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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-16776 

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

findings 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 obtain 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 merit 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 answering 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.
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 Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [CA-920-1310-FI; CACA 44900]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases.

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease CACA 44900 from NW. Lost Hills Petroleum Holdings, LLC. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all required rentals and royalties accruing from February 1, 2010, the date of termination.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rita Altamira, Land Law Examiner, Branch of Adjudication, Division of Energy and Minerals, BLM California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825, (916) 978-4378.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    No valid lease has been issued affecting the lands. The lessee has agreed to new lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre or fraction thereof and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and has reimbursed the BLM for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The Lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and                           ( print page 32813)                        (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate the lease effective February 1, 2010, subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.                

Debra Marsh,

Supervisor, Branch of Adjudication, Division of Energy & Minerals.

[FR Doc. 2010-13839 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

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

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of Sally Holdings LLC and Sally Capital Inc (the “Companies”)on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Mark J. Flaherty, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompanies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)       The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   | By:                                                         | /s/ Mark J. Flaherty |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|
|   | Mark J. Flaherty                                            |
|   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of  Sally |
|   | Holdings LLC and Sally Capital Inc.                         |

 

 

Date:       November 26,2008

 

----
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2009-0603; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-16]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

                        This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule published in the                         **Federal Register**                         September 14, 2009 that establishes Class E Airspace at Saluda County Airport, Saluda, SC.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         0901 UTC, January 27, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melinda Giddens, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5610.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Confirmation of Effective Date

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 14, 2009 (74 FR 46894), Docket No. FAA-2009-0603; Airspace Docket No. 09-ASO-16. The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on December 17, 2009. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date.                

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 14, 2010.

Myron A. Jenkins,

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.

[FR Doc. 2010-1382 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
United States Bankruptcy Court

Northern District of California

In re: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Case No.: 19-30088

 and PG&E Corporation

Court ID (Court use only)_____________

NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a). Transferee

hereby gives notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(2), Fed. R. Bankr. P., of the transfer, other than for security,

of the claim referenced in this notice.

Hain Capital Investors Master Fund, Ltd BrandSafway Services LLC

Name of Transferor

Name and Address where notices to transferee Court Record Address of Transferor

should be sent (Court Use Only)

Hain Capital Investors Master Fund, Ltd

301 Route 17, 7th Floor

Rutherford, NJ 07070

Attn: Cheryl Eckstein

Phone: (201) 896 - 6100

Last Four Digits of Acct #: ______________ Last Four Digits of Acct. #: ___________

Name and Address where transferee payments Name and Current Address of Transferor

should be sent (if different from above) 

 BrandSafway Services LLC

22-08 Route 208 South

Fairlawn, NJ 07410

Court Claim # (if known): 9634 

Amount of claim to transfer: $101,407.55

Date Claim Filed: 9/24/19

Scheduled Claim #: 1031742

Scheduled Claim Amount: $143,513.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice is true and correct to the best

of my knowledge and belief.

By:_/s/ Cheryl Eckstein Date: 11/26/19

Transferee/Transferee’s Agent

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571.

~~DEADLINE TO OBJECT TO TRANSFER~~

The transferor of claim named above is advised that this Notice of Transfer of Claim Other Than for

Security has been filed in the clerk’s office of this court as evidence of the transfer. Objections must be

filed with the court within twenty (20) days of the mailing of this notice. If no objection is timely received

by the court, the transferee will be substituted as the original claimant without further order of the court.

Date:___________ ______________________________

CLERK OF THE COURT

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4864 Filed: 11/26/19 Entered: 11/26/19 07:44:33 Page 1 of

2
Robert J Koltai

Managing Member

25th

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4864 Filed: 11/26/19 Entered: 11/26/19 07:44:33 Page 2 of

2
#### Levy S. Davis, Respondent, v. The John T. Noye Manufacturing Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed.
#### J. T. Dasher, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Virgil F. Dasher, defendant in error.

The entry of service on a suit by the sheriff is not conclusive of such service, but may be traversed by the defendant at the first term after notice of such entry is had by him, and before pleading to the merits.

Service. Return of sheriff. Before Judge Sessions. Lowndes Superior Court. December Adjourned Term, 1871.

