alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Filed 12/31/13 In re M.W. CA 3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(El Dorado)

In re M.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile

Court Law. C072950

EL DORADO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.B.,

Defendant and Appellant. (Super. Ct. Nos.

SDP20120019, SDP2012002 1

, & SDP2012002 2 )

On August 22, 2012, the juvenile court, in connection with these dependency

proceedings brought on behalf of the minors, found Valarie B. to be the presumed parent

of minors M.W., Ja.W.

, and D.W. Appellant filed a petition for writ of mandate in case

No. C071961 challenging the juvenile court’s August 22, 2012

, order declaring Va larie

B. the minors’ presumed parent. Appellant also filed the instant appeal from the

dispositional hearing on January 9, 2013.2

The sole issue raised by appellant in this appeal is the juvenile court’s order

declaring Valarie B. the m inors’ presumed par ent. Appellant contends the order was

erroneo us and must be vacated.

On November 20, 2013 , this court filed its opinion in case No. C071961, directing

the juvenile court to vacate that portion of its August 22, 2012, order which declared

Valarie B. the presumed parent of minors M.W., Ja.W., and D

. W. The peremptory writ

and remittitur issued December 2 3 , 2013. Accordingly, we dismiss the instant appeal as

moot. 1

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

We concur:

HULL , J.

MAURO , J.

1 This issue seems noncontroversial and the court has resolved it summarily in this

opinion, in the interest of judicial economy. Any party aggrieved by this procedure may

petition for rehearing. (Gov. Code, § 68081.)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-51040

c/w No. 13-51136

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ERNEST LEE MCCARTY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-50-6

USDC No. 7:13-CR-148-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ernest Lee McCarty has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

McCarty has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as McCarty’s response. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-51040 Document: 00513120055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2015
No. 13-51040

c/w No. 13-51136

2

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motions for leave to 

withdraw are GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 13-51040 Document: 00513120055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2015
#### DUNLOP TIRE *&*RUBBER CORPORATION et al. v. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO. et al.

No. 295.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

April 15, 1940.

*336Herbert A. Baker, of Boston, Mass., and Benj. T. Rauber, of New York City, for plaintiffs.

Harrison F. Lyman and Hector M. Holmes, both of Boston, Mass., and Albert L. Ely, of Akron, Ohio, for defendants.

McLELLAN, District Judge.

1. The plaintiffs’ motion is in part to strike portions of the defendants’ answer relative to one of the patents on which the plaintiffs’ action is based “on the ground that the defendants have failed and refused to answer” two of the plaintiffs’ interrogatories. The portion of the answer which the plaintiffs moved to strike reads: “11. Further answering the Bill of Complaint as to the said Untiedt patent, defendants aver that the said patent is invalid and void as the same is without utility and that the process disclosed therein is inoperative.”

The plaintiffs’ interrogatories read, so far as here applicable, as follows:

> “27. State wherein and in what respect the Untiedt patent No. 1,777,945 is inoperative, as alleged in paragraph 11 of defendants’ answer.

> “28. State wherein and in what respect the Untiedt patent No. 1,777,945 is without utility, as alleged in paragraph 11 of defendants’ answer.”

The defendants’ answer to these interrogatories is that they are not familiar with the Untiedt patent and therefore interrogatories 27 and 28 can not be answered. A second paragraph of the plaintiffs’ motion relates to other averments contained in the defendants’ responsive pleading and these averments need not be stated or summarized. Interrogatories’ 27 and 28 and the defendants’ answers to them relate also to these averments and the same question is raised as to them as to paragraph 11 of the answer heretofore appearing. Assuming without deciding that these interrogatories are of a type which need ever be answered, a defendant should not be deprived of its right to rely upon the invalidity of a patent, the infringement whereof the plaintiff alleges, just because he can not state wherein it is inoperative or lacking in utility.

2. Paragraph 3 of the plaintiffs’ motion asks that the defendants be required “to complete the answer to plaintiffs’ interrogatory 26 by supplying to plaintiffs, copies of papers or communications requested in said interrogatory.” The plaintiffs are satisfied with what has now been done by the defendants and this aspect of the motion is no longer pressed.

3. It is unnecessary to summarize the defendants’ motion for further answers to their interrogatories to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs assenting thereto, the defendants’ motion is granted, further answers to be furnished in part in or within ten days and the others which involve obtaining information abroad on or before June 1, 1940.

The plaintiffs’ motion is denied, and as heretofore stated, the defendants’ motion. is granted.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 8, 2012

jam 

# Order

February 8, 2012

144576 (20)

IN RE JERRY SIMS, SC: 144576

________________ ___________________ COA: 304023

JERRY SIMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive f ees is considered and it
is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisone r pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $7.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned
with this order. Failure to comply with this orde r shall result in the appeal not being
filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $368.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.
The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alamo Energy Corp. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Allan Millmaker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Alamo Energy Corp., and will be retained by Alamo Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ Allan MillmakerAllan Millmaker

Chief Executive Officer

December 20, 2010
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-15-00423-CV

Style: In re 8650 Frisco, LLC d/b/a Estilo Gaucho Brazilian Steakhouse, Mandona, LLC, 

Galovelho, LLC, Bahtche, LLC, Claudio Nunes and David Jeiel Rodrigues

Date motion filed*: July 8, 2015

Type of motion: Motion to Extend Time to File Motion for Rehearing and Motion for En Banc

Reconsideration

Party filing motion: Relators

Document to be filed: Motion for Rehearing and Motion for En Banc Reconsideration

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: July 8, 2015

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date: 

Date Requested: July 23, 2015

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: July 23, 2015

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 

Date: July 14, 2015
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - October 2008 

Benefit payments October 2008 October 2007 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Total 

Retired employ

Spouses and d

Widow(er)s - a

Other survivors 

ees 

ivorced spouses 

ged and disabled 

$841,179,000 

558,815,000 

102,517,000 

156,587,000 

23,228,000 

$816,851,000 

538,981,000 

98,450,000 

156,574,000 

22,846,000 

Average under 

Being paid Awarded in Social Security 

Monthly benefits end of month month October 2008 

Number Average1 Number Average1 Being Paid Awarded 

Total 565,400 ......... 2,800 ......... ......... .........

