alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

DAVID D. EVERIST,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICU LTURE FOREST SERVICE, DONNA MICKL EY, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, DAYNE BARRON, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF U.S. AND DOUGLAS FONG, Defendants

- Appellees

,

AND

CITY OF MEDFORD, ORE GON, MARK D. CLARKE,

JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, AND OWEN M. PANNER, Defendants

.

______________________

2014

- 1358

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in No. 1:14

- cv

- 00199

- CL, Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clark.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

. Case: 14-1358 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 05/30/2014EVERIST v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICU LTURE 2

O R D E R

This court considers whether this appeal should be transferred due to lack of jurisdiction.

David D. Everist appeals a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon that dismissed his complaint appearing to allege viola tions under the Federal Land Policy Management Act and
Executive Order # 12630. This court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Based only upon our review, it is not clear that the District of Oregon’s juri sdiction arose in whole or in part under the laws governing this court’s appellate jurisdiction.

Accordingly

,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) Everist is directed to show cause within 21 days from the date of this order why his appeal should not be
transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The appe llees are also directed to respond within that time.

(2) The briefing schedule is stayed.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court

s24 Case: 14-1358 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 05/30/2014
<PAGE>   1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To Foothill Independent Bancorp:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
2-89744 on Form S-8 filed March 1, 1984, Registration Statement No. 33-57586 on
Form S-8 filed January 29, 1993, and Registration Statement No. 33-83854 on
Form S-3 filed September 12, 1994, of our report dated January 26, 1997 on the
consolidated financial statements of Foothill Independent Bancorp as of
December 31, 1996 and 1995 and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 1996 included at page 34 of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1996.


                                        /s/ VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & COMPANY
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                            VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & COMPANY
                                            Certified Public Accountants


March 26, 1997
Rancho Cucamonga, California



                                  Exhibit 23.1
Promissory Note




U.S. $ 150,000

San Diego California                                          Date: June 8, 2006


FOR VALUE RECEIVED:  National Healthcare Technology Inc (Borrower) of 1660 Union
Street,  San Diego, CA 92101.  severally,  promise to pay to the order of Camden
Holdings  Inc.  (Maker)  the  sum of One  Hundred  and  Fifty  Thousand  Dollars
($150,000) for short term bridge financing.

Lender and Borrower  acknowledge  that the Borrower has received partial payment
of the Note at this time and at  Borrowers  discretion,  will draw down the full
balance of the Note as required.


Note Due:         December 31, 2006
Payable to:       Camden Holdings Inc.
                  9595 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 510
                  Beverly Hills, CA 90212


or at such other address as note holder may  designate.  Presentment,  notice of
dishonor,  and protest are hereby  waived.  If this notice is not paid when due,
I/we agree to pay all reasonable costs of collection, including attorney's fees.


/s/ Ross Lyndon-James
-------------------------------------
Ross Lyndon-James                                            June 8, 2006
President, CEO
National Healthcare Technology Inc.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 12Federal Reserve Bank of: San FranciscoFilings received during the week ending December 24, 2011FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodCOASTAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION                                                                                           CICInteragency Notice of Change in Control by Montlake Capital II, L.P, a limited partnership and Montlake Capital II-B, L.P., a limited partnership, Seattle, Washington, to acquire voting shares of Coastal Financial Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire Coastal Community Bank, both of Everett, Washington; and 2)Coastal Financial Corporation and Coastal Community Bank, both of Everett, Washington to appoint Andrew Russell Dale as a Director.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 10/27/2011PRIVATE BANCORP OF AMERICA, INC.                                                                                        * 3A1Private Bancorp of America, Inc., to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of San Diego Private Bank, both of La Jolla, California.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not available
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD 

NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY 

PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(D)(2), 

SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Robert Coake and Susan Coake, Respondents, 

v. 

Kathleen Burt, n/k/a Kathleen Thomason, Petitioner. 

Appellate Case No. 2011-188246 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal From Anderson County 

J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge 

Opinion No. 2012-MO-056 

Heard December 6, 2012 – Filed December 19, 2012 

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED 

Harold P. Threlkeld, of Anderson, for Petitioner. 

James Allbright Blair III and Kirsten Elena Small, both 

of Nexsen Pruet, of Greenville, for Respondents. 
 

PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to review the decision of the court of 

appeals finding the circuit court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the seller of 

residential real estate because the issues of the reasonableness of the purchasers' 

inspection of the real estate prior to closing and the damages incurred from the 

seller's alleged incomplete or misleading disclosures on the inspection form were 

questions that should have been resolved by the jury. See Coake v. Burt, 391 S.C. 

201, 705 S.E.2d 453 (Ct. App. 2010). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently 

granted. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 02-cv-00311-RPM

CLIMAX MOLYBDENUM COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOLYCHEM, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE AND DIRECTING RESPONSE TO

MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ATTORNEY’S LIEN BY RAMON L. PIZARRO

This litigation was concluded by a final judgment entered on March 12, 2008.

