alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Professional Fees $ 6,560,883.50

Less 100% Travel Fees* (1,135,572.50)

Total Current Fees 5,425,311.00

Expenses 642,335.19

Total Invoice $ 6,067,646.19

Exhibit A

AP SERVICES, LLC

Summary of Compensation and Expenses – Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al.

For the Period October 1, 2019 through October 31, 2019

*AP Services, LLC (“APS”) has not included any non-working travel time in this invoice. On November 

15, 2019, the Order Granting Fee Examiner’s Motion to Approve Fee Procedures (the “Order”) was entered 

in the PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company chapter 11 cases. Among other issues, the 

Order decrees how non-working travel time can be addressed and invoiced in these chapter 11 cases. APS is 

in the process of reviewing non-working travel time incurred from the inception of these chapter 11 cases 

through October 31, 2019 and preparing an invoice for that time in compliance with the terms of the Order.

Beginning with the invoice for November 2019 activity, non-working travel time incurred during the billing 

period will be included in the invoice in compliance with the terms of the Order.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5010-1 Filed: 12/06/19 Entered: 12/06/19 11:09:37 Page 1

of 1
**Exhibit99.2**

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of New England Realty Associates Limited Partnership (the“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Harold Brown, the Treasurer and a Director of the Partnership’s GeneralPartner, NewReal, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

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

 

(2)                               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.

 
|   | /s/  HAROLD  BROWN                                                                                                             |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Harold Brown                                                                                                                             |
|   | Principal Financial  Officer  (Treasurer and Director of  the Partnership’s General Partner,  NewReal, Inc.) May 15, 2003 |

 

----
#### ROY SAUNDERS v. T. F. BULLA, ALBERT TAYLOR and JOHN G. PREVETTE.

(Filed 1 November, 1950.)

Appeal and Error § 31e—

Where the election sought to be restrained has been held pending the appeal, the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Bobbitt, J.,*March Term, 1950, BaNdolph.

Civil action to enjoin the holding of a beer and wine election and to have said election, if held, declared null and void, heard on motion for temporary restraining order.

The court below denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and plaintiff appealed.

*O.ttmmj Burton for plaintiff appellant.*

*Feme & Gavin for defendant appellees.*

*579Pee Oubiam.

The election plaintiff seeks to enjoin was beld 25 March 1950 and is now an accomplished fact. Hence the question he seeks to present on this appeal is academic. For that reason the appeal is dismissed on authority of *Nance v. Winston-Salem,*229 N.C. 732, 51 S.E. 2d 185, and *Eller v. Wall,*229 N.C. 359, 49 S.E. 2d 758.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 9, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32663-32664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13818]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0406]


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Newark Bay, NJ, Maintenance

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a 
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the 
Lehigh Valley Bridge across Newark Bay, mile 4.3, at Newark, New 
Jersey. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed 
position on seven nonconsecutive days to facilitate scheduled 
maintenance.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 a.m. on June 14, 2010 through 
2 p.m. on July 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in 
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0406 and are available online 
at http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0406 in the 
``Keyword'' and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available for 
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. 
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, 
telephone (212) 668-7165. If you have questions on viewing the docket, 
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 
202-366-9826.

[[Page 32664]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Lehigh Valley Bridge, across Newark Bay 
at mile 4.3, at Newark, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance in the 
closed position of 35 feet at mean high water and 39 feet at mean low 
water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 
117.735.
    The owner of the bridge, Conrail, requested a temporary deviation 
from the regulations to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance, lift 
cable replacement at the bridge.
    Under this temporary deviation the Lehigh Valley Bridge may remain 
in the closed position on Mondays, June 14, 21, 28, July 5, 12, 19, and 
26, 2010 between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. to facilitate lift cable 
replacement.
    Waterway users were advised of the requested bridge closures and 
offered no objection.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its 
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated 
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is 
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 27, 2010.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-13818 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4417 Filed: 10/23/19 Entered: 10/23/19 10:04:32 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4417 Filed: 10/23/19 Entered: 10/23/19 10:04:32 Page 2 of

2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                        Three Months Ended
                                                                            January 31,
                                                                   ----------------------------
                                                                       2002            2003
                                                                   (unaudited)     (unaudited)
                                                                   ------------    ------------
<S>                                                               <C>             <C>
      Numerator:
      Net income from continuing operations ....................   $    753,974    $    109,045
      (Loss) from discontinued operations ......................       (267,468)        (29,501)
                                                                   ------------    ------------
      Net income (loss) available to common shareholders .......        486,506          79,544

      Denominator:
      Denominator for basic earnings per share-weighted-average
        shares .................................................     10,214,545      10,046,556
      Effect of dilutive securities:
      Employee stock options ...................................        489,841         366,283
                                                                   ------------    ------------

      Denominator for diluted earnings per share adjusted
        weighted-average shares and assumed conversions ........     10,704,386      10,412,839

      Basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share:

      Earnings from continuing operations ......................   $       0.07    $       0.01
      Discontinued operations ..................................          (0.02)           --
                                                                   ------------    ------------
      Net earnings per share ...................................   $       0.05    $       0.01
                                                                   ============    ============
</TABLE>
#### Jacob Deyo and others v. John Roth.

