alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 95-2776

Non-Argument Calendar.

TAMPA BAY INTERNATIONAL TERMINALS, INC., Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellee,

v.

TAMPA MARITIME ASSOCIATION—INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S

ASSOCIATION PENSION PLAN AND TRUST, Defendant-Counter-claimantAppellant.

Jan. 23, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Florida. (No. 93-1060-CIV-T-23B), Steven D. Merryday,

Judge.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON,

Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Tampa Maritime Association-International Longshoremen's

Association Pension Plan and Trust ("Appellant") appeals the

district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Tampa Bay

International Terminals ("Appellee"). Appellant asserted in a

letter to Appellee, dated May 28, 1993, that Appellee was an

employer subject to withdrawal liability under Section 3(5) of the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29

U.S.C.A. §§ 1001-1461 (West 1985 & Supp.1995), and demanded payment

of such withdrawal liability. Appellee filed an action seeking

declaratory judgment that it was not subject to withdrawal

liability on grounds that it was not an "employer" within the

meaning of ERISA as amended by the Multi-Employer Pension Plan

Amendments Act ("MPPAA"), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1381-1453 (West 1985 &
Supp.1995). Appellant answered and counterclaimed to collect

Appellee's alleged withdrawal liability. Both sides moved for

summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment

in favor of Appellee.

 This appeal presents a straightforward question of law:

whether Appellee is an "employer" for purposes of ERISA, as amended

by the MPPAA, even though Appellee is not contractually obligated

to contribute to Appellant.

 Appellant argues essentially that because Appellee bears some

of the hallmarks of a common law "employer," Appellee should be

considered an "employer" under the MPPAA. The definition of

"employer," however, is a matter of federal law. See Carriers

Containers Council v. Mobile S.S. Ass'n, 896 F.2d 1330, 1343 (11th

Cir.1990). In Carriers Containers, this Court adopted the

"contributing obligor" test for determining whether an entity is an

"employer" under the MPPAA. A "contributing obligor" is one who is

"obligated to contribute to a plan for the benefit of a plan's

participants." Id.

We are persuaded by the Eighth Circuit's application of the

"contributing obligor" test under circumstances nearly identical to

this case. See Seaway Port Authority of Duluth v. Duluth-Superior

ILA Marine Ass'n Restated Pension Plan, 920 F.2d 503 (8th

Cir.1990). In Seaway, the Eighth Circuit held that a party must be

contractually bound to make pension contributions in order to be an

"employer" under MPPAA. Id. at 509. We believe that this is the

best reading of Carriers Containers and is consistent with the

treatment that other Circuits have given to withdrawal liability
under ERISA as amended by MPPAA.

Accordingly, we conclude that this appeal is without merit.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,  As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of WMG Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael D. Fleisher, Chief Financial Officer of WMG Acquisition Corp., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | /s/MICHAEL D. FLEISHERMichael D. Fleisher
Chief Financial Officer
Dated: March 25, 2005
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18618-18619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8984]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of Labor Statistics


Business Research Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting and Agenda

    The regular Spring meeting of the Committee on Occupational Safety 
and Health Statistics of the Business Research Advisory Council will be 
held on May 4, 1995, at 1:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in Meeting 
Room 9 of the Postal Square Building Conference Center, 2 Massachusetts 
Avenue, NE., Washington, DC.
    The Business Research Advisory Council and its committees advise 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics with respect to technical matters 
associated with the Bureau's programs. Membership consists of technical 
officers from American business and industry.
    The schedule and agenda for the meeting is as follows:

Thursday, May 4, 1995

1:00-4:00 p.m.--Committee on Occupational Safety and Health Statistics
    1. Report on the demographics of injured/ill workers and the 
circumstances of their injuries and illnesses as reported in the 1993 
[[Page 18619]] Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses
    2. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) data 
collection initiative
    3. Relative Risk Indicators
    4. Survey of Employer-Provided Training

    The meeting is open to the public. Persons with disabilities 
wishing to attend should contact Constance B. DiCesare, Liaison, 
Business Research Advisory Council, at (202) 606-5887, for appropriate 
accommodations.