Regular employee annuities, total 275,100 $2,013 1,200 $2,596 ......... .........

 Age 191,100 1,986 2 600 2 3,162 $1,088 3 $1,521

 Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 34,500 1,791 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 49,500 2,269 300 2,407 1,004 1,059 

Spouses and divorced spouses 136,300 744 900 923 519 391 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 128,200 1,217 500 1,618 1,029 826 

Widowed mothers and fathers 800 1,529 4/ 1,495 788 777 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 14,100 809 100 881 5/ 5/ 

Children 10,700 880 100 1,151 706 709 

Other survivors 100 494 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Benefit payments 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

October 

2008 

$5,045,000 

October 

2007 

$5,072,000 

Number 

120,900 

Average 

$42 

Number 

700 

Average 

$41 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 35); some 300

 other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

October 2008 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Average payment 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period

 Per

 full week 

Unemployment 2,900 $547 $303 

Sickness 5,700 547 

October 2008 

302 

Benefit payments 

October 2007

 Unemployment

Total 

3,214,000 

$8,598,000 $8,683,000 

3,459,000 

Sickness 5,384,000 5,224,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

Bureau of the Actuary

Recycled

 Paper
ImmuCell Corporation

EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF BAKER NEWMAN & NOYES,
LLC



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT Registered
Public Accounting Firm



To the Board of Directors

ImmuCell Corporation



We consent to incorporation by reference
in Registration Statement No. 333-2631 and No. 333-65514 of ImmuCell Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated March 27, 2012,
relating to our audit of the financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of ImmuCell Corporation for the
year ended December 31, 2011.



|Portland, Maine |  | /s/ Baker Newman & Noyes 
|--------------- |  | -------------------------
|January 8, 2013 |  | Limited Liability Company
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER09-1196-000]

Take notice that, on June 16, 2009, Lost Creek Wind, LLC filed a supplement to its filing in the above captioned docket with information required under the Commission's regulations. Such filing served to reset the filing date in this proceeding.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link, and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 7, 2009.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-15206 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases

on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 95-10044

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

THELMA GOODING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN 

 SERVICES,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:93 CV 1675 G)

______________________________________________________

August 31, 1995

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM1:

Thelma Gooding appeals the denial of her application for

disability benefits. We affirm.

Gooding correctly argues that the district court erred by

considering new evidence of her obesity which had not been

considered by the Commissioner. See Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d

471, 475 (5th Cir. 1988). This error was harmless, however,

because the evidence was not material to the issue of her

disability at the time she applied for benefits or at the time of
2

the hearing. Johnson v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir.

1994); see also Latham v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 482, 483 & n.2 (5th Cir.

1994). The new evidence relates to periods well after both events.

This evidence may, however, form the basis of a new claim.

Appellant next argues that the Administrative Law Judge

misstated her testimony regarding her daily activities and her

symptoms. The record belies this argument. We are satisfied that

he correctly recounted both her testimony and her symptoms.

Appellant then complains that the ALJ did not properly apply the

two-step process for evaluating symptoms. Yet Appellant cites no

authority that the record must demonstrate that the steps were each

applied discreetly and indeed the regulation itself does not so

state. See C.F.R. § 404.1529. The judge did state that in making

his findings he had considered all evidence presented relating to

Gooding's complaints.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 10.13

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE



U.S. $50,000.00                                                 August 15, 2001




     FOR VALUE  RECEIVED,  the  undersigned  ASPi Europe,  Inc. (the "Company ")
hereby  promises  to pay on or before  November  30,  2001 to or to the order of
Aslan Corporation ("Lender") at such address as the Lender may from time to time
direct, the principal sum of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00) of lawful money
of the United States of America with  interest  thereon at the annual rate equal
to (12%) twelve percent in such amounts set forth herein.

     The Company  hereby  waives  presentment  for payment,  notice of dishonor,
notice of  non-payment,  protest  and any and all other  notices  and demands in
connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of
this Note.  The  Company  also  expressly  consents to submit to the laws of the
State of Washington in all matters regarding this promissory note.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Company has caused its common seal to be affixed in the
presence of its authorized signatories.


The Common Seal of                      )
ASPi Europe, Inc.                       )
was hereunto affixed in the             )
presence of:                            )
                                        )
                                        )                 (C/S)
     "Patrick Hanna"                    )
--------------------------------------- )
Authorized Signatory                    )
                                        )
                                        )
                                        )
    "F. Thomas Winters III"             )
--------------------------------------- )
Authorized Signatory                    )
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Black Hills Power, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David R. Emery, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.

 

 

| Date:  March 17, 2009 |                                 |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                  |                                 |
|                  | /S/ DAVID R. EMERY                   |
|                  | David R. Emery                       |
|                  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |