alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DIEMER & WEI, LLP

Kathryn S. Diemer (#133977)

100 West San Fernando Street, Suite 555

San Jose, CA 95113

Telephone: 408-971-6270 

Facsimile: 408-971-6271

Email: kdiemer@diemerwei.com 

WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP

Matthew A. Feldman (pro hac vice)

Joseph G. Minias (pro hac vice)

Benjamin P. McCallen (pro hac vice)

Daniel I. Forman (pro hac vice)

787 Seventh Avenue

New York, NY 10019-6099

Telephone: (212) 728-8000

Facsimile: (212) 728-8111

Email: mfeldman@willkie.com

jminias@willkie.com

dforman@willkie.com

Counsel for Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim Holders

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION,

- and -

Bankruptcy Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case) (Jointly Administered)

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 

BETWEEN BARBARA ZELMER AND 

ROBERT ZELMER AND AD HOC GROUP 

OF SUBROGATION CLAIM HOLDERS 

EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO 

BARBRA ZELMER AND ROBERT 

ZELMER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

THE AUTOMATIC STAY

 

Re: Dkt. No. 2183

[No Hearing Requested]

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Debtors.

 Affects PG&E Corporation

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

 Affects both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in the lead case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM)

Signed and Filed: June 5, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

June 06, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2427 Filed: 06/05/19 Entered: 06/06/19 11:59:19 Page 1 of

 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

The Court having considered the Stipulation Between Barbara Zelmer and Robert Zelmer

and Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim Holders Extending Time to Respond to Barbara 

Zelmer and Robert Zelmer’s Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (“Stipulation”), entered 

into by Barbara Zelmer and Robert Zelmber (collectively, the “Zelmers”), on the one hand, and 

the Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim Holders (the “Ad Hoc Subrogation Group”), on the 

other hand, filed on June 4, 2019; and, pursuant to such stipulation and agreement of the Parties, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The time for the Ad Hoc Subrogation Group to file and serve any response or 

opposition to the Lift Stay Motion (as defined in the Stipulation) is extended through 4:00 p.m. 

(Pacific Time) on June 20, 2019.

**END OF ORDER**

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2427 Filed: 06/05/19 Entered: 06/06/19 11:59:19 Page 2 of

 2
Exhibit 10.10

 

FORM OF

JOINDER AGREEMENT

 

June [   ], 2016

 

[      ], a [        ] (the “Joinder Party”) is executing and delivering this Joinder Agreement pursuant to the Shareholders’ and Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of March 21, 2016 (the “SHRRA”), as it may be amended from time to time, by and among Nexeo Holdco, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and certain of its affiliates, WL Ross Sponsor LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and WL Ross Holding Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the SHRRA.

 

By executing this Joinder Agreement and delivering it to the Company, the Joinder Party hereby agrees to become a party to, to be bound by, and to comply with the provisions of the SHRRA in the same manner as if the Joinder Party had been an original party thereto.

 

Each Party to the SHRRA is intended to be a third party beneficiary to this Joinder Agreement and shall be entitled to rely upon, and enforce this Joinder Agreement, to the same extent as if it is a signatory hereto.

 

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

 











 

Accordingly, each of the undersigned has executed this Joinder Agreement as of the date first written above.

 

 

	
JOINDER PARTY
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
 
    


 

[Signature Page to Joinder Agreement]

 











 

Accordingly, each of the undersigned has executed this Joinder Agreement as of the date first written above.

 

 

	
 
    	
WL   ROSS HOLDING CORP.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
WL   ROSS SPONSOR LLC
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    


 

[Signature Page to Joinder Agreement]

 











 

Accordingly, each of the undersigned has executed this Joinder Agreement as of the date first written above.

 

 

	
NEXEO HOLDCO, LLC
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
 
    


 

[Signature Page to Joinder Agreement]
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Golden Mineral Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009, as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/JEFFREY CLEVENGER Jeffrey G. Clevenger President and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 29, 2010/s/ROBERT P. VOGELS Robert P. Vogels Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 29, 2010


---



QuickLinks
| 1.   | the      Annual Report 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      STEVEN L. WATSON |   |
|---------------------------|--------|

| /s/      JAMES W. BROWN |   |
|-------------------------|--------|

| Note: | The      certification the registrant furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed      “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,      as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that      Section.  Registration Statements or other documents filed with      the Securities and Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit      by reference, except as otherwise expressly stated in such filing. |
|-------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

In connection withthe Annual Report of CardioTech International, Inc., a Massachusettscorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Leslie M. Taeger, the chief financial officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tothe best of my knowledge:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

|                          | /s/ LESLIE M. TAEGER     |
|--------------------------|--------------------------|
|                     | Leslie M. Taeger,        |
|                     | Chief financial  officer |
| Date: June 29, 2005 |                     |

 

----
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 7024]

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of State is lifting the policy of denial for Tula Instrument Design Bureau pursuant to                               ( print page 28849)                            section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and section 126.7 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         May 24, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa V. Studtmann, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State (202) 663-2477.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 126.7 of the ITAR provides that any application for an export license or other approval under the ITAR may be disapproved and any license or other approval or exemption granted may be revoked, suspended, or amended without prior notice whenever, among other things, the Department of State believes that section 38 of the AECA (22 U.S.C. 2778), any regulation contained in the ITAR, or the terms of any U.S. Government export authorization (including terms of a manufacturing license or technical assistance agreement, or export authorization granted pursuant to the Export Administration Act, as amended) has been violated by any party to the export or other person having a significant interest in the transaction; or whenever the Department of State deems such action to be in furtherance of world peace, the national security or the foreign policy of the United States, or is otherwise advisable. A determination was made on May 12, 2010, that it is in the foreign policy or national security interests of the United States to remove the restrictions imposed on Tula Instrument Design Bureau pursuant to Section 126.7 of the ITAR.

