alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### OREGON ADVOCACY CENTER; Michael McCormack, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Stanley MAZUR-HART, Superintendent of the Oregon State Hospital and his successors in office, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-35469.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 8, 2003.

Decided Aug. 7, 2003.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HUG, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Oregon Advocacy Center has standing to bring this claim. *Oregon Advocacy Ctr. v. Mink,*322 F.3d 1101, 1113 (9th Cir.2003). The Superintendent has not carried his burden of proving collateral estoppel. *Kamilche Co. v. United States,*53 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir.1995). OAC was not a party to the prior lawsuit, did not control the earlier litigation, and the legal assistance claim to disabled persons was not raised in the earlier suit. *Nordhom v. Ladish Co.,*9 F.3d 1402, 1405 (9th Cir.1993). Michael McCormack joined this action because Superintendent discontinued providing him access to federal appellate opinions.

McCormack’s claim is not moot because voluntary cessation does not moot a claim. *Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw,*528 U.S. 167, 189, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000). The injury is also capable of repetition. *Biodiversity Legal Found, v. Badgley,*309 F.3d 1166, 1173 (9th Cir.2002).

The district court did not err in finding a constitutional violation over access to the courts. *Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 356, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). The relief ordered is necessary to correct ongoing violations of the right of access to the courts.

Finally, attorney’s fees are properly awarded to OAC because plaintiffs pre*745vailed on the merits. *Barrios v. Cal. Interscholastic Fed’n,*277 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6630 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 15, 2022 

Received 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1400 N Kraemer Blvd. in Placentia, California, as the ‘‘PFC Jang Ho Kim Post Office Building’’. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6630 RDS

1 SECTION 1. PFC JANG HO KIM POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 2400 N Kraemer Blvd. in 

4 Placentia, California, shall be known and designated as 

5 the ‘‘PFC Jang Ho Kim Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘PFC Jang Ho Kim 

10 Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 14, 

2022. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 

By KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Deputy Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
212 La. 714

#### STATE ex rel. PIPER v. EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 38304.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

*Dec.*15, 1947.

Maurice R. Woulfe, of New Orleans, for relator-appellant.

Taylor, Porter, Brooks *&*Fuller, of Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee.

HAMITER, Justice.

Appellee, the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, has moved to dismiss the appeal herein of plaintiff, C. B. Piper, which was perfected from a judgment rejecting his demands.

In the suit plaintiff seeks to be reinstated as principal and a permanent teacher, and in the alternative as a probationary teacher, of the McKinley High School in Baton Rouge, he alleging that his dismissal as such was attempted by the defendant without proceeding according to the requirements of the Teachers’ Tenure Law of Louisiana, Act No. 100 of 1922, as amended by Act No. 250 of *1944.*Additionally, he asks judgment for his unpaid salary, which he alleges to be $2,756 per year, commencing from the date of the attempted dismissal.

In its motion filed here appellee urges that the question presented by the appeal is now moot because, as appears from an attached photostat copy of a document bearing his signature, appellant has voluntarily signified an intention in writing not to¡ teach again in the public schools of Louisiana.

The document to which reference is made is merely an application, filed by appellant with the Board of Trustees of the Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana on August 1, 1947, requesting “the return, of the amount of contributions and accrued interest thereon standing to my credit in. the Annuity Savings Fund.” It is true that the application also contains the printed assertion that “I am not now employed and do not now expect to teach again in the public schools or state educational institutions of Louisiana.” But this declaration (the basis for the motion), we think, is not *207entirely, even if to some extent, destructive of the efficacy of the litigation, including the appeal. For the suit contains a demand for reinstatement as principal and teacher during the 1945 — 46 school term, as well as for payment of the attendant salary of $2,756, and hence concerns a period prior to the date of the filing of the mentioned application.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
Order entered October 1, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00507-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

JONATHAN PRESTON YATES, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. M13-15306

ORDER

Before the Court is Jonathan Preston Yates’s September 30, 2015 Second Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Appellee’s Brief. We GRANT the motion and DIRECT the Clerk to 

filed the brief tendered by Yates on September 30, 2015.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### O’DAY v. KAPANICA.

No. 13785.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 14, 1931.

