleading, or other paper; that to 

the best of counsel’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable 

inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith 

argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and that it is 

not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or cause an 

unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”). The district 

court granted the insurance company defendants’ motion to dismiss on the 

grounds that the plaintiffs have asserted no cognizable legal claim and that the 

employee defendants were not subject to personal jurisdiction. “The case is 

 

1 Neither Huffer nor Doss was associated with Huffer Law at the time the petition was 

filed and had no authority to act for it or file suit. Huffer and Doss also named Huffer 

Law as a defendant in this case, which means Huffer and Doss were representing Huffer

Law, without authorization, at the same time they were adverse to Huffer Law. 
3

utterly without merit, and the judgment is affirmed.” Alvord v. Alvord, 80 N.W. 

306, 307 (Iowa 1899); see Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d), (e). 

AFFIRMED.
Geovanny Antonio LOYOLA-VILLEGAS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5182

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRENT K. POLLITT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

CASA GRANDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL 

DISTRICT NO. 82; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16370

D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00383-RM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Rosemary Marquez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2017**

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

Brent K. Pollitt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his action alleging federal and state law claims relating to his termination. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-16370 

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 

F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Pollitt’s claim under Arizona’s 

blacklisting statute because Pollitt failed to allege facts sufficient to state a 

plausible claim. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 23-1361 (elements of blacklisting); Hebbe, 

627 F.3d at 341-42 (to avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face). The 

district court also properly dismissed Pollitt’s conspiracy to blacklist claim, alleged

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because “a claim for violation of state law is not 

cognizable under § 1983.” Cornejo v. County of San Diego, 504 F.3d 853, 855 n.3 

(9th Cir. 2007).

The district court properly dismissed Pollitt’s remaining claims arising from 

his termination because the state administrative proceedings had preclusive effect. 

See Olson v. Morris, 188 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1999) (“In Arizona, the failure

to seek judicial review of an administrative order precludes collateral attack of the 

order in a separate complaint.”).
3 15-16370 

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett 

v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
Report of Independent Auditors


To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
Concert Investment Series

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of 
the Concert Investment Series (comprising, respectively, the 
Emerging Growth Fund, Government Fund, Growth Fund, Growth and 
Income Fund, International Equity Fund and Municipal Bond Fund) for 
the year ended October 31, 1998, we considered its internal 
control, including control activities for safeguarding securities, 
in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of 
expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to comply 
with the requirements of Form N-SAR, and not to provide assurance 
on the internal control.

The management of Concert Investment Series is responsible for 
establishing and maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this 
responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required 
to assess the expected benefits and related costs of controls.  
Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the 
entity's objective of preparing financial statements for external 
purposes that are fairly presented in conformity with generally 
accepted accounting principles.  Those controls include the 
safeguarding of assets against unauthorized acquisition, use or 
disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or 
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any 
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to the 
risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in conditions 
or that the effectiveness of the design and operation may 
deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily 
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material 
weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute of 
Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a condition 
in which the design or operation of one or more of the specific 
internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low 
level the risk that errors or fraud in amounts that would be 
material in relation to the financial statements being audited may 
occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in 
the normal course of performing their assigned functions.  However, 
we noted no matters involving internal control and its operation, 
including controls for safeguarding securities, that we consider to 
be material weaknesses as defined above at October 31, 1998.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the 
board of trustees and management of Concert Investment Series and 
the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be 
and should not be used by anyone other than these specified 
parties.



								ERNST & YOUNG LLP

December 15, 1998
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
 I, W. Anderson Geater, Jr., certify that:
 1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Origen Financial, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrant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)), and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(g)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
   /s/ W. Anderson Geater, Jr.
    
    Dated: November 3, 2006W. Anderson Geater, Jr.,Chief Financial Officer of Origen Financial, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1207 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1207

                 For the relief of Allan Bolor Kelley.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2013

  Mr. Waxman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 For the relief of Allan Bolor Kelley.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ALLAN BOLOR KELLEY.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Allan Bolor Kelley shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Allan Bolor Kelley enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall 
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Allan Bolor Kelley, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Allan Bolor 
Kelley shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
# Official Journal C 46/28 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 46 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6528 January 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 46

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6528 January 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 46/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 46/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2022/C 46/02 | Corrigendum to Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections ( OJ C 460, 12.11.2021 ) | 22 |

Corrigenda

2022/C 46/02

Corrigendum to Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections ( OJ C 460, 12.11.2021 )

( OJ C 460, 12.11.2021 )

22

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, July 12, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Fred Smith at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3087.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held Tuesday, July 12, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Fred Smith. For more information, please contact Fred Smith at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3087, or write TAP Office,                           ( print page 35851)                        1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

Dated: June 7, 2022.

Kevin Brown,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2022-12634 Filed 6-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Seferino MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6287

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Charles DONELSON, Petitioner, v. Darrise HARDY, et al.

No. 19-6447

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until February 3, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated financial statements for the nine month period ended
September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,354
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,910
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,828
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,863
<PP&E>                                         531,850
<DEPRECIATION>                               (133,736)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 617,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          100,068
<BONDS>                                        214,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           294
<OTHER-SE>                                     225,766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   617,256
<SALES>                                        705,568
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               705,568
<CGS>                                          643,091
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  659,159
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,297
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,489
<INCOME-TAX>                                       683
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,806
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,806
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
Lisa FISHER, Petitioner v. Bessie HUCKABEE; and Lisa Fisher, Petitioner v. Bessie Huckabee, et al.

No. 18-1562

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied.
# C_2018067EN.01000401.xml

| 22.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/4

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.8480 — Praxair/Linde)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 67/06)

On 16 February 2018, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

1

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8480 — Praxair/Linde, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---