Ramon L. Pizarro filed a Notice of Attorney’s Lien on April 1, 2008. On April 4, 2008,

Climax Molybdenum Company filed a motion for authorization to deposit funds and

satisfaction of judgment which was granted by this Court’s order of April 8, 2008, which

included an order to show cause why deposited funds should not be released to

Molychem, LLC. On April 9, 2008, Molychem, LLC, filed a motion to adjudicate

entitlement under attorney’s charging lien, requesting the adjudication of the dispute

between Ramon L. Pizarro and Molychem, LLC, with respect to the amount of fees to

be paid to Ramon L. Pizarro from the funds deposited with this court.

On April 16, 2008, Ramon L. Pizarro filed a motion for enforcement of attorney’s

lien and also a motion to intervene with a tendered intervenor complaint seeking
2

enforcement of the attorney’s lien. The motion to intervene is procedurally

inappropriate. There is no pending action within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 24. This

court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between Molychem, LLC, and Ramon L.

Pizarro as a result of the filing of the notice of attorney’s lien and the motion for

enforcement of attorney’s lien, as recognized by Molychem’s motion to adjudicate

entitlement under attorney’s charging lien. It is therefore

ORDERED that the motion to intervene is denied and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Molychem’s motion to adjudicate entitlement under

attorney’s charging lien is granted and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Molychem, LLC, may have to and including April 28,

2008, within which to file any response to the motion for enforcement of attorney’s lien.

DATED: April 17th, 2008

BY THE COURT:

s/ Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge
|   | (1) | To      my knowledge, the report fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15      U.S.C. 78m or 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
| /s/ John      D. Thomas |
| John      D. Thomas          |
|                         |
|                         |
| Chief      Executive Officer |
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Sustainable Texas Oyster Resource Management, 

L.L.C., Relator

Appellate case number: 01-16-00030-CV

Trial court case number: 15-CV-0772

Trial court: 56th District Court of Galveston County

On January 14, 2016, relator, Sustainable Texas Oyster Resource Management, 

L.L.C., filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent trial 

judge to vacate its order denying relator’s motion to transfer venue, signed on November 

20, 2015, and to grant relator’s motion to transfer venue as to the real parties in interest 

Shrimps R Us, Inc., and Ivo Slabic. Relator also filed a notice of related case, noting that 

this mandamus petition is related to its prior notice of appeal, filed on December 4, 2015, 

which was assigned to this Court under appellate cause number 01-15-01026-CV.

Relator’s appeal in 01-15-01026-CV, filed under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies 

Code § 15.003(c), challenges the same November 20, 2015 interlocutory order involved 

in this mandamus petition. Pursuant to Section 15.003(c)(2), the court of appeals shall 

render judgments in interlocutory appeals filed under this section within 120 days after 

the appeal is perfected. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 15.003(c)(2) (West 

Supp. 2015). Relator also filed its appellate brief in 01-15-01026-CV on January 14, 

2016, setting appellees’ brief due by February 3, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

Accordingly, the Court requests a response to the petition for a writ of mandamus 

by the real parties in interest Shrimps R Us, Inc., and Ivo Slabic. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(b)(1). The response, if any, shall be filed by February 3, 2016, and may be 

combined with appellees’ brief due in 01-15-01026-CV. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 52.4.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 14, 2016
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01756-DME-MJW

MARCUS L. FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOOLSTON, Vocational Instructor, and

LIKEN, Education Department,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

 It is hereby ORDERED that Woolston and Liken’s Motion for Protective Order

(docket no. 57) is GRANTED for the following reasons. 

Defendants Woolston and Liken have established “good cause” for a protective

order. A party seeking a protective order must show that a “clearly defined and serious

injury” will result to the moving party in the absence of such protective order. Exum v.

United States Olympic Committee, 209 F.R.D. 201, 206 (D. Colo. 202); see also

Charles A. Wright & Arthur Miller, Fed. Practice and Pro (Civ) § 2035 n.32 (“The courts

have insisted on a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from

stereotyped and conclusory statements, in or to establish good cause.”). Here,

Defendants Woolston and Liken have shown that they will suffer a “clearly defined and

serious injury” in the absence of a protective order and therefore have meet the

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). See paragraph 2 in the subject motion (docket

no. 57). 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the written Protective Order (docket no. 57-1) is

APPROVED and made an Order of Court. 

 

Date: January 26, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-01756-DME-MJW Document 68 Filed 01/26/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JONATAN PEREZ,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00155

- CR

Appeal from the

409th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20180D03845)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2 1 S T DAY OF JUNE, 2021.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1092 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1092

  To temporarily increase the number of visas which may be issued to 
                    certain highly skilled workers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 11, 2007

   Mr. Hagel introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To temporarily increase the number of visas which may be issued to 
                    certain highly skilled workers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``High-Tech Worker Relief Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. IMMEDIATE INCREASE OF H-1B VISAS.

