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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

CORPORATION,

Appellant,

v.

,

Appellee.

Case No. 19-cv-05708-HSG 

RE: PG & E CORPORATION AND PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

Bankruptcy Case: 19-30088 DM

Adversary No.:

BAP No.:

Appellant: PG&E and Pacifc Gas and Electric Company

The appeal has been assigned the following case number, 19-cv-05708-HSGbefore the 

Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. .

When the parties have perfected the record on appeal in accordance with the federal and local 

bankruptcy rules, the Bankruptcy Court will transmit to this court either the record or a notice that 

the record is available electronically. 

Pursuant to the federal and local bankruptcy rules, unless the assigned District Judge orders 

otherwise, briefs in this matter shall be due in accordance with the following schedule:

Appellant’s principal brief: no more than 30 days after docketing of notice that the record has 

been transmitted or is available electronically on the District Court’s docket.

Appellee’s principal and response brief: no more than 30 days after service of appellant's brief. 

If the appellee has filed a cross-appeal, the brief of appellee shall contain both the issues and 

arguments pertinent to the cross-appeal and the response to the appellant’s brief.

Appellant’s response and reply brief: no more than 30 days after service of appellee’s brief. 

Appellee’s reply brief: no more than14 days after service of the appellant’s response and reply 

brief, but also no more than 7 days before scheduled argument.

Briefs shall be in compliance with Bankruptcy Rules 8014-8018, as applicable.

Case 4:19-cv-05708-HSG Document 2 Filed 09/11/19 Page 1 of 2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3880 Filed: 09/11/19 Entered: 09/11/19 14:43:59 Page 1 of

2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Pursuant to B.L.R 8019-1, upon completion of the briefing, the assigned District Judge will set a 

date for oral argument, unless the judge determines that oral argument is unnecessary under the 

Bankruptcy Local Rules; in that case, the matter will be deemed submitted for decision.

Dated: 9/11/2019 For the Court

Susan Y. Soong, Clerk

By: Anna Sprinkles

Deputy Clerk

Case 4:19-cv-05708-HSG Document 2 Filed 09/11/19 Page 2 of 2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3880 Filed: 09/11/19 Entered: 09/11/19 14:43:59 Page 2 of

2
#### Alma Deering, Appellant, v 860 Fifth Avenue Corporation et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 8, 1996;

decided April 4, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that that order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order of modification as to all defendants other than defendant George Jaffin, dismissed upon the ground that as to those parties the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order of modification as to defendant George Jaffin, denied.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5690 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit tax-exempt status 

to professional sports leagues that promote the use of the term redskins. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2014 

Ms. NORTON 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 prohibit 

tax-exempt status to professional sports leagues that promote the use of the term redskins. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULE RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL 

4 SPORTS LEAGUES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 501 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating subsection (s) as sub8 section (t), and 

9 (2) by inserting after subsection (r) the fol10 lowing new subsection: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5690 IH

1 ‘‘(s) SPECIAL RULE RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL

2 SPORTS LEAGUES.—No professional sports league shall be 

3 treated as described in subsection (c)(6) if such profes4 sional sports league promotes, or allows a member club 

5 or franchise connected with such professional sports 

6 league to promote, the use of the term ‘redskins’ in con7 nection with any team or club connected with such profes8 sional sports league.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
---

CONSENT OF PATTI NAKAI-LAJOIE

The undersigned hereby consents to: (i) the filing of the written disclosure regarding the technical report entitled “Technical Report Update on the Roca Honda Project, McKinley County, New Mexico, U.S.A.” dated August 6, 2012, in
relation to (a) the Form 40-F Annual Report for the period ended December 31, 2013, and any amendments thereto (the “Form 40-F”), of Energy Fuels Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission, (b) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the period ended December 31, 2013 (the “AIF”) and (c) the Management Information Circular of the Company dated July 15, 2013, and the documents incorporated by reference
therein (the “Circular”); and (ii) the incorporation by reference of such disclosure into (a) the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statement, being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any amendments
thereto (the “S-8”), and (b) the Company’s Form F-10 Registration Statement, being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any amendments thereto (the “F-10”).

I also consent to: (i) the use of my name in the AIF, the Circular, the F-10 and the Form 40-F; (ii) the incorporation by reference of the Form 40-F, and the AIF into the S-8; and (iii) the incorporation by reference of the Form 40-F, the AIF and
the Circular into the F-10.

(Signed)“Patti Nakai-Lajoie”
      Name: Patti Nakai-Lajoie  
  Title: Professional Geoscientist

Date: March 28, 2014

|RPA Inc.55
      University Ave. Suite 501 | Toronto, ON, Canada M5J 2H7 | T+1
      (416) 947 0907 | www.rpacan.com
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------

---
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Margolis , 124 Ohio St.3d 1220, 2010-Ohio-1049.]