This case came on to be heard on a rule *nisi*in favor of J. T. Dasher, calling on Virgil F. Dasher to show cause why a judgment obtained by him against J. T. Dasher at. the June term, 1871, of the Superior Court of Lowndes county, should not 'be set aside for want of service of a copy of the original declaration upon the defendant in said suit. The case, by consent, was submitted to the decision of the presiding Judge, without the intervention of a jury.

The original declaration had the following entry thereon:

*“*I have this day served a copy of the within upon J. T. Dasher, by leaving the same at his place of abode.

*“*November 15th, 1870.

(Signed) “ A. Hewitt, Sheriff"

Evidence was introduced by both parties, *pro*and *eon.*The Court refused to set aside the judgment, upon the ground that the return of the sheriff showed that service had been pei>* fected in said suit, and plaintiff' in error excepted.

Whittle & Morgan, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant.

Montgomery, Judge.

This was a rule *nisi*by J. T. Dasher against Virgil F. Dasher, issued at the December term, 1871, of Lowndes Superior Court, requiring said Virgil T. Dasher to show cause why a judgment obtained by him against J. T. Dasher at the *321preceding term of the Court should not be set aside as void for want of service. By agreement of parties the case was submitted to Judge without jury.

The evidence showed conclusively that the defendant in the action in which the judgment was obtained, never had been served, nor had he by himself or agent acknowledged service. Indeed, he was entirely ignorant that the cause was pending, until after judgment was entered against him. The usual entry of service by leaving the writ at defendant’s residence, was, however, on the declaration.

The Judge refused to set aside the judgment “ upon the ground that the sheriff’s return shows that service had been perfected in said suit, and that said judgment was not void for want of service.” The evidence showed the writ to have been left at the house of defendant’s father, instead of his own, and that he had never heard of it until after the judgment was rendered, and then moved at the very next term to have it vacated. The case is fully within the provisions of section 3264 of the Code, and the judgment of the Court below must, therefore, be reversed.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5358 

To amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to clarify that 

no Federal agency shall be required to consider the social cost of carbon 

as a condition of compliance with such Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2014 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

to clarify that no Federal agency shall be required to 

consider the social cost of carbon as a condition of compliance with such Act, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AGENCIES NOT REQUIRED TO CONSIDER SO4 CIAL COST OF CARBON. 

5 Title I of the National Environmental Policy Act of 

6 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.) is amended by adding at 

7 the end the following new section: 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5358 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 106. (a) No Federal agency shall be required 

2 to consider the social cost of carbon as part of any cost3 benefit or regulatory analysis of any program, project, ac4 tivity, or administrative action of the agency as a condition 

5 of compliance with this Act. 

6 ‘‘(b) In this section: 

7 ‘‘(1) The term ‘Federal agency’ has the mean8 ing given the term ‘Executive agency’ in section 133 

9 of title 41, United States Code. 

10 ‘‘(2) The term ‘social cost of carbon’ means the 

11 social cost of carbon as described in the technical 

12 support document entitled ‘Technical Support Docu13 ment: Technical 15 Update of the Social Cost of 

14 Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Exec15 utive Order No. 12866’, published by the Inter16 agency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, 

17 United States Government, in May 2013, revised in 

18 November 2013, or any successor or substantially 

19 related document, or any other estimate of the mon20 etized damages associated with an incremental in21 crease in carbon dioxide emissions in a given year.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 December 4, 2019 was filed on December 5, 2019. The following deadlines

apply:

The parties have until Thursday, December 12, 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 Thursday, December 26, 2019.

If a request for redaction is filed, the redacted transcript is due Monday, January 6, 2020.

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

restriction period, which is Wednesday, March 4, 2020, 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: 12/9/19 For the Court:

Edward J. Emmons

Clerk of Court

United States Bankruptcy Court

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4992-1 Filed: 12/05/19 Entered: 12/05/19 10:22:14 Page 1

of 1
#### LAURA MAE PURVIS and WILLIE EARL PURVIS, Minor, by His Next Friend, LAURA MAE PURVIS, v. EARL WHITAKER and Wife, CARTHENIE WHITAKER; R. T. WHITAKER and H. L. SWAIN, Trustee, and H. D. BATEMAN, Trustee.

