alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### AUG 19 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

HARRISON DWIGHT FOOS and CAROLYN SUE FOOS, Plaintiff-Appellants,

v. JEFFREY D. EPPLER, Chief of IRS Collection Branch Kansas-Missouri District; BILLY J. WILLIAMSON, Revenue officer, Department of Treasury-IRS; BRUCE R. THOMAS, District Director, IRS; D. R. BERRY; KERRY MCELDERRY, Revenue Agent; LARRY INMAN, Revenue Officer-IRS, Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-3379 (D.C. No. 97-CV-1298) (Kansas)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, BRORBY and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiffs Harrison Dwight Foos and Carolyn Sue Foo s filed this action against several agents of the Internal Revenue Serv ice contending that the agents violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by seizi ng assets in their bank account and by issuing notices of a federal tax lien and le vy. They also accused the agents of committing several federal crimes. The districtcourt dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appeal and we affirm. The district court carefully explained to plaintiff s why they did not have a claim against defendants. See Memorandum and Order dated October 29, 1997, and Memorandum and Order dated November 24, 1997. We substantially agree with the reasoning set out in the district court’s orders. Plaintiffs contend on appeal that the district court denied them their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Because p laintiffs did not present triable issues, as explained by the district court, their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial was not abridged. See Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1466 (10 th Cir. 1990). Plaintiffs would be well served to rea d the Christensen case for a further explanation of why they cannot prevail on t heir claims. Plaintiffs also complain that their case was inappr opriately referred to a magistrate judge without their consent. Such was n ot the case. The magistrate-3-

judge made no report or recommendation with respectto defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants’ motion was considered and dec ided by Senior District Judge Wesley E. Brown. The judgment of the district court dismissing plain tiffs’ action for failure to state a claim is AFFIRMED

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 18, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00229

- CV

TEXAS P.M.R., INC. and John Ripley

,

Appellant s

v.

Robert RIPLEY and Mary Guzman,

Appellee s

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 23830

The Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presidi ng



### O R D E R

The Appellee s ’ Motion for Ex te nsion of T i me to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The

appellee s ’ b rief is due on or before August 16, 2019.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 18th day of July, 2019

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                                     
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,594,839
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,153,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,748,575
<PP&E>                                      52,928,400
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,832,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,350,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,040
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,259,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,350,157
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,170,080
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,598,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,699,028
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

In connection with this Quarterly
Report of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Downey Bridgwater, Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:



| | 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                                                
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 6, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ J. Downey Bridgwater                       
|                      |  |     |  | J. Downey Bridgwater                           
|                      |  |     |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MELVIN BUTTS.

October 15, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
# Sitemap

## November 27, 2013

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2013
- 11
- November 27, 2013

            - Comet ISON Streams Toward the Sun
            - Rick Mastracchio Works in the Columbus Laboratory
            - Deadline Approaching for Undergraduates to Fly Research in Microgravity
            - Sol 469-471 Update On Curiosity From USGS Scientist Ken Herkenhoff: Tearing on Wheels
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 5, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-1577

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-02849-BNB)

ORDER

Before O’BRIEN, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because no final or appealable

order has been entered by the district court. The petitioner states in his notice of

appeal that he is appealing the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction. 

However, although the magistrate judge did deny the petitioner’s motion for stay,

the district court has not ruled on the petitioner’s motion for a preliminary

injunction. 

If the petitioner intends to appeal the denial of the stay, this court lacks

jurisdiction. Except for proceedings conducted by the magistrate judge on

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), a court of appeals lacks

Appellate Case: 09-1577 Document: 01018342263 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

jurisdiction to hear an appeal taken directly from a decision of a magistrate judge. 

See Colorado Building & Construction Trade Council v. B.B. Andersen

Construction Co., 879 F.2d 809 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Moreover, this court has jurisdiction to review only final decisions, 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and specific types of interlocutory orders not applicable here. A

final decision is one that “‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for

the court to do but execute the judgment.’” Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527

U.S. 198, 204 (1999) (quoting Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 521-22

(1988)). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Ellen Rich Reiter

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 09-1577 Document: 01018342263 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          17,432
<SECURITIES>                                    29,872
<RECEIVABLES>                                   89,641
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,578
<INVENTORY>                                      1,213
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               139,698
<PP&E>                                          37,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 199,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,654
<BONDS>                                            885
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,501
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   199,735
<SALES>                                         27,403
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,105
<CGS>                                            5,282
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,004
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,743
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  25
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,441
<INCOME-TAX>                                       366
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,075
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,075
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
584 A.2d 230

#### NORMA BRIZAK AND GEORGE BRIZAK v. EMANUEL NEEDLE.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 239 *N.J.Super.*415, 571 A.2d 975)
<PAGE>




                                   EXHIBIT 11
                            Midwest Bancshares, Inc.
             Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings
                          Periods ended June 30, 1997
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                         Three Months             Six Months
                                                                         ------------             ----------
<S>                                                                       <C>                     <C>
Net earnings                                                               $289,645                 $536,766
                                                                           ========                 ========

Primary earnings per share:
   Weighted average shares outstanding                                      348,339                  348,850

   Average option shares granted                                             38,675                   38,675
   Less assumed purchase of shares
      using treasury method                                                 (15,550)                 (16,217)
                                                                           --------                 --------
Common and common equivalent shares outstanding                             371,464                  371,308
                                                                           ========                 ========

Earnings per common share -- primary                                          $0.78                    $1.45
                                                                           ========                 ========

Fully-diluted earnings per share:
   Weighted average shares outstanding                                      348,339                  348,850

   Average option shares granted                                             38,675                   38,675
   Less assumed purchase of shares
      using treasury method                                                 (14,769)                 (14,769)
                                                                           --------                 --------
Common and common equivalent shares outstanding                             372,245                  372,756
                                                                           ========                 ========

Earnings per common share -- fully-diluted                                    $0.78                    $1.44
                                                                           ========                 ========
</TABLE>
# Sitemap

## March 22, 1999

- Home
- Sitemap
- 1999
- 03
- March 22, 1999

            - F-15 ACTIVE Lands
# Significant Cases 

## Interlocutory Appeal in the Matter of:Thomas F. Day v. Department of Homeland Security, MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-12-0528-W-1 

### Federal Register Notices

78 FR 9431 Notice to File Amicus Briefs in Thomas F. Day v. DHS

### Relevant Documents

Appellant Response to Amicus Briefs
Agency Response to Amicus Briefs
Amicus Brief of Jacques Durr, M.D.
Amicus Brief of the National Whistleblower Center and Dr. Ram Chaturvedi, M.D.
Amicus Brief of the Government Accountability Project et al.
Amicus Brief of Elizabeth Jewel Martin
Amicus Brief of the Department of Veterans Affairs
Amicus Brief of Brown Center for Public Policy aka Whistlewatch.org
Amicus Brief of the National Employment Lawyers Association
Amicus Brief of MSPB Watch
Amicus Brief of Special Counsel
Amicus Brief of Joe Carson
Notice of Opportunity to File Amicus Briefs in Thomas F. Day v. Department of Homeland Security
Amicus Extension Order
Amicus Order
OSC's Notice of Intent to File Amicus Brief
Order and Certification for Interlocutory Appeal
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA) Public Law 112-199
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension  Partners  1992-B,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of  operations
contained  in its Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         152,378
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  112,525
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               278,758
<PP&E>                                         5,327,521
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,548,803)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,057,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,661
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,051,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,057,476
<SALES>                                        151,907
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,131
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  83,901<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,545
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            12,545
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   12,545
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>



</TABLE>
aacg-ex421_121.htm



Exhibit 4.21

Clarification Letter

To: Arts Consulting Limited, Zhang Jun and Deng Rui

Whereas, a consent letter (the “Consent Letter”) with respect to the equity transfer agreement (the “Equity Transfer Agreement”) entered into by and among ATA Creativity Global (“AACG”), Arts Consulting Limited, ACG International Group Limited, Beijing Huanqiuyimeng Education Consultation Corp., Zhang Jun and Deng Rui, has been executed by Arts Consulting Limited, Zhang Jun and Deng Rui on August 6, 2019 (the “Consent Letter Date”)

Whereas, pursuant to the terms of the Consent Letter, Zhang Jun and Deng Rui agreed to be employed by AACG or its affiliated parties for three (3) years from the Closing Date (as defined in the Equity Transfer Agreement), and the violation of such undertaking will result in the liability of breach of contract, as well as trigger the arrangement of shares return and other relevant arrangement under the Consent Letter.

ATA Creativity Global hereby clarifies that, in case Zhang Jun and/or Deng Rui violate the above undertaking, the related arrangement of above shares return shall not be triggered retroactively from the Consent Letter Date, but the other terms of the Consent Letter shall remain in effect and valid.

ATA Creativity Global

Signed /s/Ma Xiaofeng

December 30, 2019
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHARLES FOWLER.

January 21, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD DELANEY, ET AL., AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROMOTIONAL LISTS.

March 24, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
2 min read

# Repair, Refurbishment, and Modification

### NASA Communications

Oct 14, 2023

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

# 

#### 

#### 

**Components can be refurbished as a cost effective alternative to the cost of new equipment.**

Our engineers refurbish, repair, and redesign fluid components such as check valves, relief valves, solenoid valves, and manual valves ensuring relief valves and other components are operating within manufacturer’s specifications and comply with the requirements of
            - American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/NB 23 ,
            - American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code, Section VIII, Div. 1 , and the
            - National Board Inspection Code (NBIC) .

**Facilities and Certifications**Component Services is an approved “VR” certified facility holding the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC) Certificate of Authorization and “VR” Symbol Stamp for the repair of pressure relief valves. Our team is also certified to manufacture flight hardware by NASA and the International Space Station (ISS) Program.

**Repair and Refurbishment**Repair and refurbishment is a cost effective alternative to replacement and our highly skilled team disassembles, inspects, and precision cleans each item received. We ensure the parts being used for repair and replacement are from the original manufacturer, or from a vendor approved by the National Board verifying replacement parts meet original manufacturer specifications. Spares and replacements can be manufactured by our in-house NASA certified Machining and Fabrication workforce to replace parts that are no longer commercially available.

**Modification**Equipment can be modified to work safely in your pressure system or in specific media such as oxidizer, oxygen service, fuels, and propellants. Guided by the knowledge gained from 40 years or research and testing by our Oxygen System and Propellants and Aerospace Fluids engineers, our team can modify equipment with recommended parts to operated safely and avoid costly mistakes created by using the wrong components.

Last Updated: Aug 6, 2017

Editor: Judy Corbett
****Report of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONon the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident****
****

 

****
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DARNELL STRONG.

December 16, 1986.

Petition for certification granted.
585 A.2d 405

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIE JOE FUNDERBURG.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128981 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128981 COA: 262089 Emmet CC: 04-002203-FH KEVIN LEE STRAHAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 10, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan , lv gtd 472 Mich 881 (2005).

d1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
#### KENNETH J. BRAND, ET AL. v. WALLACE L. MILLS.

November 21, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.