D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . M ARGOLIS . [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Margolis, 124 Ohio St.3d 1220, 2010-Ohio-1049.] (No. 2006-2331 — Submitted February 25, 2010 — Decided March 4, 2010.)
O N A PPLICATION FOR R EINSTATEMENT

.

__________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by responde nt, Loren Jonathan Margolis, Attorney Registration No.0007957, last known busin ess address in Cleveland, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of July 18, 2007, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of two years, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of G ov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore, {¶ 3} It is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio. {¶ 4} It is further ordered that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V( 8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication. {¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Margolis , 114 Ohio St.3d 165, 2007-Ohio-3607, 870 N.E.2d 1158.
M OYER , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

______________________
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00425-CV

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC.

(F/K/A AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.),

AND DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

AS TRUSTEE FOR AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.,

ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-R8

v.

CONSUELO JONES, GABRIELA JONES, AND MARCC

On Appeal from the

93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-0453-17-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal will be taxed against the 

party incurring the same.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 16, 2024
#### William M. Frommel, Appellant, v. William McKinstry, Respondent.

— Order affirmed, with costs, to be paid personally by the appellant. Ho opinion.
#### MARY LOUISE KEARNEY, by Her Next Friend, FANNIE BULLOCK, v. A. L. PURRINGTON, JR.

(Filed 20 September, 1939.)

Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of involuntary nonsuit by *Thompson, J.,*at April Term, 1939, of Edgecombe.

*Fountain & Fountain for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Henry C. Bourne and B. Brookes Peters, Jr., for defendant, appellee.*

*791Per Curiam.

We are of opinion, and so hold, that this case is governed by *Ballinger v. Thomas,*195 N. C., 517, and that the judgment of involuntary nonsuit was properly entered.

Affirmed.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5364 Filed: 01/13/20 Entered: 01/14/20 13:41:50 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5364 Filed: 01/13/20 Entered: 01/14/20 13:41:50 Page 2 of

2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 236 (Friday, December 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 63045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29979]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Determination of Insufficiency of Assets To Satisfy All Claims of 
Certain Financial Institutions in Receivership

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the authorities contained in 12 U.S.C. 
1821(c), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was duly 
appointed receiver for the financial institution specified in 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. The FDIC has determined that the proceeds 
which can be realized from the liquidation of the assets of the below 
listed receivership estate are insufficient to wholly satisfy the 
priority claims of depositors against the receivership estates. 
Therefore, upon satisfaction of secured claims, depositor claims and 
claims which have priority over depositors under applicable law, no 
amount will remain or will be recovered sufficient to allow a dividend, 
distribution or payment to any creditor of lessor priority, including 
but not limited to, claims of general creditors. Any such claims are 
hereby determined to be worthless.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tina A. Lamoreaux, Counsel, Legal Division, FDIC, 550 17th Street, NW., 
Room H-11027, Washington, DC 20429. Telephone: (202) 736-3134.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Financial Institution in Receivership 
Determined to Have Insufficient Assets to Satisfy All Claims.

Citytrust, #4382
Bridgeport, Connecticut

    Dated: December 4, 1995.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Jerry L. Langley,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-29979 Filed 12-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00210-CR

ROBERT EARNEST WILKERSON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 355th District 

Court

of Hood County (CR13905)

December 5, 2019

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(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/ Bonnie Sudderth_______________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5376 

To prohibit universal service support of commercial mobile service and 

commercial mobile data service through the Lifeline program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2014 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit universal service support of commercial mobile 

service and commercial mobile data service through the 

Lifeline program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Taxpayer Funded 

5 Cell Phones Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LIFELINE SUPPORT FOR MOBILE 

7 SERVICE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—A provider of commercial mobile 

9 service or commercial mobile data service may not receive 

10 universal service support under sections 214(e) and 254 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5376 IH

1 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 214(e); 

2 254) for the provision of such service through the Lifeline 

3 program of the Federal Communications Commission. 

4 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

5 (1) COMMERCIAL MOBILE DATA SERVICE.—The 

6 term ‘‘commercial mobile data service’’ has the 

7 meaning given such term in section 6001 of the Mid8 dle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 

9 (47 U.S.C. 1401). 

10 (2) COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICE.—The term 

11 ‘‘commercial mobile service’’ has the meaning given 

12 such term in section 332 of the Communications Act 

13 of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Subsidiaries of**

**Apple REIT Eight, Inc.**

**At December 31, 2007**

**(The state of incorporation or organization of eachsubsidiary is Virginia)**

**A. Direct Subsidiaries**

Apple Eight Hospitality, Inc. 

