alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Quarterly Report of Pioneer Exploration Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Warren
Robb, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a member of the
Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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.













/s/
Warren Robb


Warren
Robb


Chief
Executive Officer






April 20,
2009




















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 Quarterly Report of Pioneer Exploration Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Warren
Robb, Chief Financial Officer of the Company and a member of the Board of
Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
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.













/s/
Warren Robb


Warren
Robb


Chief
Financial Officer






April 20,
2009
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 11 Filed 09/07/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 121
Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 11 Filed 09/07/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 122
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 Quarterly Report of Helix Wind, Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Operating Officer of the Company, 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 best of my knowledge:




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: April 25, 2011
/s/ James TiltonJames Tilton, Chief Operating Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Craft College Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Pat Castillo, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 11th day of December, 2006.

BY:
/s/ PAT CASTILLO                        Pat Castillo, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer**
Case 2:11-cv-01522-JLL-CCC Document 3 Filed 03/21/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 33
Case 2:11-cv-01522-JLL-CCC Document 3 Filed 03/21/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 34
Case 2:11-cv-01522-JLL-CCC Document 3 Filed 03/21/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 35
Case 2:11-cv-01522-JLL-CCC Document 3 Filed 03/21/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 36
Case 2:11-cv-01522-JLL-CCC Document 3 Filed 03/21/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 37
Case 2:11-cv-01522-JLL-CCC Document 3 Filed 03/21/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 38
Case 2:11-cv-01522-JLL-CCC Document 3 Filed 03/21/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 39
Case 2:11-cv-01522-JLL-CCC Document 3 Filed 03/21/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

LISA A. ARDINO, on behalf of

herself and all others

similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

LYONS, DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS,

P.C.,

 Defendant.

Civil No. 11-848 (NLH/KMW)

ORDER

HILLMAN, District Judge

For the reasons expressed in the Court’s Opinion entered on

this date,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 14th day of December , 2011,

that Defendant Lyons, Doughty and Veldhuis, P.C.’s motion [Doc.

No. 5] to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)complaint shall be, and hereby is,

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED with respect to

the claims alleged in Count I of Plaintiff’s complaint regarding

an alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(5); and it is

further

ORDERED that Count I of Plaintiff’s complaint shall be, and

hereby is, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further 

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED with respect to

that portion of Count II of Plaintiff’s complaint that alleges a

Case 1:11-cv-00848-NLH -KMW Document 10 Filed 12/14/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 143
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) based on Defendant’s December

16, 2010 collection letter; and it is further 

ORDERED that the portion of Count II which is based on the

December 16, 2010 collection letter shall be, and hereby is,

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED with respect to

Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief; and

it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and

injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is

further 

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

with respect to that portion of Count II of Plaintiff’s complaint

that alleges a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) based on

Defendant’s January 28, 2011 letter and its enclosures; and it is

further

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED with respect to

Plaintiff’s class action allegations as they relate to the

surviving portion of Count II; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s class action claims relating to the

surviving portion of Count II shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 /s/ Noel L. Hillman 

At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

2

Case 1:11-cv-00848-NLH -KMW Document 10 Filed 12/14/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 144
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Crlp&&sd Children Dltl~lon 

Vooational Fmhabilitation Dlrialon 

Stats Dapa~rtment cb Eduoatlon 

Austin, Texas 

Att8ntlon: Ear. Jamse L. Tannhey 

we have your r 

qiwrtion. You a& . 

a bore 

on the dat 

the demand note 

OS by maanu of the oertlfloate. 

xi your division I.100 in ra0t paid out the sum of 

4689.SO *for medloal servicer and hoapitalketion for im.nloe 
Crippled Children Dlvlslon, ga@o 8 

A: ! 

.:.j 

and Ode11 Heal ren6arad by Dr. Mills at Baylor Hospits of 

Dellam, TOM*,* and if you unduntand thst the treatment rendered for these ohildrcm wi8 msde nooosmry by ~U~IIS which 

wue oauaed by an uploslon, 

objection to your sl 

then in that evant, we me no 

lng the outlflcsts and returning the 

aam to #ebb & Webb F n order that thay might enter the 8ame1 

-in evideme to establish the amount of medlosl and~hospitalization upenas rsnduad mommary by fesson of the injury 

to t&r* ohildroa. 

ArtlolaaS95j, Vunon*s Civil Statutes of Textm, 

rhloh prseoribas the duties of your dlvldon, mskes no provislon'for the reaorery of medloal.and hospitalination l xpenme furnl8hrd by your divieion, but we kaqu ot no reason 

r4 a parent of obtldren who hate received sld fmn your dUision smy not voluntarily regay ~tho tmount of ruoh erpendlture. 