Action dismissed for failure to continue after death oí pany.
SCWC-17-0000701

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

________________________________________________________________

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

ANTHONY G. BEAUDET-CLOSE, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-17-0000701; CR. NO. 3PC16100368K)

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

It appearing that the judgment on appeal in the abovereferenced matter not having been filed by the Intermediate 

Court of Appeals at the time the application for writ of 

certiorari was filed, see Hawaii Revised Statutes § 602-59 

(2016); see also Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (“HRAP”) 

Rule 36(b)(1) (2016),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner/DefendantAppellant Anthony G. Beaudet-Close’s application for writ of 

certiorari, filed on December 21, 2018, is dismissed without 

prejudice to re-filing the application pursuant to HRAP Rule 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-17-0000701

02-JAN-2019

02:29 PM
2

40.1(a) (2017). (“The application shall be filed within 30 days 

after the filing of the intermediate court of appeals’ judgment 

on appeal or dismissal order, unless the time for filing the 

application is extended in accordance with this Rule.”).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 2, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
#### Anna S. Carpenter, Appellant, v. Hiland Carpenter, Respondent.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing and other disbursements. No opinion.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7560
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, versus JOSEPH NATHANIEL BROWN, JR., a/k/a Joe Jr., Defendant - Appellant, versus CHARLES DAVID WHALEY, Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-93-151) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Nat haniel Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles David Whaley, MORCHOWER, LUXTON & WHALEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his request for monetary sanctions from his attorney if his attorney failed to comply with a court order by a certain date. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brown , No. CR-93-151 (E.D. Va. Aug. 29, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GRACIELA SIFUENTES,

 Appellant,

v.

OLE CHEVROLET, L.P., D/B/A

MIDWAY CHEVROLET AND SERVICE

LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-10-00072-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2008-779)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to dismissthe appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Appellant filed suit against Ole Chevrolet, L.P., d/b/a MidwayChevrolet (“Chevrolet”) and Service

Life and Casualty Insurance Company (“Service”) for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of

contract. Chevrolet counterclaimed for fraud. Subsequently, Chevrolet and Service jointly moved

for summary judgment on traditional and no-evidence grounds based on Appellant’s claims. The

trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Chevrolet and Service, and ordered Appellant’s

claims dismissed with the notation that “all reliefsought by any party which is not expressly granted

herein is denied.” Appellant then filed a notice of appeal.

While researching his issues for appeal, Appellant discovered that the trial court has not yet

ruled on Chevrolet’s counterclaim for fraud. Our own review of the record supports Appellant’s

finding. Thus, Appellant contends that the appeal is interlocutory and that we lack jurisdiction to

entertain it. Neither Chevrolet nor Service has filed a response. We agree with Appellant that we

lack jurisdiction over the appeal.

As a general rule, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. See Lehmann v.
Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When, as here, there has been no conventional

trial on the merits, an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal unless it actually disposes

of every pending claim and party or clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all

claims and parties. Id. at 205. If the order does not dispose of all issues and all parties, it is

interlocutory and therefore not appealable absent express statutory authorization, severance,

dismissal, or non-suit. Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992); Hervey v.

Flores, 975 S.W.2d 21, 24 (Tex. App.–El Paso 1998, pet. denied). Here, nothing in the record

reflects that Chevrolet’s counterclaim was severed, dismissed, or non-suited, and we can find no

statute that expressly authorizes an interlocutory appeal of a summary-judgment order that does not

dispose of all claims against all parties. See TEX.CIV. PRAC. &REM.CODE ANN. § 51.014 (Vernon

2008) (providing when an interlocutory order is appealable). Thus, because the trial court has not

disposed of Chevrolet’s counterclaim, we conclude we have no jurisdiction over this interlocutory

appeal. We therefore grant Appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

April 21, 2010

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13800]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0437]


Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply 
Vessel C-CONTENDER

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative 
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel C-CONTENDER as 
required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternate Compliance was issued on May 18, 
2010.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or 
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this 
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, 
inserting USCG-2010-0437 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking 
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, 
call CWO2 David Mauldin, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast 
Guard, telephone 504-671-2153. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background And Purpose