    Section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(A) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) may not exceed--
                    ``(i) 65,000 in each of the fiscal years 2004 
                through 2006;
                    ``(ii) 115,000 in fiscal year 2007;
                    ``(iii) 195,000 in fiscal year 2008; and
                    ``(iv) 65,000 in fiscal year 2009 and each 
                succeeding fiscal year; and''.

SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FROM NUMERICAL LIMITS.

    (a) Nonimmigrants With Advanced Degrees.--Section 214(g)(5)(C) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(5)(C)) is amended 
by striking ``, until the number of aliens who are exempted from such 
numerical limitation during such year exceeds 20,000''.
    (b) Employment-Based Immigrants.--
            (1) In general.--Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at 
        the end the following:
            ``(F) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, 
        technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a 
        related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa 
        during the 3-year period preceding their application for an 
        immigrant visa under section 203(b).
            ``(G) Aliens who--
                    ``(i) are described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
                section 203(b)(1); or
                    ``(ii) have received a national interest waiver 
                under section 203(b)(2)(B).
            ``(H) The immediate relatives of an alien who is admitted 
        as an employment-based immigrant under section 203(b).''.
            (2) Applicability.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
        shall apply to any visa application--
                    (A) pending on the date of the enactment of this 
                Act; or
                    (B) filed on or after such date of enactment.
                                 <all>
```
177 La. 117

#### ZETA LAND CO., Inc., v. LEWIS (SLADOVICH, Intervener).

No. 31988.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1933.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1933.

George Sladovieh, Sr., of New Orleans, Tax Title Holder and Possessor, for appellant.

H. W. *&*H. M. Robinson, of New Orleans, for appellee.

ST. PAUL, Justice.

Plaintiff, as the holder of certain notes secured by mortgage, sued out execu-tory process, and thereunder seized the mortgaged property. Thereupon George Slado-vich, Jr., intervened herein, claiming the property seized as belonging to him by virtue of certain tax sales, and prayed for' an injunction restraining the sale; as he had a right to do. C. P. art. 298, No. 7.

He also included in his petition a demand for rents, damages, and fines; which demand is, of course, utterly untenable. ■

The trial judge refused to issue an injunction without bond, and the intervener either could not or did not furnish bond. Accordingly, no injunction issued, and the sheriff proceeded to sell the property, and the same was bought in by plaintiff.

Whereupon intervener filed a supplemental petition praying that the sale be set aside and annulled.

To this petition the plaintiff (defendant 1⁄8 injunction) filed an exception of no cause of action which exception was sustained by the trial judge; and the intervener appeals.

We think the trial judge erred. The sale of a thing belonging to another person is null, R. C. C. art. 2452, and manifestly the owner of the property sold has an interest and a right of action to have the nullity of the sale declared.

Of course the petition shows no cause of action as to the untenable demand above mentioned, and the only matter to be considered is whether the intervener has a valid tax title to the property. If he has, the sale should be annulled; if he has not, his suit should be dismissed. That is the sole issue properly before the court; and the inquiry should be restricted solely to that issue.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and it is now ordered that the case be remanded to the lower court to be there proceeded with according to law.
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 34-1 filed 09/30/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 194 (Monday, October 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58152-58157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23335]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-16]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(l) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 08-16 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: September 25, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[[Page 58153]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.015


[[Page 58154]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.016


[[Page 58155]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.017


[[Page 58156]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06OC08.018


[[Page 58157]]


 [FR Doc. E8-23335 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 21

                  MATERIAL SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                STATE OR COUNTRY            PERCENTAGE OF
            SUBSIDIARY                                          OF INCORPORATION              OWNERSHIP
            ----------                                          ----------------            -------------
<S>                                                             <C>                         <C>
Aries Technology, Inc.                                             Delaware                      100%

Computerized Structural Analysis and Research Corporation         California                     100%

Knowledge Revolution, Inc.                                        California                     100%

MARC Analysis Research Corporation                                California                     100%

MSC Brasil Software e Engenharia Ltda.                              Brazil                       100%

MSC GmbH                                                           Germany                       100%

MSC International                                                 California                     100%

MSC Japan, Ltd.                                                     Japan                        100%

MSC.Software (EDC) B.V.                                         The Netherlands                  100%

MSC.Software AS                                                     Norway                       100%

MSC.Software Foreign Sales Corporation                        U.S. Virgin Islands                100%

MSC.Software Limited                                            United Kingdom                   100%

MSC.Software Partner Solutions GmbH                                 Germany                      100%

MSC.Software S.r.l.                                                  Italy                       100%

MSC.Software SARL                                                    France                      100%

MSC.Software Simulating Reality, S.A.                                Spain                       100%

MSC.Software Sp. zo.o.                                              Poland                       100%

PDA Engineering                                                   California                     100%

Universal Analytics                                               California                     100%


</TABLE>