alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: DONITA J. COLE,

Debtor.

______________________________

DONITA J. COLE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

MR CAPITAL, LLC,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 16

- 16776

D.C. No. 2:16

- cv

- 02080

- SRB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017 **

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Donita J. Cole appeals pro se from the district court’ s judgment dismissing

as equitably moot her appeal from a bankruptcy court order quashing lis pendens.

* 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

DEC 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 16776

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158. We review for clear error factual

fi ndings about mootness, and de novo legal conclusions. Rev Op Grp

. v. ML

Manager LLC (In re Mortgs . Ltd.)

, 771 F.3d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir. 2014). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cole’s appeal as equitably moot

because Cole did not seek or o btain a stay prior to her appeal of the bankruptcy

court’s order, and the real property at issue has since been transferred to a third

party. See Motor Vehicle Casualty Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe

Insulation Co.) , 677 F.3d 869, 880

- 81 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing factors to be

examined when determining equitable mootness). Because Cole has permitted

such a comprehensive change of circumstances to occur

, it is inequitable to

consider the merits of the appeal. See id.

We reject as without mer it Cole’s arguments that the bankruptcy court

lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that the bankruptcy judge was biased against

her.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett

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

Cole’s requests to strike portions of the an swering brief, and to take judicial

notice, contained in her reply brief, are denied.3 16

- 16776

Appellee’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9) is granted.

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00354-CR

Robert Earl Bell, Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1165059D)

May 29, 2014

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot______________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 59

Richard Richardson III, Petitioner and Appellant

v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20220291

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central J udicial District, the Honorable Jason M. McCarthy , Judge.

AFFIRMED

. Per Curiam

. Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Mandan, ND , for petitioner and appellant

. Andrew C. Eyre, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND , for respondent

an d appellee.1 Richardson v. State No. 20220291

Per Curiam

. [¶1] Richard Richardson appeals from an order denying his application for post

- conviction relief. In 2020, Richardson was found guilty of reckless endangerment. Richardson appealed the conviction, arguing the evidence was insufficient and that he acted in self

- defense. We affirmed the conviction. State v. Richardson , 2020 ND 246, ¶ 1, 950 N.W.2d 761. Richardson then petitioned for post

- conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Richardson argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel because a witness who would have corroborate d his self

- defense claim did not show up for tri al despite being subpoenaed. The district court found Richardson failed to show his attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court further found Richardson failed to establish he was prejudiced by his attorney’s cond uct because he did not show a reasonable probability that the results of the case would have been different had the witness testified

. [¶2] We conclude the district court’s findings regarding the second prong, whether counsel’s representation caused prejudice, are not clearly erroneous. Courts need not address both prongs of the Strickland test if the matter can be resolved by addressing only one prong. Rencountre v. State , 2015 ND 62, ¶ 7, 860 N.W.2d 837 (citing Osier v. State , 2014 ND 41, ¶ 11, 843 N.W.2d 27 7)

. The court did not clearly err in denying Richardson’s application for post

- conviction relief, and we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
#### Oliver H. P. Champlin and another, Appellants, v. Charles Stoddard, Respondent, Impleaded, etc.

Order modified by adding the direction that in case of recovery by respondent he shall recover of the plaintiff no costs subsequent to the original answer, and prior to the service of the supplemental answer provided for hy the; order, and as so modified affirmed, without* costa of this appeal to either party.

Opinion by

Bradley, J.;

Haight, J., not sitting.
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 Interactive Xenacare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank Rizzo, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| |                        
| | /s/ Frank Rizzo        
| | Frank Rizzo            
| | Chief Executive Officer
| | April 15, 2009
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (10-054)]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing.

# SUMMARY:

Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.

# DATES:

May 21, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James J. McGroary, Patent Counsel, Marshall Space Flight Center, Mail Code LS01, Huntsville, AL 35812; telephone (256) 544-0013; fax (256) 544-0258.

*NASA Case No. MFS-32099-1:*                         Composite Pressure Vessel Including Crack Arresting Barrier.                    

*NASA Case No. MFS-32605-1-CIP:*                         Neutron Guides and Methods of Fabrication.                    

*NASA Case No. MFS-32612-1:*                         Safety System for Controlling Fluid Flow into a Suction Line.                    

*NASA Case No.:*                         MFS-32697-1: Friction Modifier Using Adherent Metallic Multilayered or Mixed Element Layer Conversion Coatings.                    