    Signed at Washington, DC the 6th day of April 1995.
Katharine G. Abraham,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 95-8984 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-24-M
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 104 (Wednesday, June 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 29573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11556]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD20-9-000]


Hybrid Resources; Notice Inviting Comments

    On January 19, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) directed each Regional Transmission Organization and 
Independent System Operator (RTO/ISO) to submit informational reports 
by July 19, 2021 regarding hybrid resource issues, with public comments 
due 30 days thereafter (August 18, 2021).\1\ Concurrently with the 
issuance of this notice, the Commission is issuing a staff white paper 
on Hybrid Resources. The white paper discusses the Hybrid Resources 
technical conference held by the Commission in July 2020 in this 
proceeding, as well as the information learned in post-technical 
conference comments.\2\ Pursuant to this notice, all interested persons 
are invited to submit comments on the white paper, including 
information pertaining to non-RTO/ISO regions. We encourage commenters 
to jointly respond to both the white paper and RTO/ISO informational 
reports where applicable to avoid duplicate comments. Comments on both 
the RTO/ISO informational reports and the white paper are due August 
18, 2021, 30 days after the RTO/ISO hybrid resource informational 
reports are filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Hybrid Resources, 174 FERC ] 61,034 (2021).
    \2\ See Hybrid Resources, Notice Inviting Post-Technical 
Conference Comments, Docket No. AD20-9-000 (Aug. 10, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more information about this Notice, please contact:

Kaitlin Johnson (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and 
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8542, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85cee4ecf1e9ecebabcfeaedebf6eaebc5e3e0f7e6abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="185379716c74717636527770766b7776587e7d6a7b367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>.
Meghan O'Brien (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-6137, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#602d050708010e4e2f47021209050e20060512034e070f16">Meghan.O'<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aeccdcc7cbc0eec8cbdccd80c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: May 26, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11556 Filed 6-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Ronald R. MASON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 47075.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 20, 1993.

Robert E. Steele, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and HANNA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 2, 2013 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00591-CR NEIL NOBLE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F06-86575

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Neil Noble filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the trial court asking that the trial court order the Dallas County District Attorney to review appellant’s motion to vacate his plea. The trial court did not rule on the petition for writ of mandamus and appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s “decision.” We conclude we lack juri sdiction over the appeal. “Jurisdiction concerns the power of a c ourt to hear and determine a case.” Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The juri sdiction of an appellate court must be legally invoked, and, if not, the power of the court to act is as ab sent as if it did not exist. See id. at 523. As a general rule, an appellate court ma y consider appeals by criminal defendants only after conviction. Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.––D allas 1998, no pet.). A court of appeals has no ju risdiction over an appeal absent a wr itten judgment or an appealable–2– order. See Gutierrez v. State , 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (T ex. Crim. App. 2010); Nikrasch v. State , 698 S.W.2d 443, 450 (Tex. App.––Dallas 1985, no pet.). In this case, the trial court did not rule on appellant’s petition fo r writ of mandamus. Therefore, there is neither a judgment nor an app ealable order, leaving us without jurisdiction. See Gutierrez , 307 S.W.3d at 321; Nikrasch , 698 S.W.2d at 450. We dismiss the appeal fo r want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP . P. 47 130591F.U05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
NEIL NOBLE, Appellant No. 05-13-00591-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F06-86575. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, Justices Myers and Evans participating. Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered July 2, 2013

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6016

CHESTER JAMES JENKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL T. BELL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-01-863)

Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chester James Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Chester James Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. Jenkins v. Bell, No. CA-01-

863 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>




CONTACT:  Raoul J. Witteveen
                     (212) 916-3261

NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

              INTERPOOL, INC. CONSUMMATES EXCHANGE OFFER FOR 100%
               OF 7.35% NOTES DUE 2007 AND 7.20% NOTES DUE 2007

PRINCETON, NJ, December 19,1997 -- Interpool, Inc. (NYSE: IPX) announced today
the successful consummation of concurrent exchange offers for all of the
Company's outstanding 7.35% Notes due 2007 and 7.20% Notes due 2007. Pursuant
to the exchange offers, the entire $150,000,000 principal amount of 7.35%
Notes due 2007 (the "7.35% Private Notes") and $75,000,000 principal amount of
7.20% Notes due 2007 (the "7.20% Private Notes"), (the "Private Notes") were
tendered prior to the expiration of the offers and exchanged for the same
principal amount of Interpool 7.35% Notes due 2007 (the "7.35% Exchange
Notes") and 7.20% Notes due 2007 (the "7.20% Exchange Notes"), (the "Exchange
Notes"), which have been registered under the Securities Act. The 7.35%
Private Notes and 7.20% Private Notes were originally issued and sold on July
31, 1997 and August 5, 1997, respectively, in transactions exempt from
registration under the Securities Act.

The Exchange Notes issued in the exchange offers have substantially the same
terms and conditions as the unregistered Private Notes, except that the
Exchange Notes are not subject to the restrictions on resale or transfer which
applied to the unregistered Private Notes.

Interpool, originally founded in1968, is one of the world's leading lessors of
cargo containers used in international trade and is the second largest lessor
of intermodal container chassis in the United States. Interpool leases its
containers and chassis to over 200 customers, including nearly all of the
world's 20 largest international container shipping lines.