    A Certificate of Alternative Compliance, as allowed under Title 33 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 81 and 89, has been issued 
for the offshore supply vessel C-CONTENDER. The horizontal distance 
between the forward and aft masthead lights may be 21'- 9 \3/4\ ''. 
Placing the aft masthead light at the horizontal distance from the 
forward masthead light as required by Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72 
COLREGS, and Annex I, section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act, would 
result in an aft masthead light location directly over the cargo deck 
where it would interfere with loading and unloading operations.
    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal 
separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the 
requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, 
section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33 
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: May 18, 2010.
J.W. Johnson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections and Investigations 
Branch, By Direction of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-13800 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Summit Environmental
      Corporation, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30,
      2006 (the “Report”), I, Chris Dellinges, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and





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





Dated:
      August 22, 2006


*/s/
      Chris
      Dellinges*


Chris
      Dellinges


Chief
      Financial Officer








The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.










Exhibit
              32.1
#### E. F. PRESSLEY v. CITY OF ASHEVILLE.

(Filed 1 October, 1930.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Oglesby, J., at*August *Term,*1930, of BuNcombe.

Controversy without action submitted on an agreed statement of facts.

From a judgment against the plaintiff he appeals.

*521
      *J. Scroop Styles for plaintiff.*

*George Pewnel, Chas. N. Malone and Chas. Earl Jones for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

Tbis is a companion, case to *Green v. Asheville, ante,*516, and is controlled by tbe decision in tbat case, tbe only difference being tbat in tbe instant case tbe plaintiff resides in wbat was formerly tbe town of South Biltmore, while tbe plaintiff in tbe *Green case*resides in wbat was formerly tbe town of Kenilworth. Tbe charters of both towns, South Biltmore and Kenilworth, were repealed by tbe extension act in question, and tbe city of Asheville assumed all tbe valid outstanding obligations and liabilities of both towns and succeeded to all of their assets, revenues, taxes, assessments, etc.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, José E. Almeida, certify that:

(1) I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Covidien plc;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    José E.
Almeida               
|José E. Almeida                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|January 22, 2015
EXHIBIT 99.1


[NASDAQ LOGO]


Douglas D. McKenney, CFA
Associate Director
Listing Qualifications
The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.

By Facsimile and Overnight Mail
-------------------------------

July 9, 2002

Mr. Stephen D. Martino
Chief Financial Officer
and Principal Accounting Officer
Detwiler, Mitchell & Co.
225 Franklin Street
Boston, MA 02110

Re: Detwiler, Mitchell & Co. (the "Company"')

Dear Mr. Martino:

For the last 30 consecutive trading days, the price of the Company's common
stock has closed below the minimum $1.00 per share requirement for continued
inclusion under Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(4) (the "Rule"). Therefore, in
accordance with Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(8)(D), the Company will be provided
180 calendar days, or until January 6, 2003, to regain compliance. 1 If at
anytime before January 6, 2003, the bid price of the Company's common stock
closes at $1.00 per share or more for a minimum of 10 consecutive trading
days, Staff will provide written notification that the Company complies
with the Rule. 2  If compliance with this Rule cannot be demonstrated by
January 6, 2003, Staff will determine whether the Company meets the initial
listing criteria for the  The Nasdaq SmallCap Market under Marketplace Rule
431O( c )(2)(A). 3  If it meets the initial listing criteria, Staff will
notify the Company that it has been granted an additional 180 calendar day
grace period to demonstrate compliance. Otherwise, Staff will provide written
notification that its securities will be delisted. At that time, the Company
may appeal Staff's determination to delist its securities to a Listing
Qualifications Panel.

______________________________

1 The 180 day period relates exclusively to the bid price deficiency. The
Company may be delisted during the 180 day period for failure to maintain
compliance with any other listing requirement for which it is currently
on notice or which occurs during this period.

2 Under certain circumstances, to ensure that the Company can sustain
long-term compliance, Staff may require that the closing bid price equals
$1.00 per share or greater for more than 10 consecutive trading days before
determining that the Company complies.

3 Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(2)(A) states that "[f]or initial inclusion, the
issuer shall have (i) stockholders' equity of $5 million; (ii) market
capitalization of $50 million. . . ; or (iii) net income of $750,00O
(excluding extraordinary or non-recurring items) in the most recently
completed fiscal year or in two of the last three most recently completed
fiscal years."


     The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. 9600 Blackwell Road, Rockville, MD 20850

<PAGE>

Mr. Stephen D. Martino
July 9,2002
Page 2


If you have any questions, please contact Moira Keith, Senior Analyst,
at (301) 978-8052.

Sincerely,


/s/  Douglas D. McKenney


<PAGE>