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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

Robert A. Julian (SBN 88469)

Cecily A. Dumas (SBN 111449)

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

1160 Battery Street, Suite 100

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: 628.208.6434

Facsimile: 310.820.8859

Email: rjulian@bakerlaw.com

Email: cdumas@bakerlaw.com

Eric E. Sagerman (SBN 155496)

Lauren T. Attard (SBN 320898)

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509

Telephone: 310.820.8800

Facsimile: 310.820.8859

Email: esagerman@bakerlaw.com

Email: lattard@bakerlaw.com

Counsel to the Official Committee of Tort Claimants

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION

-andPACIFIC 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)

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

ERRATA SHEET REGARDING 

RESPONSE OF OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS 

TO DEBTORS’ RESTATED 

RESTRUCTURING SUPPORT AND 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH 

THE CONSENTING SUBROGATION 

CLAIMHOLDERS [Dkt. No. 4629]

Date: November 19, 2019

Time: 10:00 a.m. (Pacific Time)

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court

Courtroom 17, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4710 Filed: 11/13/19 Entered: 11/13/19 16:44:46 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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

- 2 -

The Official Committee of Tort Claimants hereby submits this errata sheet with regard to 

its response [Dkt No. 4629] to the Restated Restructuring Support Agreement [Dkt. No. 4554-1] filed 

by PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric Company and the Ad Hoc Subrogation Group. 

The following citation is added to the discussion of section 509 and Dow Corning on 

page 2, point 7, starting on line 18:

In re Dow Corning Corp., 250 B.R. 298, 327 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2000) (granting the 

Official Committee of Tort Claimants’ and Debtors’ motion for summary judgment on section 509 

issues and holding that the government insurer’s reimbursement claim is the same claim as the tort 

claim pursued by beneficiary, otherwise “there is no legal theory that would enable the Government 

to seek reimbursement from the party sued”). 

Dated: November 13, 2019

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

By: /s/ Robert A. Julian

Robert A. Julian

Counsel to the Official Committee of Tort 

Claimants 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4710 Filed: 11/13/19 Entered: 11/13/19 16:44:46 Page 2 of

2
Order filed October 27, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-22-00218-CR

__________

EDDIE DALE UNDERWOOD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 259th District Court

Jones County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 6880-D

O R D E R

We have reviewed the “Motion to Recuse Appellate Judges” filed in this cause 

on October 18, 2022, as it pertains to seeking the recusal of Justice W. Stacy Trotter. 

Pursuant to Rule 16.3(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Justice Trotter 

has considered the motion in chambers. Justice Trotter has found no reason to 

recuse himself and, pursuant to Rule 16.3(b), has certified the issue to the entire 

court for a determination by the other justices of this court. 1 See TEX. R.

1

A copy of Justice Trotter’s written certification is attached to this order.
2

APP. P. 16.3(b). Chief Justice John M. Bailey and Justice W. Bruce Williams have 

decided the matter without Justice Trotter’s participation.

The recusal of appellate court justices is controlled by Rule 16 of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. The grounds for recusal of an appellate court justice 

are provided in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 16.2; see

TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b. We find no reason for Justice Trotter to recuse himself and 

hold that none of the grounds set out in Rule 18b are applicable to Justice Trotter in

this case. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b; see also Manges v. Guerra, 673 S.W.2d 180, 

185 (Tex. 1984); McCullough v. Kitzman, 50 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.—Waco 

2001, pet. denied).

The request for the recusal of Justice W. Stacy Trotter is denied.

PER CURIAM

October 27, 2022

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., and Williams, J.

Trotter, J., not participating.
#### The Southwestern Railroad Company, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Joseph A. L. Lee, defendant in error.

In a suit for overflowing the land of the plaintiff, by obstructions placed by the defendant across a stream running from the plaintiff’s ¡and under the railway of the defendant, where the evidence shows that th® only obstruction put in the stream by the defendant was a sill, ten inches square, placed across the stream on the bottom of the channel; that the stream below the railway had been choked up by other persons, and that sand had accumulated in the bed of the stream from the point below the railway, where the channel had been obstructed to such an extent as to bury the sill some four feet under the sand, and tha t this filling up of the channel had caused the overflow, a verdict against the defendant should have been set aside as against the evidence, and a new trial granted, this Court being of opinion that the accumulation oi sand which caused the overflow is attributable to the obstructions below the railway, and not to the sill placed in the stream by the defendant.