A. E. Rainold, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Edwin I. Mahoney, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

JANVIER, J,

This case grows out of an intersectional automobile collision. Plaintiff was driving his ear on Clara street, and intended crossing Napoleon avenue from the lower to the upper side thereof. Defendant’s truck was on the lower side of Napoleon avenue, going toward the lake. Plaintiff states that, before attempting to cross Napoleon avenue, he brought his car to a stop and sounded his horn, and that he saw nothing approaching, and proceeded to cross at a speed of about 5 miles an hour. He testifies that, as he entered Napoleon avenue, he saw defendant’s truck approaching at a speed of about 30 miles an hour, and that then it was about 125 feet from his car. He also maintains that he had practically crossed the lower roadway of Napoleon avenue, and that only the rear portion of his car remained in the roadway, when it was struck by the truck.

The truck driver states that the truck was equipped with a “governor,” which prevented the truck’s being driven at a speed in excess of about 17 miles an hour; that, as he approached the intersection of Clara street at a speed of 11 or 12 miles an hour, plaintiff’s car suddenly emerged from the intersecting street, running about 18 miles an hour, and attempted to cross in front of the truck; that he applied both the service and the emergency brakes; but that the street was wet and the truck was heavily loaded, and it was impossible to avoid the collision.

The testimony of plaintiff is not impressive, particularly with reference to his having stopped and to his having made certain measurements a long time after the accident, and also with reference to his having followed the truck later and discovered by his own speedometer that it could run faster than 17 miles an hour. We are given the impression from the entire record that plaintiff did not take such precautions, as he should have taken, before entering a boulevard having rights which, under the city traffic ordinance, O. C. S.,’No. 7490, were superior to those accorded to vehicles on intersecting streets.

If the truck was speeding along at 30 miles an hour, and if O’Day was driving at only 5 miles an hour, he had the better opportunity to stop, and he should have done so, especially since the street was wet with water and sleet. His failure to see the truck cannot be excused, since, manifestly, it was on the street, and was in view of any one who might look.

We hesitate to reverse the finding of the trial court on a question of fact, but, since we believe that it is manifestly erroneous, we must do so.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and plaintiff’s suit is dismissed, at his cost.

Reversed.
Exhibit 10.1




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



The Wall Street Journal
       3




---



##### 



Certain Interpretive Matters
            
 Description of Project
  4




---



##### 



Purchase, Delivery and Merchandising Obligations
  This section intentionally left blank
 Quantity
 Quality; Samples
   5




---



##### 



Price
    6




---



##### 



Transportation
    Purchase Price
  Intentionally omitted
 Intentionally omitted
 Interest
  7




---



##### 



Audit
 
 Term
 Either Partys Right to Terminate Early
 Effect of Termination
 
 Licensing
 Risk Management
  8




---



##### 



Access
 Quantity Adjustment
 
  
 Monthly Ethanol Merchandising Fee
 Testing
 ***
    
    Confidential material redacted and filed separately with the Commission.  9




---



##### 



Statement of Ethanol Sales
 Billing Disputes
 Set-Off Rights
 
  
 Notice of Default
  10




---



##### 



Events of Default of Lansing
           11




---



##### 



Events of Default of Ethanol Producer
        12




---



##### 



Termination
 Calculation of Damages
    13




---



##### 



Lenders Rights
 
 Definition of Force Majeure
 Applicability of Force Majeure
      14




---



##### 



Limitations on Effect of Force Majeure
  
 Ethanol Producers Representations, Warranties and Covenants
      15




---



##### 



Lansing Representations, Warranties and Covenants
      16




---



##### 



Waiver of Compliance, Consents
 
   17




---



##### 



Insurance
      Certificates of Insurance
 Additional Insured
 Unavailability of Coverages
 
   18




---



##### 



No Assignment Generally
 Exceptions
   Additional Exceptions
 Requirements for Assignment
 Failure to Obtain Consent
  19




---



##### 



20




---



##### 



Governing Law
 Entire Agreement Enforcement of Rights
 Successors and Assigns
 Waiver
 Taxes
 Disclaimer of Third Party Beneficiary Rights
  21




---



##### 



Relationship of the Parties
   Expenses and Obligations
 Survival of Obligations
 Dispute Resolution
 Compliance with Law
  22




---



##### 



Amendment and Modification
 Confidentiality
   Partial Invalidity
 Counterparts
  LANSING ETHANOL SERVICES, LLCBy:
    /s/ Scott MillsName:
    Scott MillsTitle:
    General ManagerONE EARTH ENERGY, LLCBy:
    /s/ Steven KellyName:
    Steven KellyTitle:
    President  23
Exhibit 32.3

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Quarterly Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

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



May 4, 2005
                                                /S/ EDWIN A. GUILES
                                              ______________________
                                               Edwin A. Guiles
                                               Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 11370] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 1. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Hampshire ( FEMA-1782-DR ), dated 08/11/2008. 