 Dated: May 17, 2010.

Richard W. Sherman,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2010-12166 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
~upreme <!Court of .fletu j] ersep 

<!Certificate of ~oob ~tanbing 

rr'liis is to certify t/iat ELYSSA S KATES 

(:No. 026372000 ) was constituted and appointed an}lttorney at Law of :New 

Jersey on December 21, 2000 and, as sucli, 

lias 6een admitted to practice 6efore tlie Supreme Court and a[[ otlier courts of tliis State 

as an }lttorney at Law, acconfing to its raws, ru[es, and customs. 

I furtlier certify tliat as of tliis date, tlie a6ove-named is an }lttorney at Law in 

(}ood Standtng. Por tlie purpose of tliis Certificate, an attorney is in "<;;ood Standtng" if 

tlie Court's records rejfect tliat tlie attorney: 1)is current witli a[[ assessments imposea as a 

part of tlie filing of tlie annua{ Jlttorney <.R.§gistration Statement, inc{udtng, 6ut not 

fimited to, a[[ o6figations to tlie :New Jersey Lawyers' Pund for Cfient Protection; 2) is not 

suspendea or dis6arred from tlie practice of [aw; 3) lias not resigned from tlie (}3ar of tliis 

State; and 4) lias not 6een transferred to <Disa6ifity Inactive status pursuant to <J(u{e 1: 20-

12. 

<P[ease note tliat tliis Certificate does not constitute confirmation of an attorney's 

satisfaction of tlie administrative requirements of <J(u{e 1: 21-1 (a) for efigi6ifity to practice 

[aw in tliis State. 

In testimony wnereof, I nave 

nereunto set my nand and 

ajfo(f!d tne Sea{ of tne 

Supreme Court, at rJ'renton, tnis 

22ND day of July 'ZO 19 · 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3189-1 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 11:48:20 Page 1

of 2
c5fale of XeO) Yor.£ 

<Supreme Gour/, [7/ppeflale V.iois.ion 

7h.irrl Putlic.iaf:/)eparlmenl 

9,' !J(o6erf:/). !ll(ay6erger, Cler.£ off.be :Jlppelfale 7Jivision of I.be 

cSupreme Gour/ of I.be <:)/ale of Xew Yor/4 J.h.ird J/udicial7Jeparlmenl, do 

.hereby cerl{y I.ha/ 

0fjssa c:Suzanne Xales 

.haviny la.ken andsubscribecf/J;e Gonslilulionaf Oal.h of Office as prescribed by 

law, was dufj ftcensed and admillecf lo praclice by I.his Gour/ as an :71l lorney 

and Counselor al Baw in aff courls of I.he 0/ale of Xew Yor..k on I.he 23rd clay of 

;January, 2001, is currenlfj in yoodslandiny andis reyislered wil.h I.he 

:7idmi1uslralive Office of i£e Gourls as reruired Cy sec/ion four £undredsixly--

eiy£1--a of I.he !/uch'ciar_y Baw. 

gn Wilness W.hereof, g .have .hereunlo sel my .hand 

and affixed I.be cSeaf of said Gour!, al I.be 

Cify of :Jl/Cany, I.bis 191.h clay of ;/u(y, 2019. 

Cler.£ 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3189-1 Filed: 07/25/19 Entered: 07/25/19 11:48:20 Page 2

of 2
Exhibit 32.1

            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE & FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Intercell
International Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, I, R. Mark
Richards, Chief Executive Officer of Intercell International Corporation, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

        a.     such Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of Intercell  International
               Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2005,  fully complies
               with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
               Exchange Act of 1934; and

        b.     the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
               of  Intercell  International  Corporation  for the quarter  ended
               March 31, 2005, fairly presents,  in all material  respects,  the
               financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Intercell
               International Corporation.




                                      /s/R. Mark Richards
                                      -----------------------------------
                                      R. Mark Richards, Chief Executive Officer


Date:    May 25, 2005



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Intercell International Corporation and will be retained by
Intercell International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Unizan Financial Corp.s (the
Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roger L. Mann, Chief Executive 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, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 9, 2004 |  | /s/ Roger L. Mann                    
|                       |  | Roger L. Mann                        
|                       |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13552]



=======================================================================

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



INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION



[Investigation Nos. 731-TA-770-773 and 775 (Second Review)]




Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and 

Taiwan



Determinations



    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 

reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) 

determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on 

stainless steel wire rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan 

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably 

foreseeable time.\2\

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



    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    \2\ Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, 

and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun dissenting with respect to 

Italy. Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna 

Tanner Okun dissenting with respect to Korea and Spain.