*381Newi. trial. Evidence. Before Judge Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court.1 November Term, 1871.

Joseph A. L. Lee brought trespass on the case against the Southwestern Railroad Company. The declaration set forth that the defendant had damaged the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000 00; for that on June 1st, 1867, plaintiff owned certain lots of land in the county of Muscogee; that defendant placed certain obstructions in Tar river, whereby certain ditches on the lands of plaintiff were caused to be filled up with sand, causing the sand and water to overflow said lands to the damage of plaintiff $5,000 00. The defendant pleaded the general issue.

Upon the trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $360 00.

Whereupon defendant moved for a new trial, upon the following grounds, to-wit:

1st. Because said verdict is without evidence to support it, and decidedly and strongly against the weight of evidence.

2d. Because said verdict is against the charge of the Court, as follows, to-wit: “That the defendant was only bound fdr damages to the plaintiff, occasioned by the obstructions it had put in the creek, and was not bound for damages occasioned by other obstructions which the defendant had not put in the creek.”

3d. Because the verdict is against the law and equity of the case.

The motion for a new trial was overruled by the Court, and defendant excepted, and now assigns said ruling as error.

Moses & Downing, for plaintiff in error.

Blandford & Crawford, for defendant.

Montgomery, Judge.

■ There is but one question in this case. Was the verdict contrary to evidence? We think so. The whole of the evi*382dence, which is material, is set forth in the syllabus. Under it, we think, there can be no doubt that the plaintiff in error is entirely innocent of the damage suffered by the defendant in error, and that a new trial should have been granted.

Judgment reversed.
#### Joseph Friedman, Respondent, v. Barnett Bladowsky, Appellant.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion.

Jenks, P. J., Hirschberg, Burr, Carr and Woodward, JJ., concurred.
#### STATE v. DEWEY MARTIN.

(Filed 29 October, 1930.)

Indictment E b — In this case held: there was a fatal variance between indictment and proof.

Where an indictment in a criminal prosecution charges the defendant with having fraudulently obtained goods by means of a worthless check in violation of O. S., 4283, and the defendant is convicted of having uttered a worthless check in violation of chapter 82, Public Laws of 1927, the offenses are not the same, and there is a fatal variance between the indictment and proof, and the defendant’s demurrer to the evidence will be sustained in the Supreme Court on appeal. C. S., 4643.

Appeal by defendant from *Schenclc, J.,*at March Term, 1930, of Foesyth.

Criminal prosecution tried upon a warrant charging the defendant with fraudulently obtaining goods by means of a worthless check in violation of C. S., 4283.

The defendant was convicted of uttering a worthless check, with knowledge of its worthlessness, in violation of chapter 62, Public Laws 1921.

From the judgment rendered, the defendant appeals, assigning as error the refusal of the court to dismiss the action as in case of nonsuit.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*E. M. Whitman for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

The defendant was indicted under one statute and convicted under another. The two are not the same. There is a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof. *S. v. Corpening,*191 N. C., 751, 133 S. E., 14. The Attorney-General confesses error. The demurrer to the evidence will be sustained here as provided by C. S., 4643.

Eeversed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Advanced Accessory Systems, LLC (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Barry G. Steele, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
              operations of the Company.


    /s/ Barry G. Steele
---------------------------
Barry G. Steele
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 525 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 525

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from 
          the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2013

  Mr. Massie (for himself, Mr. Polis, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Hanna, Mr. 
   Rohrabacher, Mr. Farr, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Amash, Mr. Schrader, Mr. 
 DeFazio, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Norton, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Moran, Ms. 
    Bonamici, Ms. Pingree of Maine, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Peterson, Mr. 
  Benishek, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Campbell, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. 
Pocan, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Nadler, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. 
   McDermott, and Mr. Yoho) introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
    the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from 
          the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP FROM DEFINITION OF MARIHUANA.

    Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (16)--
                    (A) by striking ``(16) The'' and inserting 
                ``(16)(A) The''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(B) The term `marihuana' does not include industrial 
        hemp.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(57) The term `industrial hemp' means the plant Cannabis 
        sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, 
        with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more 
        than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.''.

SEC. 3. INDUSTRIAL HEMP DETERMINATION.

    Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(i) Industrial Hemp Determination.--If a person grows or 
processes Cannabis sativa L. for purposes of making industrial hemp in 
accordance with State law, the Cannabis sativa L. shall be deemed to 
meet the concentration limitation under section 102(57).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Frank S. Anderson, Respondent, v. Adelaide M. Anderson, Appellant.

Order affirmed, without costs.

All' concurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5382 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5382

     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt aircraft 
                management services from the ticket tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2014

  Mr. Tiberi introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt aircraft 
                management services from the ticket tax.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM TICKET TAX FOR AIRCRAFT MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 4261 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (l) and by 
inserting after subsection (j) the following new subsection:
    ``(k) Exemption for Aircraft Management Services.--
            ``(1) In general.--The tax imposed by this section or 
        section 4271 shall not apply to the provision of aircraft 
        management services for flights under the aviation safety 
        regulations of part 91 of title 14, Code of Federal 
        Regulations.
            ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not exempt flights 
        for the transportation of persons under the aviation safety 
        regulations of part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal 
        Regulations.
            ``(3) Aircraft management services.--For purposes of 
        paragraph (1), the term `aircraft management services' means 
        scheduling, flight planning, weather forecasting, and operation 
        of flights; obtaining insurance; maintenance, storage and 
        fueling of aircraft; hiring, training and provision of pilots 
        and crew; establishing and complying with safety standards; and 
        such other services necessary to support flights.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to transportation beginning after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
FIRST DIVISION

PHIPPS, C. J.,

ELLINGTON, P. J., and MCMILLIAN, J.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be

physically received in our clerk’s office within ten

days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

July 24, 2014

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

A14A1057; A14A1059. LASTER v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE

STUDENT LOAN TRUST.

MCMILLIAN, Judge.

Appellee National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3 brought a suit on

account and agreement in the State Court of Sumter County against Justin and Linda

Laster after they allegedly defaulted on their student education loans. The state court

granted summary judgment to appellee, and the Lasters, acting pro se, filed an appeal

from that order to the Superior Court of Sumter County. The superior court dismissed

the case, based on a finding that it had no jurisdiction to review an order granting

summary judgment in a civil case such as the one here. The Lasters, again acting pro

se, have filed separate appeals to this Court from that order, which we have

consolidated for review. 
1

 The records before us contain only the initial complaint filed in state court,

the state court order granting summary judgment, the notice of appeal to the superior

court, the superior court’s order dismissing the appeal, and the notices of appeal to

this Court. 

2

 The Lasters can view our Rules, including the ones that apply to filing briefs

in this Court, on our website, www.gaappeals.us. The website also contains a

2

The Georgia Constitution requires that “[a]ny court shall transfer to the

appropriate court in the state any civil case in which it determines that jurisdiction or

venue lies elsewhere.” Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. VIII. Thus, instead of

dismissing the Lasters’ appeal, the superior court should have transferred the case to

this Court for review. Blackmon, 284 Ga. 369, 371-372 (667 SE2d 348) (2008);

Bosma v. Gunter, 258 Ga. 664 (373 SE2d 368) (1988). “[T]he manifest purpose of

Article VI, Section I, Paragraph VIII is to prevent parties from being penalized when

their attorneys, or the parties themselves acting pro se, make a mistake regarding the

complex, highly technical rules that govern jurisdiction and venue and inadvertently

file a case in the wrong court. This case fits that description to a tee.” Blackmon, 284

Ga. at 371. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the superior court dismissing the

Lasters’ appeal and remand the case to that court so that their appeal from the state

court, including the record transmitted to the superior court as part of that appeal,1

may be transferred to this Court for appellate review.2
Citizen’s Guide, directed primarily at pro se parties, which they also may find helpful.

