alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: PHILLIP M. ADAMS,

Appellant

______________________ 

2022-1705

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 15/412,696.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ALMA JOHN PATE, Pate Nelson & Hill, Salt Lake City, 

UT, argued for appellant Phillip M. Adams. Also represented by GORDON K. HILL. 

 MAI-TRANG DUC DANG, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Katherine K. Vidal. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN T. HICKMAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, AMY J.

NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Case: 22-1705 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 04/11/2023
 PER CURIAM (PROST, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

April 11,2023 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-1705 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 04/11/2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR
THE PERIOD ENDING JULY 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                           434,795
<SECURITIES>                                     150,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,760,802
<ALLOWANCES>                                     100,000
<INVENTORY>                                    7,128,455
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              14,291,640
<PP&E>                                           948,386
<DEPRECIATION>                                   136,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                20,796,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         12,023,331
<BONDS>                                           25,467
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            3
<COMMON>                                           9,650
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,737,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  20,796,419
<SALES>                                       28,059,561
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              28,059,561
<CGS>                                         22,773,825
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 22,773,825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  73,416
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               448,587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (120,489)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (120,489)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  750,000
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      62,600
<EPS-BASIC>                                          .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .01



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Terrance J. Lillis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of PrincipalLife Income Fundings Trust 2007-9 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report isincluded in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 27, 2008   /s/ Terrance J. Lillis   Terrance J. Lillis  Chief Financial Officer- Retirement and Investor Services
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4179    Filed: 10/10/19    Entered: 10/10/19 13:53:20    Page 1 of2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4179    Filed: 10/10/19    Entered: 10/10/19 13:53:20    Page 2 of2
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 

NANCY MITCHELL (pro hac vice pending) 

nmitchell@omm.com 

PETER FRIEDMAN (admitted pro hac vice) 

pfriedman@omm.com 

MATTHEW L. HINKER (admitted pro hac vice) 

mhinker@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

7 Times Square 

New York, NY 10036 

Telephone: (212) 326-2000 

Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 

JACOB T. BEISWENGER (S.B. #321012) 

jbeiswenger@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

400 South Hope Street 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 

Telephone: (213) 430-6000 

Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 

Attorneys for Governor Gavin Newsom 

and the Department of Finance for 

the State of California 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

-andPACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

Debtors. 

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY 

PRO HAC VICE

 Affects PG&E Corporation 

 Affects Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

 Affects both Debtors 

*All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Signed and Filed: August 7, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

August 07, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3425 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 15:02:57 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 

Nancy Mitchell, whose business address and telephone number are 7 Times Square, New 

York, NY 10036, (212) 326-2000, and who is an active member in good standing of the bars of 

New York and Illinois, having applied in the above-entitled action for admission to practice in the 

Northern District of California on a pro hac vice basis, representing (i) Governor Gavin Newsom, 

in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California, but not on behalf of any agency, 

department, unity or entity of the State of California, and (ii) the Department of Finance for the 

State of California. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application is granted, subject to the terms and 

conditions of B.L.R. 1001-2(a)(29) and Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must 

indicate appearance pro hac vice. Service of papers upon and communication with co-counsel 

designated in the application will constitute notice to the represented party. All future filings in 

this action are subject to the Bankruptcy Local Rules and Electronic Case Filing Procedures

adopted by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. 

* * * END OF ORDER * * * 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3425 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 15:02:57 Page 2 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 

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

M. Ryan Pinkston (SBN 310971) 

rpinkston@seyfarth.com 

560 Mission Street, Suite 3100 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 397-2823 

Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 

Attorneys for 

Turner Construction Company

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

- and - 

PACIFIC 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) 

TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY’S 

NOTICE OF PERFECTION OF LIEN 

PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 546(b)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4912 Filed: 12/01/19 Entered: 12/01/19 12:43:45 Page 1 of

5
1

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 

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(b)(3) and 546(b), Turner Construction Company (“Turner”) hereby 

gives notice of its perfection of, maintenance and continuation of perfection of, and intention to enforce 

to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, see, e.g., California Civil Code § 8400 et seq., Turner’s 

duly recorded mechanic’s lien for labor, equipment, material, and services provided by Turner to Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company, as more fully described in the attached Exhibit A. See Village Nurseries v. 

Gould (In re Baldwin Builders), 232 B.R. 406 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999); Village Nurseries v. Greenbaum, 

101 Cal. App. 4th 26 (2002). This notice is in addition to, and not in lieu of, Turner’s right and intention 

to enforce its lien to the fullest extent permitted by law. Turner reserves all rights. 