Apple Eight Residential, Inc. 

Apple Eight Ventures, Inc. 

**B. Indirect Subsidiaries (held through direct subsidiaries or other indirect subsidiaries)**

Apple Eight Hospitality Management, Inc. 

Apple Eight HospitalityMassachusetts, Inc. 

Apple Eight Hospitality Massachusetts Services, Inc. 

Apple Eight Hospitality Midwest, LLC 

Apple Eight Hospitality Ownership, Inc. 

Apple Eight SPE Birmingham, Inc. 

Apple Eight SPE Greenville, Inc.

Apple Eight SPE Jacksonville, Inc. 

Apple Eight SPE Tampa,Inc. 

Apple Eight SPE Winston-Salem, Inc. 

Apple Eight ServicesBirmingham, Inc. 

Apple Eight Services Greenville, Inc. 

AppleEight Services Jacksonville, Inc. 

Apple Eight Services Tampa, Inc. 

Apple Eight Services Winston-Salem, Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ROSLIND BARBER

- BANKS , 1 Respondent Below, Appellant,

v. DONNA DAULTON and MARCUS HOUSTON

- DA U LTON , Petitioner s Below , Appellee s
. § § No. 92 , 2018 § § Court Below

— Family Court § of the State of Delaware in and for § New Castle County § § File No. CN17

- 05159 § Petition No . 17

- 3 0582 § § §
Submitted: December 14, 2018 Decided: December 21 , 2018

ORDER Having considered the notice to show cause, the Court concludes that: (1) On February 21, 2018 , the appellant, Roslind Barber

- Banks , filed a notice of appeal from a Family Court order granting guardianship of her daughter to the paternal grandparents

. In June 2018, a notice to show cause was discharged after the Family Court granted Barber

- Banks’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis as to the Family Court fee and a briefing scheduled was issued. On November 1, 2018,

t he Chief Deputy Clerk issued, by cer tified mail to the address Barber

- Banks had provided , a notice directing Barber

- Banks to show cause why the appeal should not

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the appellants under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).2

be dismissed for h er failure to file an opening brief and appendix on or before October 8, 2018

. (2) T he certified notice to show cause was returned to the Court in an envelope marked “Return to Sender, Unclaimed , Unable to Forward.” On December 3, 2018, the notice to show cause was re

- sent by first class mail. Barber

- Banks has failed to respond to the n otice show cau se within the required ten

- day period . Under these circumstances, dismissal of this appeal is deemed to be unopposed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court
Rule s 3(b)(2) and 29 (b) , that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice
Exhibit 23.2





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-226022) of Greenlight Capital Re, Ltd. and in the related Prospectus of our report dated February 27, 2019, with respect to the financial statements (not presented separately herein) of Solasglas Investments, LP (an equity method investee of Greenlight Capital Re, Ltd.), included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filing) for the period from September 1, 2018 (commencement of operations) to December 31, 2018.








/s/ Ernst & Young Ltd.


Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands


March 15, 2019
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

 

                Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Northwest Airlines Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Richard H. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Richard H. Anderson |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
| Richard H. Anderson     |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| August 11, 2003         |

 

----
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the periodic report of Glowpoint, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Edwin F. Heinen, Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of
      Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best
      of my knowledge:




1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      of
      and for the periods indicated.




This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.


Date:
              January 31, 2007/s/ Edwin
              F.
              HeinenEdwin
              F. HeinenChief
              Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 236 (Friday, December 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 63060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29972]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[NAFTA-00622; NAFTA-00622C]


Samax II, Inc., Eggleston, Virginia, et al.; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for NAFTA Transitional 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title 
II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), the 
Department of Labor issued a Certification for NAFTA Transitional 
Adjustment Assistance on October 25, 1995, applicable to all workers of 
Samax II, Inc. located in Eggleston, Virginia. The notice was published 
in the Federal Register on November 9, 1995 (60 FR 56620).
    New information received from petitioners shows that worker 
separations have occurred at Pacemaker Togs, Inc., in New York, New 
York, the parent company of Samax. The workers at Pacemaker Togs 
provide support services for the Samax plants.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by increased 
imports of apparel. Accordingly, the Department is amending the 
certification to include the workers of the parent company, Pacemaker 
Togs, Inc., New York, New York.
    The amended notice applicable to NAFTA-00622 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Samax II, Eggleston, Virginia (NAFTA-00622); 
and Pacemaker Togs, Inc., New York, New York (NAFTA-00622C) who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
September 21, 1994 are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA Section 250 
of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC this 22nd day of November 1995.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-29972 Filed 12-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M