3

Judgments reversed and cases remanded with direction. Phipps, C. J., and

Ellington, P. J., concur.
- 257 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports DICK v . KOSKI PROF. GROUP Cite as 308 Neb. 257

Robert Dick, appellee and cross-appellant, v. Koski Professional Group, P.C., third-party plaintiff,

appellant and cross-appellee, and Bland &

Associates, P.C., third-party defendant, appellee and cross-appellant. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed January 29, 2021. No. S-19-132.

supplemental opinion Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: J Russell Derr , Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled. Robert M. Slovek and Dwyer Arce, of Kutak Rock, L.L.P., for appellant. Aaron A. Clark, Ruth A. Horvatich, and Cody E. Brookhouser-Sisney, of McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee Robert Dick. Ryan M. Kunhart and Jeffrey J. Blumel, of Dvorak Law Group, L.L.C., for appellee Bland & Associates, P.C.
Heavican , C.J., Cassel , Stacy , Funke , Papik , and Freudenberg , JJ.
Per Curiam

. This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellant, Koski Professional Group, P.C. (KPG), Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 04/02/2021 08:09 AM CDT- 258 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports DICK v . KOSKI PROF. GROUP Cite as 308 Neb. 257 concerning our opinion in Dick v. Koski Prof. Group , 307 Neb. 599, 950 N.W.2d 321 (2020). We find no substantive merit to KPG’s motion and overrule it, but modify the opinion as follows: (1) In the background section, under the subheading

“ Peremptory Challenges ,” we withdraw the last sentence of the sole paragraph and substitute the following: “Other than a marked copy of a jury roster included in a supplemental tran

script, the jury selection process is not otherwise reflected in the appellate record.” (2) In the analysis section, under the subheading “ Peremptory Challenges ( Assignment of Error No . 1),” we withdraw the seventh paragraph and substitute the following: We do not decide that question here. While KPG has offered a marked copy of a jury roster in a supplemental transcript, the markings on that roster do not match the roster’s legend sufficiently to support KPG’s claim that it exhausted all its peremptory challenges. As such, the record is insufficient to support its assignment of error even if we found merit to KPG’s legal premise. The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled. Miller-Lerman , J., not participating.
ex10_4.htm






















	
Exhibit Number
	
Description

	
3.1
	
Articles of Incorporation (1)

	
3.2
	
By-Laws(1)

	
5.1
	
Opinion of Cane Clark, LLP, with consent to use(1)

	
10.1
	
License Agreement (1)

	
10.2
	
Slack Services

	
10.3
	
Bendio Services

	
10.4
	
MERI China, LLC Manufacturing Bid

	
23.1
	
Consent of Malone & Bailey, PC

	
24.1
	
Power of Attorney (see attached signature page)













 


(1) Included in previously filed registration statement.













Exhibit 10.4


 

MERI China, LLC


 


	 	Quote #: JB-4-0
	VENDOR	CUSTOMER
	
MERI, LLC

9116 E. Sprague Ave., #888 

Spokane, WA 99206-3601
	Gregory Ruff
 

Spokane, WA





 


	
Printed Date
	
Terms
	
Rep
	
VIA
	
FOB

	
611812009
	
50%/50%
	
HH
	
Ocean
	
China

	  	
shipping Separate
	  	  	  



 






	
Line
	
Part #
	
Description
	
Qty
	
Unit Price
	
Sub Total
	
Notes

	
#
	
(US$)
	
(US$)

	
1
	
Short
	
ASS Toothbrush
	
5000
	
$0.96
	
$4,800.00
	
Clamshell included

	
2
	
Medium
	
ASS Toothbrush
	
5000
	
$1.03
	
$5,150.00
	
Clamshell included

	
3
	
Long
	
ASS Toothbrush
	
5000
	
$1.17
	
$5,850.00
	
Clamshell included

	
4
	
Molds
	
2pc mold set, 1 cavitity
	
1
	
$7,538.46
	
$7,538.46
	
25 day leadtime

	
5
	
Clamshell
molds

	
3 sizes clamshell molds
	
3
	
$200.00
	
$600.00
	
10 day leadtime

	
 

	  	  	
Production leadtime 20 days
	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	
Total
	  	  	
$23,938.46
	  
	
Notes
	  	  	  	  	  	  



 

Quote # J8-4-0, Toothbrush, 20090623