DATED: December 1, 2019 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

By: /s/ M. Ryan Pinkston 

M. Ryan Pinkston 

Attorneys for Turner Construction Company

56430669v.1 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4912 Filed: 12/01/19 Entered: 12/01/19 12:43:45 Page 2 of

5
EXHIBIT A 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4912 Filed: 12/01/19 Entered: 12/01/19 12:43:45 Page 3 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4912 Filed: 12/01/19 Entered: 12/01/19 12:43:45 Page 4 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4912 Filed: 12/01/19 Entered: 12/01/19 12:43:45 Page 5 of

5
Converted by EDGARwiz














Loan agreement and Promissory Note

April 1, 2009




I, Robert O’Connor, agree to loan National Automation Services, Inc. (NAS) located at 2470 St. Rose Parkway Suite 311, Henderson, Nevada the sum of $86,000 according to the following terms and conditions: 




We are consolidating principle and interest balance to $86,000 with an interest rate of 10% per annum effective April 1, 2009, of which the Company has the option of interest repayment in cash or shares of the Company’s common stock. Any and all interest can be prepaid in cash or in shares of the Company’s common stock at the discretion of the Company. 




The loan in both principle and interest is payable on demand.



















/s/ Robert O’Connor

__________________________

Robert O’Connor







/s/Robert Chance

__________________________

Robert Chance

CEO National Automation Services, Inc.
#### STATE v. POLLY JONES.

*(Filed 11*January, 1957.)

Homicide § 25—

Conflicting evidence as to whether defendant was the person who intentionally fired the pistol shot that killed deceased requires the submission of the issue to the jury and is sufficient to support verdict of guilty of manslaughter.

Johnson, J., not sitting.

Appeal by defendant from *Carr, J.,*March Term 1956 of Scotland.

*408The defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging her with the murder of one Mildred Shaw. However, at the call of the case the solicitor for the State announced that he would not ask for a verdict of guilty of the capital felony but for a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, or manslaughter, as the evidence might warrant.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. From the judgment imposed, the defendant appeals, assigning error.

*Attorney-General Patton and Assistant Attorney-General Love for the State.*

*Joe M. Cox and Gilbert Medlin for defendant.*

Per CuRiam.

The State’s evidence and that offered on behalf of the defendant was in sharp conflict as to whether or not the defendant fired the pistol shot that killed Mildred Shaw. Even so, the State’s evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and counsel for defendant so conceded in arguing this appeal. Moreover, the conflict in the evidence bearing on this crucial question, was for the jury to resolve and not the court. The State’s evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

We have carefully examined and considered each of the exceptions and assignments of error brought forward and argued in the defendant’s brief and find no error which is sufficiently prejudicial to justify a new trial.

No error.

Johnson, J., not sitting.
**CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO** **18
U.S.C. Section 1350,**
 **As
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**
 **THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the
undersigned, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of State Financial Services
Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, based on his knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005
(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
  By: /s/ Michael J. Falbo
 Michael
J. Falbo
 August 9,
2005
 
 By: Daniel L. Westrope
 Daniel L.
Westrope
 August 9,
2005
#### Lori A. Grossman, Respondent, v Gary Grossman, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 833]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), entered October 10, 2001, as, after a nonjury trial, *547awarded the plaintiff mother sole custody of the parties’ child, imputed an annual income of $75,000 to him for the purpose of determining the award of child support, and awarded exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence to the plaintiff mother until the child graduates from high school, dies, marries, joins the armed forces, or is otherwise emancipated.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Supreme Court considered the totality of circumstances in determining that the best interest of the child would be served by awarding the mother sole custody *(see Bains v Bains,*308 AD2d 557 [2003]; *Gainey v Gainey,*303 AD2d 628, 629 [2003]). Since the Supreme Court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, it will not be disturbed *(see Amari v Molloy,*293 AD2d 431 [2002]; *Petek v Petek,*239 AD2d 327 [1997]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
DA 10-0561

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2011 MT 190N

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF

STANLEY M. KNUDSON, 

Deceased.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Hill, Cause No. DP 08-47

Honorable David Rice, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellants:

Thomas J. Sheehy, Brian Bekker; Sheehy Law Office Big Sandy, Montana

Anne Biby, Attorney at Law, Kalispell, Montana (Attorneys for Leslie 

Knudson and Deborah Harman)

For Appellee:

Kevin C. Meek, Jordan Y. Crosby; Ugrin, Alexander, Zadick & Higgins,

P.C., Great Falls (Attorneys for Janet Knudson)

Brian Lilletvedt, Attorney at Law, Havre, Montana (Attorney for Kyle

Austin)

Submitted on Briefs: July 27, 2011

 Decided: August 9, 2011

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

August 9 2011
2

Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating 

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not 

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number and disposition shall be included in this 

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana 

Reports. 