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



Background



    The Commission instituted these reviews effective July 1, 2009 (74 

FR 31765, July 2, 2009) and determined on October 5, 2009, that it 

would conduct full reviews (74 FR 54068, October 21, 2009). Notice of 

the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to 

be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the 

notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal 

Register on November 30, 2009 (74 FR 62588). The hearing was held in 

Washington, DC, on April 8, 2010, and all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to 

the Secretary of Commerce on May 28, 2010. The views of the Commission 

are contained in USITC Publication 4154 (May 2010), entitled Stainless 

Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan: 

Investigation Nos. 731-TA-770-773 and 775 (Second Review).



    By order of the Commission.



     Issued: June 2, 2010.

William R. Bishop,

Acting Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-13552 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

**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 Ring Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,Robert “Steve”            Owens, Acting Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:             

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

(2) I further certify to the best of my knowledge that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date:December 30,            2008     

 

By/s/Robert “Steve”            Owens

Robert “Steve” Owens,            Acting Chief Financial Officer
Form TRANSC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

California Northern Bankruptcy Court

In re Debtor(s):

PG&E Corporation

Case No.: 19−30088 DM 11

Chapter: 11

NOTICE OF FILING OF TRANSCRIPT

AND DEADLINES RELATED TO RESTRICTION AND REDACTION

A transcript of the proceeding held on September 24, 2019 was filed on September 25, 2019. The following deadlines

apply:

The parties have until Wednesday, October 2, 2019 to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of

this transcript. The deadline for filing a request for redaction is Wednesday, October 16, 2019.

If a request for redaction is filed, the redacted transcript is due Monday, October 28, 2019.

If no such notice is filed, the transcript may be made available for remote electronic access upon expiration of the

restriction period, which is Tuesday, December 24, 2019, unless extended by court order.

To review the transcript for redaction purposes, you may purchase a copy from the transcriber,

Jason Gottlieb

Attn: Jason Gottlieb, Dir. of Tran. Ops.

7227 N 16th St. #207

Phoenix, AZ 85020

or you may view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.

Dated: 9/30/19 For the Court:

Edward J. Emmons

Clerk of Court

United States Bankruptcy Court

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4003-1 Filed: 09/25/19 Entered: 09/25/19 14:46:19 Page 1

of 1
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5341 

To delay for 1 year the application of Revenue Ruling 2012–18 with respect 

to the characterization of payments as tips or service charges. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2014 

Mr. GALLEGO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To delay for 1 year the application of Revenue Ruling 2012– 

18 with respect to the characterization of payments as 

tips or service charges. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF REVENUE RULING 

4 2012–18 WITH RESPECT TO CHARACTERIZA5 TION OF TIPS OR SERVICE CHARGES. 

6 The Secretary of the Treasury shall not apply Rev7 enue Ruling 2012–18 (or any other similar guidance) for 

8 purposes of determining whether any payment made beVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:53 Aug 12, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5341.IH H5341

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5341 IH

1 fore January 1, 2015, is a tip as opposed to a service 

2 charge. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### THE STATE, Appellant, v. SPOOLEY GEIER.

Division Two,

November 23, 1909.

APPEAL. The State is not entitled to an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court sustaining defendant’s plea in abatement to the indictment.

Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — How. *Henry L. Bright,*Judge.

Appeal dismissed.

*Elliott W. Major,*Attorney-General, *James T. Blair,*and *Charles G. Revelle,*Assistant Attorneys-General, for tbe State.

*R. M. Sheppard*for respondent.

FOX, J.

The record in tbis cause is substantially tbe same as that in State v. Craig, *ante,*p. 201, decided at tbe present sitting of tbis court: at least it presents tbe same legal proposition. We deem it unnecessary *206to repeat what was said in the Craig case as to the right of the State to prosecute an appeal, but it is sufficient to say that, adopting the conclusions as reached by this court in that case, it follows that the appeal in the case at bar should be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

All concur.
#### P. Henry Grace, Respondent, v. William Bentley and others, Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed. Opinion by

Bradley, J.