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Tornado, and Flooding.                     

*Incident Period:*                         07/24/2008.                     

*Effective Date:*                         08/20/2008.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         10/10/2008.                     

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         05/11/2009.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of New Hampshire, dated 08/11/2008, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster. 

*Primary Counties:*                     Merrimack, Strafford.                 

*Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):*

New Hampshire: Sullivan. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-20129 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: A SSIGNMENT OF JUDGE OF JOHN R. PADOVA, JR. OF THE COURT

OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE FI RST

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TO A DIVISION OF SAID COURT :

:

:

:

:

: No. 3 7 5 Common Pleas Judicial

Classification Docket

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6 th day of October , 202 2

, upon consideration of the Petition of the

Honorable Idee C. Fox, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the Fi rst

Judicial District of Pennsylvania, for the permanent assignment of the Honorable John R.

Padova , Jr. to the Trial Division of the Court of Common Pleas of the Fi rst Judicial District

of Pennsyl vania, said Petition is GRANTED and the requested assignment is approved.
Exhibit 33.3**[JPMORGAN CHASE LOGO]****MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA**     JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessingcompliance as of September 30, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006 through September 30,2006 (the “Reporting Period”), with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “CFR”), to the extent required by the relatedtransaction agreements and excluding the criteria set forth in 17 CFR 229.1122(d) (1)(ii)-(iv),(2)(iii), (2)(vi), (4)(i)-(ii), and (4)(iv)-(xiv) which the Asserting Party has concluded are notapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securitizationtransactions covered by this report (such criteria, after giving effect to the exclusionsidentified above, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”). This report covers certain asset-backedsecurities transactions backed by residential mortgages, home equity loans, auto loans, credit cardreceivables, dealer floor plans, retail installment contracts and manufactured housing contractsfor which transactions the Asserting Party performs the Applicable Servicing Criteria as trustee,securities administrator or paying agent that were registered with the Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, where the related asset-backedsecurities were outstanding during the reporting period (the “Platform”), as listed in Appendix A.     The Asserting Party has (i) used the criteria set forth in 17 CFR 229.1122(d) to assess thecompliance by the Asserting Party with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Periodand (ii) concluded that, other than as identified on Appendix B, the Asserting Party has complied,in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of September 30, 2006 and forthe Reporting Period with respect to the Platform, taken as a whole.     PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued anattestation report for the Platform, stating that the Asserting Party has complied with theApplicable Servicing Criteria, except for material instances of non-compliance identified onAppendix B, as of September 30, 2006 and for the Reporting Period.   JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association   /s/ Kelly A. Mathieson   Kelly A. Mathieson, Managing Director  Date: March 14, 2007  
 

 
**APPENDIX A**BA Master Credit Card Trust II
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001029308
<NAME> ACCOUNT PORTFOLIOS LP
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          30,168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                       996
<INVENTORY>                                     48,690
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,168
<PP&E>                                          89,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 348,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,249
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   348,816
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,126
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,829)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,279)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,279)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0)
        
<PAGE>

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-K REPORT
OF SYNCORA HOLDINGS LTD.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. §§1350(a) and (b))

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. 1350(a) and (b)), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2008 of Syncora Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |                        |                                                                                                       
| | ---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Dated: March 31, 2009 
| |                       
| | /s/ Susan B. Comparato
| |                        |                                                                                                       
| |                        | SUSAN B. COMPARATO
President, Acting Chief Executive Officer
and General Counsel
Syncora Holdings Ltd.

| |                       |                                                                                        
| | --------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Dated: March 31, 2009
| |                      
| | /s/ David Prager     
| |                       |                                                                                        
| |                       | DAVID PRAGER
Third-Party Consultant
(Principal Financial Officer)
Syncora Holdings Ltd.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Syncora Holdings Ltd. and will be retained by Syncora Holdings Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---