(Filed 23 September, 1953.)

Appeal and Error § 40f—

An appeal will not lie from tbe denial of a motion to strike made after demurrer bas been filed and overruled. G.S. 1-153.

Appeal by defendants, other than H. D. Bateman, Trustee, from *Parher, J.,*March Term, 1953, of Martin-. Affirmed.

Tbis was an action to set aside certain conveyances executed by defendants Earl Whitaker a,nd wife and R. T. Whitaker, alleged to have been made in fraud of creditors. G.S. 39-15.

Demurrer of H. D. Bateman, Trustee, was sustained and action dismissed as to him. Tbe remaining defendants moved to strike certain portions of tbe complaint. From judgment denying tbe motion tbe defendants other than Bateman, Trustee, appealed.

*Robt. H. Cowen, Elbert S. Peel, and Lemuel H. Davis for plaintiffs, appellees.*

*H. L. Swain and Leroy Scott for defendants, appellants.*

Per Curiam.

An examination of tbe complaint in connection with tbe portions thereof sought to be stricken leads to tbe conclusion that tbe ruling of tbe trial judge should be upheld. Tbe allegations complained of were relevant and tended to set forth facts material to a proper statement of plaintiffs’ cause of action. *Garrett v. Rose,*236 N.C. 299, 72 S.E. 2d 843; *Ledford v. Transportation Co.,*237 N.C. 317, 74 S.E. 2d 653. Furthermore, defendants’ motion to strike was filed after their demurrer bad been overruled. G.S. 1-153. *Parrish v. R. R.,*221 N.C. 292, 20 S.E. 2d 299. Appellees’ motion to dismiss tbe appeal on tbis ground is allowed.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Richard Gallagher, Appellant, v. Walsh Construction Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.' Ho opinion.

Jenks, P. J., Hirschberg, Burr and Rich, JJ., concurred; Woodward, J., dissented.
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 

1 

DOCS_SF:99260.1 84993/001

John D. Fiero (CA Bar No. 136557) 

PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP 

150 California Street, 15th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-4500 

Telephone: 415.263.7000 

Facsimile: 415.263.7010 

E-mail: jfiero@pszjlaw.com 

Attorneys for TRC Companies, Inc. 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E Corporation, 

Debtors. 

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

 19-30089 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Jointly Administered) 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR SPECIAL NOTICE

In re: 

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

Debtors. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that TRC Companies, Inc. (“TRC”) as a creditor of the Debtors’ 

estates, hereby requests, pursuant to Rules 2002, 3017, and 9007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 

Procedure, or pursuant to any other applicable rule or statute, that notice of all matters which may 

come before the Court be given to: 

John D. Fiero 

Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP 

150 California Street, 15th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-4500 

Telephone: 415.263.7000 

Facsimile: 415.263.7010 

E-mail: jfiero@pszjlaw.com

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 52 Filed: 01/29/19 Entered: 01/29/19 12:04:42 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 

DOCS_SF:99260.1 84993/001

The foregoing request includes, without limitation, all notices, papers, and disclosure 

statements referred to in Rules 2002, 3017, and 9007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, 

and also includes notice of any orders, applications, complaints, demands, hearings, motions, 

petitions, pleadings or requests, and any other documents brought before the Court in this case, 

whether formal or informal, whether written or oral, and whether transmitted or conveyed by 

electronic mail, mail, hand delivery, telephone, telegraph, facsimile, or otherwise. 

This notice of appearance and request for special notice is without prejudice to: (1) TRC’s 

rights, remedies, claims, actions, defenses, setoffs, or recoupments, in law or in equity, against the 

above-captioned debtor and any other entities either in this case or in any other action, all of which 

rights, remedies, claims, actions, defenses, setoffs and recoupments are expressly reserved, and 

(2) any objection which may be made to the jurisdiction of the Court, and shall not be deemed or 

construed to submit the Parties to the jurisdiction of the Court. 

Dated: January 29, 2019 PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP 

/s/ John D. Fiero 

John D. Fiero 

Attorneys for TRC Companies, Inc. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 52 Filed: 01/29/19 Entered: 01/29/19 12:04:42 Page 2 of 2