Dated: May 17, 2010.

Andrew J. Shapiro,

Assistant Secretary, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2010-12448 Filed 5-21-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 98 (Friday, May 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12196]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1875-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]


Maryland; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Maryland (FEMA-1875-DR), dated February 19, 2010, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 7, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Maryland is hereby amended to include the Hazard 
Mitigation Grant Program for the following areas among those areas 
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a 
major disaster by the President in his declaration of February 19, 
2010.

    All jurisdictions in the State of Maryland are eligible to apply 
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-12196 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2284 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:10:50 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2284 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:10:50 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2284 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:10:50 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2284 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:10:50 Page 4 of

4
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN STATES FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND
SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                        3,763,880
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                          3,763,880
<EQUITIES>                                     435,137
<MORTGAGE>                                      32,293
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               4,342,572
<CASH>                                          13,610
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             179,445
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         202,233
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,541,083
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              2,868,348
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            711,955
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                299,511
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       304,493
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,031,546
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,541,083
<PREMIUMS>                                   1,674,122
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            274,314
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              35,538
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                   1,248,879
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    338,012
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           201,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                195,682
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,976
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            169,706
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   169,706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.03
<RESERVE-OPEN>                               2,294,458
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                          1,245,580
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                             (45,705)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             653,977
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               578,664
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                              2,261,692
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                         45,705
        

</TABLE>
1The Honorable Mary Ann Cohen, Chief Judge, United States Tax Court.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3405

___________

Richard Lowell Rosenquist; Joan R. *

Rosenquist, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * Tax Court.

*

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 5, 1999

 Filed: April 5, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard Lowell Rosenquist and Joan R. Rosenquist, husband and wife, appeal

from the tax court’s1 dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of their petition contesting

the Commissioner’s deficiency determination. After carefully reviewing the record and

the parties’ submissions, we conclude dismissal was proper for the reasons the Tax

Court stated and that an extended discussion is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

The government requests that we assess sanctions against appellants for bringing

this frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protestor arguments. Because the

arguments appellants advance for reversal are clearly lacking in merit and frivolous, we

grant the government’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $1,000. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1912, Fed. R. App. P. 38, United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256-57 (8th Cir.

1993) (per curiam), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2393    Filed: 06/05/19    Entered: 06/05/19 11:49:04    Page 1 of8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2393    Filed: 06/05/19    Entered: 06/05/19 11:49:04    Page 2 of8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2393    Filed: 06/05/19    Entered: 06/05/19 11:49:04    Page 3 of8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2393    Filed: 06/05/19    Entered: 06/05/19 11:49:04    Page 4 of8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2393    Filed: 06/05/19    Entered: 06/05/19 11:49:04    Page 5 of8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2393    Filed: 06/05/19    Entered: 06/05/19 11:49:04    Page 6 of8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2393    Filed: 06/05/19    Entered: 06/05/19 11:49:04    Page 7 of8

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2393    Filed: 06/05/19    Entered: 06/05/19 11:49:04    Page 8 of8
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2678 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2678

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat gold, silver, and 
platinum, in either coin or bar form, in the same manner as stocks and 
 bonds for purposes of the maximum capital gains rate for individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2000

   Mr. Bryan (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Allard) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat gold, silver, and 
platinum, in either coin or bar form, in the same manner as stocks and 
 bonds for purposes of the maximum capital gains rate for individuals.

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

SECTION 1. GOLD, SILVER, AND PLATINUM TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS 
              STOCKS AND BONDS FOR MAXIMUM CAPITAL GAINS RATE FOR 
              INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1(h)(6) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definition of collectibles 
gain and loss) is amended by striking ``without regard to paragraph (3) 
thereof'' and inserting ``without regard to so much of paragraph (3) 
thereof as relates to palladium and the bullion requirement for 
physical possession by a trustee''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall to 
taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999.
                                 <all>
```
#### WILSON v. COMMERCIAL *UNION*ASSURANCE CO.

A Bill of exceptions, consisting merely of a transcript of the official stenographer’s notes, to which were attached papers and the certificate of the trial judge, and containing no specifications of errors, will not be regarded *on*appeal.

(Opinion filed, January 17, 1906.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, McPherson County. Hon. Poking E. CARRY, Judge.-

Action by John F. Wilson against the Commercial Union Assurance Company, Limited, of London, England. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Herreid*& *Williamson*and *F. V. Brozm, for*appellant. *Albert Gunderson, C. H. Barron,*and L. *T. Boucher,*for respondent.

HANEY, J.

This is an action on a Standard Fire Insurance policy. The appeal is from the judgment alone. The so-called bill of exceptions (merely a transcript of the official stenographer’s notes, to which are attached numerous papers and a certificate of the trial judge) contains no specifications of the errors relied upon, *359and must therefore be disregarded. Schouweiler v. McCaull, 18 S. D. 70, 99 N. W. 95. The verdict and judgment being within the pleadings, and no exceptions properly presented, there is nothing upon which a reversal could be predicated, and no useful purpose would be served in discussing the purely technical objections urged in argument of counsel. Upon all the evidence there was but one meritorious issue of fact, namely, the value of the destroyed property, which was submitted to a jury under proper instructions. There was ample evidence to- sustain the verdict.

Xo injustice can therefore result from enforcing the requirements of the statute regarding the manner of settling exceptions, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.