alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Tuesday, April 8, 1997*

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

97-276.

#### State ex rel. Wilson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

Franklin App. No. 96APD10-1293. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the *1450Court of Appeals for Franklin County. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a merit brief, due April 1, 1997, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed *sua sponte.*
# Tier B Surveillance
SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
--------------------------

         The Company has the following subsidiaries including significant
subsidiaries as defined in Regulation S-X, each incorporated in the jurisdiction
stated opposite its name. All of the following subsidiaries are 100% owned by
the Company. The Company has additional subsidiaries, which, if considered in
the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a "significant
subsidiary" as such term is defined in Regulation S-X.

Name of Subsidiary                                 Jurisdiction of Incorporation
------------------                                 -----------------------------
Bandag A.G. .................................................Switzerland
Bandag Canada Ltd. ...............................................Canada
Bandag Europe N.V. ..............................................Belgium
Bandag Licensing Corporation.  .....................................Iowa
Bandag Incorporated of S.A. (Proprietary) Limited ..........South Africa
Bandag New Zealand Limited ..................................New Zealand
Bandag do Brasil Ltda ............................................Brazil
Bandag B.V. .................................................Netherlands
Bandag de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. ...................................Mexico
BTC, Inc. ......................................................Delaware
Tire Distribution Systems, Inc. ................................Delaware
Tire Management Solutions, Inc. ....................................Iowa
Exhibit 32.3
                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-C ("Issuer") for the period
ending  March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 18th day of May, 2007.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-C
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-C and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-C and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

ALEX HUAQIANG LEO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-3213

(D.C. No. 2:09-CV-02139-KHV)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, MURPHY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

 

 In a previous appeal, this court, acting pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38, ordered 

Plaintiff-Appellant Alex Huaqiang Leo to pay Defendant-Appellee Garmin International, 

Inc. (“Garmin”) reasonable appellate attorney’s fees as a sanction for pursuing a frivolous 

appeal. Leo v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 464 F. App’x 744, 745-46 (10th Cir. 2012) 

(unpublished). This court then remanded the case to the district court to determine 

“reasonable attorney’s fees.” Id. at 746. On remand, the district court awarded Garmin 

 

*After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. 

P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

January 2, 2013

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

fees in the amount of $12,710.90. Leo appeals from that determination. 

This court reviews the district court’s determination of the amount of attorney’s 

fees to be awarded for an abuse of discretion. Cf. Centennial Archaeology, Inc. v. 

AECOM, Inc., 688 F.3d 673, 678 (10th Cir. 2012) (reviewing amount of fees imposed as 

a sanction for discovery misconduct). On appeal, Leo does not argue that the district 

court abused its discretion in determining the amount of the fee award. And this court’s 

own independent review of the fee award does not reveal any abuse of discretion. 

Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision to award Garmin $12,710.90 in 

attorneys’ fees. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from OroAmerica,
Inc.'s Consolidated Balance Sheet at April 28, 2000 (Unaudited) and Consolidated
Statement of Income for the Thirteen Weeks Ended April 28, 2000 (Unaudited) 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>                          FEB-02-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-28-2000
<CASH>                                          26,815
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,320
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,765
<INVENTORY>                                     13,406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,206
<PP&E>                                          30,892
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,105
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,016
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,350
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,660
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,016
<SALES>                                         37,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,660
<CGS>                                           30,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    61
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,144
<INCOME-TAX>                                       423
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                721
<DISCONTINUED>                                      10
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       731
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Entergy Gulf
States' financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000044570
<NAME> ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER> 006
   <NAME> ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    4,446,981
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    387,469
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         632,001
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       850,050
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,316,501
<COMMON>                                       114,055
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    1,152,575
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            202,205
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,468,835
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          145,497
<PREFERRED>                                    201,444
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,631,658
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   71,515
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     66,656
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                34,343
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               2,696,553
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                6,316,501
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,853,809
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            31,773
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,618,155
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,618,155
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        235,654
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              18,862
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 254,516
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       176,350
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,393
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     19,011
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   27,382
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       109,400
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      173,599
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         414,556
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### O RDER

Cause No. 01

- 1 4

- 0 703

- C V ; Christoph Henkel

, Appellant v. Emjo Investments, Ltd. and H.J. von

der Goltz , Appellee s

Date motion filed : October 13 , 2015

Type of motion: Motion for rehearing

Party filing motion: Appell ant

The Court requests a response to the motion for rehearing. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.2. The

response, if any, should be filed by November 6, 201 5

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ J a ne Bland

Jane Bland

Justice , acting individually

Panel consists of Justice s Jennings, Bland, and Brown

.

Date: October 15 , 201 5
# NIH Clinical Research Trials and You
#### In the Matter of Perry Bellamy, Appellant, v New York City Police Department, Respondent.

Submitted October 29, 2012;

decided November 19, 2012

Motion for poor person relief granted.
#### County of Westchester, Plaintiff, v White Plains Avenue, LLC, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) White Plains Avenue, LLC, et al., Appellants, v Rice & Rice et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

[962 NYS2d 648]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract (action *691No. 1), and a related action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice (action No. 2), White Plains Avenue, LLC, James H. Bason, Jr., and William Brown, Jr., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), entered March 6, 2012, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) to consolidate the actions.

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

“Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion to consolidate or for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the motion” *(Perini Corp. v WDF, Inc.,*33 AD3d 605, 606 [2006]; *see Brown v Cope Bestway Express, Inc.,*99 AD3d 746, 747-748 [2012]; *Alizio v Perpignano,*78 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2010]; *Mas-Edwards v Ultimate Servs., Inc.,*45 AD3d 540 [2007]). Here, although the action to recover damages for breach of contract (hereinafter action No. 1) and the action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice (hereinafter action No. 2) involve a common question of fact, action No. 2 involves numerous additional allegations of professional negligence that are irrelevant to action No. 1. Furthermore, the issues and applicable legal principles in the respective actions are so dissimilar, and the trial may prove so unwieldy, that consolidation will result in jury confusion and prejudice the respondents’ right to a fair trial *(see D'Abreau v American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla.,*261 AD2d 501, 502 [1999]; *197 Merrick Rd. Corp. v 185 Merrick Rd. Assoc. Corp.,*152 AD2d 551 [1989]; *Gouldsbury v Dan’s Supreme Supermarket,*138 AD2d 675, 676 [1988]; *Brown v Brooklyn Union Gas Co.,*137 AD2d 479, 480 [1988]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) to consolidate the actions.

Angiolillo, J.P, Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION

I, Kelly Tucek, Vice President, certify that:

- I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.;  
- Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  
- Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  
- The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

> - designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
- evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
- disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

- The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

> - all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
- any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 5, 2023

NO. 03-23-00571-CR

Ex parte Isaac Benavidez

APPEAL FROM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. 

Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3567 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3567

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New York, as the ``Navy Corpsman Jeffrey 
                   L. Wiener Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 2010

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New York, as the ``Navy Corpsman Jeffrey 
                   L. Wiener Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. NAVY CORPSMAN JEFFREY L. WIENER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Navy 
Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS



I, Paul E. Martin, the Principal Financial Officer of Enstar Income/Growth Program Six-A, L.P. (the "Partnership") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Partnership's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

- fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/  Paul E. MartinPaul E. MartinChief Financial OfficerMay 15, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated financial statements of Sybron International Corporation
for the six 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>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,301
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  197,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,410
<INVENTORY>                                    185,280
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               443,328
<PP&E>                                         226,171
<DEPRECIATION>                                 200,415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,585,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          166,563
<BONDS>                                        809,425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,034
<OTHER-SE>                                     548,143
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,585,213
<SALES>                                        520,347
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               520,347
<CGS>                                          253,182
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  145,786
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (793)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 92,437
<INCOME-TAX>                                    36,607
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             55,830
<DISCONTINUED>                                  28,917
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    74,747
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .71
        
<FN>
<F1>See notes to unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements.
</FN>


</TABLE>
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

LANDEN K. ESNEAULT

NO. 2022 Kw 0532

MAY 17, 2022

In Re: Landen K. Esneault, applying for supervisory writs, 

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton

Rouge, No. 08- 17- 0739. 

BEFORE: McDONALD, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

JMM

WIL

EW

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

A V 

i

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
#### In the Matter of Christopher M. Uhl, a Disbarred Attorney, Appellant. Committee on Professional Standards, Respondent.

Decided June 27, 2012

Appeal, insofar as taken from the Appellate Division order denying the motion to vacate the order of disbarment, dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal, insofar as taken from the Appellate Division order of disbarment, dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.