¶2 Leslie Knudson and Deborah Harman challenged the validity of the will of their 

father Stanley M. Knudson on the ground that it was executed under the undue influence 

of their sister Janet Knudson and her son Kyle Austin. In July, 2010, following a fourday trial, the jury determined that the challenged will was not the product of undue 

influence. On August 5, 2010 the District Court entered judgment validating the will and 

admitting it to probate. Leslie and Deborah appeal. We affirm.

¶3 Stanley Knudson died in April, 2008. Stanley executed the will at issue on May 

10, 2004, revoking a prior will executed in 2001. The 2004 will left the bulk of Stanley’s 

estate to Janet and Kyle. Leslie and Deborah challenge the District Court’s decisions to 

exclude evidence that Kyle made an offer to buy Stanley’s farm in 2008 and evidence 

that Kyle and Janet had accused Stanley’s companion Minnie Simko of improperly 

medicating him, also in 2008. 

¶4 Both parties agree that a district court’s broad discretion to determine whether

evidence is relevant and admissible is reviewed for abuse of discretion. We have 
3

reviewed the proffered evidence and the District Court’s rulings and find that the District 

Court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the evidence.

¶5 Affirmed.

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

We concur:

/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT

/S/ JIM RICE

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00065

- CR

Verba Felicia Peterson

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 432nd District Court

o f Tarrant County (1460794R )

July 26, 2018

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(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 A PPEALS

By

_ /s/ Wade Birdwell

________________ Justice Wade Birdwell
'. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 'GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Q-CM&lad . 

AUSTIN 

li-- 

Eonorable Warren LIoDoneld 

County Attorney 

slcith County 

Tyler8 Taxas 

Desr Sir; 

st, but not e 

mason of a mmin votes for 

tes, c;ay be ,deed, or whether 

election is necese the County Execu- 

~mi.ttse has providea 

ination of county ana 

t officora by a EaJorthe only other 

candidate for said office printed on the ballot, but C, nhoso nsze was not printed on the 

ballot, received tvi0 votes as a Write inn 

candidate, is it necesssry for.A an8 D to have 

a run-off election?" 

/ 

. 

’ - 769 

.I 
i > 

I Honorable warren WXMxald, page 2 

‘, 

Youstate in your letter that the County Rmecutlve Committee, prior to the tirst primary, has provided 

ror nomination ror county and preolnct orricers by a mjorlty vote in accordance with Article 3106, Revised civil ’ .s. 

Statutes, 1925, which provides that, F. .fm 2, . 

‘The County EXeCUtiVe Committee shall deaide whether the nomination of county CffLcers 

’ shall be by majority or plurality vote, and, 

.if by a majority vote, the CommSttee shall cell 

as many eleotlons a8 may be necessary to make 

such nomination . , ,* 

The San Antonio court of civil Appeals In the 

oaae of P7agner vs. Yates 119 s. w. (2a) 115, in oonstrulng this 0tatute deolaredi 

AIt is olear that where the. Exeoutfve Commlttce, at the proper time and prior to the 

rirst primary, provides for the nomtnation of 

oounty ana precinct officers by majority vote 

(Art, 1306, R. S. 1925), no person can be declared to be the nominee or hlo party for a 

county or precinct office unless that person 

receives e ma jorfty or the votes in the first 

primary.” 

The oases of Dunagan vs. Jones, 76 S. PJ. (20) 219, 

and Cunningham vs. McDeraett, 277 S. Pi. .218,very olenrly establish the principle that v{rite-in votes for candidates 

whose names do not appear on the offioial ballot are of equal 

. dignity with votes for candidates whose names were printed on 

the ballot $,n the first prtiary or general eleotion. 

Applying the rules announced in the foregoing. oaees 

to the faot situation presented in your request, we are 0t the 

Opinion that it vrill be necessary to hold a run-ofr election 

to Select the dec;cCratiC nominee for the office of Justice or 

the Peace, inasmuch as no cendldate for said orfice received 

a majority at the general primary election. 

we vfish t0 express our sincere appreciatLon ror 

the excellent brief submitt.ed by you nlth your =quOSt, wtdOh 

. . 
%onorable Warren UaDonald, Page 3 

has beon of mterlal asr;istanoe to us. 

Yours very truly ,.-- 

e.:. 

WRK: etT 

., ', : 

- 

,- 

L
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TIMOTHY EUGENE ALEXANDER, JR., )

DOC #Y59467, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3061

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed November 20, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hendry 

County; James D. Sloan, Judge.

Jason B. Blank of Haber Blank, LLP, Fort 

Lauderdale, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.