                                     # # #
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9212]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

State Financial Services Corporation, et al.; Formations of; 
Acquisitions by; and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in 
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that 
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at 
a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than May 8, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (James A. Bluemle, Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690:
    1. State Financial Services Corporation, Hales Corners, Wisconsin; 
to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Waterford Bancshares, 
Waterford, Wisconsin, and thereby indirectly acquire Waterford Bank, 
Waterford, Wisconsin.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166:
    1. Mercantile Bancorporation, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri; to acquire 
100 percent of the voting shares of Southwest Bancshares, Inc., 
Bolivar, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire Southwest Bank, 
Bolivar, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 10, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-9212 Filed 4-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF STATION CASINOS, INC.

|Nevada Corporations                            |                                                          | 
|---------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Palace Station Hotel & Casino, Inc.            |                                                          | 
|Texas Station, LLC                             |                                                          | 
|Boulder Station, Inc.                          |                                                          | 
|Sunset Station, Inc.                           |                                                          | 
|Santa Fe Station, Inc.                         |                                                          | 
|Fiesta Station, Inc.                           |                                                          | 
|Lake Mead Station, Inc.                        |                                                          | 
|Tropicana Station, Inc.                        |                                                          | 
|Durango Station, Inc.                          |                                                          | 
|Palm Station, LLC                              |                                                          | 
|                                               | Fiesta Palms, LLC (6.7% ownership)                       | 
|Green Valley Station, Inc.:                    |                                                          | 
|                                               | Town Center Amusements, Inc.                             | 
|                                               | d.b.a. Barley's Casino & Brewing Company (50% ownership) | 
|GV Ranch Station, Inc.:                        |                                                          | 
|Green Valley Ranch Gaming, LLC (50% ownership) |                                                          | 
|Station Holdings, Inc.:                        |                                                          | 
|                                               | Red Rock Station Holdings, LLC                           | 
|                                               | Carey Station Holdings, LLC                              | 
|                                               | Fiesta Station Holdings, LLC                             | 
|                                               | Lake Mead Station Holdings, LLC                          | 
|Vista Holdings, LLC                            |                                                          | 
|Your Move, LLC                                 |                                                          | 
|Your Move, Inc. (75% ownership)                |                                                          | 
|Game Room, LLC                                 |                                                          | 
|Gamecast, LLC                                  |                                                          | 

---

QuickLinks
China TMK Battery Systems Inc.: Exhibit 10.25 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.25

Short-term Loan Agreement


No. NBCB7301DK09036



Borrower: Shenzhen Bo Rou Industrial Co., Ltd.


Lender: Ningbo Bank Company Limited by Shares Shenzhen
Branch



Main Contents:


The Lender will lend RMB 8 million to the Borrower and the
proceeds will be used as flowing capital for production. The term of the loan is
from August 24, 2009 to August 23, 2010 at the rate of 5.31‰ per month. The
interest will be paid on a quarterly basis. 30% of the principal of the loan
shall be repaid within six month since the draw of the fund, and the Borrower
shall deposit at the Lender in its settlement account no less than 30% of the
revenue of the Borrower.

Right of the Lender. The Lender has the right to inspect the
operation and financial status of the borrower and the borrower shall provide
financial statements on a monthly basis. The Lender can announce the pre-mature
of the borrowing if (a) the Borrower has stopped operation, liquidated, or its
business license is revoked; (b) the borrower intentional provides false
information relating the contract; (c) the borrower becomes insolvent; or (d)
the borrower has encountered other difficulties that harm its ability to repay
the loan, etc.

Responsibility of the Borrower. The Borrower shall notify the
Lender in case there is any material change to the Borrower such as joint
venture, acquisition, reorganization of the Borrower and shall obtain the
consent of the Lender before undertaking any material change to the Borrower.
The Borrower shall also obtain the consent of the Lender before it can provide
any security for any third party’s obligations. The Lender can declare the
maturity of the loan if by the end of 2009, after the capital injection from
venture capital, the group company has borrowed more than RMB130 million, and
the revenue of the parent company of the Borrower is less than RMB 350 million
and the revenue of the Borrower is less than RMB 130 million. During the term of
the loan, the Borrower cannot distribute profits, increase any guaranty it has
provided for third parities or borrowing from third parties.

Penalty interest. The Borrower will be charged penalty interest
that is 1.5 times to the normal interest under the contract if it fails to repay
the loan on time. The Borrower will be charged penalty interest that is 1.8
times to the normal interest under the contract if it does not use the proceeds
into the purpose specified in the contract.

Method of the Security: the guaranty provided for the loan is
mortgage and a third party’s guaranty.

Headings of the articles omitted:


	Dispute Resolution
  
	Effectiveness, Amendment, Termination of the Contract 
	Miscellaneous 
	Acknowledgment by the Parities
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ending January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Queen, Principal Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

1.

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

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Michael D. Queen

Michael D. Queen,

Principal Executive Officer

March 13, 2009