Seation 9 of wld Adi provides in partr 

Vha state Department of Muoatlon Is authorlrmd to reoeire &its and d@stfons for this 

work. All QVta and don&lam tar orip$led ohlldren*a work shall be paid into the Stmtq Preaeury 

and the ssme are hereby reappropriated for the 

purposss or this Act." 

nhilo you would bar. zto rothod oi mforllLn6 n&y- 

&t of theae l x p o nsoby s MrP.'G. Oi Heal, we fmo* no rason 

why you dmld not aooept.klr deMnd note in'the mm of 

$689.60, ant3 if, a8 and when ho paya the sama doposlt the 

ronor in tha Ststa &asury to the propar fund aa indiantad 

by $eo$lon 9 of ~rtiole 8695j quoted above. 

we sre returnming to you hmtwlth the #689.SO nOk 

signed by 0. 0. Ioal., the letter fra# Speamaan Webb to you, 

dated Maroh 323, 194E, and the osrtlfioate wbioh he has l rrlod 

you to d&n. 

'Yourta ruy tzul~ 

APPXOVED APFKL 8, 1943 

/s/ Grorir sellerr 

FIRST ASSISTA#r 

ATTORmY GzwmL 

ATTORNEY GZW?ZRAL OF TEXAS 

m 

flRK:db 

Znolosuras
OFFICE **OF** THE ATTORNEY GENRRAL **OF ‘**  **I ’** **EICAS** AUSTIN

lionorable

Carlo8 C. AuUer District **Attorney** Llam, Texa*Our reacds rereal theit in rsgard to the bonQ issuementioned in your letter the CoaarLsslonors* Court paased an order on Noranbor 18, lw8, oalling an aleotio4 to be held on the BZnd day of.Deoember,1938, at whfah the iollowiag proposlt$on was l ubmittedto the voters of Llano County: *sH&L the CommI.8alomm* Court 0r Llano County, T.exa8, be authoriredto lsmm bond6 of seld aounty, to the amount 0r $75,000bearing intemst not ii0 exosed S$ per annum, nu+turing in seriel:$4a~lmmtr to be dcelgnated by oaid aout, the Last lnatallmaat to mture not later than twentyyear8 after date ti aaid borda, far the ~purpose ti aoaetru@tion,

mainto-' nanoe and operatlon~ot **zu+oadamked,** grerel.eb or pred road8 and turnpikes,or ip aid'thereot,tithia #mid oounty,am3 apeolfla8lly POP the purpoee Of aogniring right of way lmldent to the aonatruotlon of the iollowing highways: ,j *(a) Braay tb LZaan to.Rowd lbouotaln **Highnag,** ia Llano **County;**

. f(b) HighwayNo;,

a@,.$hrougb

Llano Couatr,aad to levy an ad ralorek l&z! on &lXCax~~blo roperty within a6i.a 00utg atiitioiwi to pay the ! ntwm art said bonds and $hc pi5~1olpkl theriofat maturity; oaid bonds to be Laaued,&qthe **mnner** providedb the lawa of'the State of Texas, an& aa authoris ei by Seation SE of A:itiole $ of the Cond!tftution Or the State.R We fiti tkmt pr,r20~ t4 the eleotion the Oamnf8aionet8* Court paesmd another **order** on Deoomber 1%‘ 1958, pror%3.i~, in part, as followat

* * * * Now, Thererote,be lt resol+sdby the CtJ~su~oneE6' eoutt~orLlrno county,TexaII, ~antl it, is hereby **adopted** aa ths pofiop aad plWp oi I: this COWQ to use the proceeds OS the above omen- .,.~' tioard 

## b o nd iseta l xelanl+Q ipr a fdllQUi@X pulTmB.r, to-rrlt

:

### =m

**to** the
or LlAno RlVcPX. SOUth

"Aclcpted

la open Court on thin the 18th **day** Or Dauember,1938." (Undsreool4Jlg ouro)

.

ROVEDAUG 11, 1941

. ATTORNEY GkXUSRALOF TEXAS 0oB-u **Asaiatant**
**/6&h**
FRANCESCO 

FRANK

GUARRACI,

and MICHAEL NOBILE

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

This matter having been opened to the Court by Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for

the District of New Jersey (Jonathan W. Romankow, Assistant U.S. Attorney, appearing), and

defendants MICHAEL NOBILE (Scott E. Leemon, Esq., appearing) and FRANCESCO “FRANK”GUARRACI (John P. McDonald, Esq., appearing), for an order granting a continuance of the

proceedings in the above-captioned matter; and the defendants being aware that they have the right

under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b) to have the matter brought to trial within seventy (70) days of the dateoftheir appearance before ajudicial officer ofthis court pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3161; and the

defendants through their attorneys having waived such rights and consented to the continuance; andfor good and sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should be continued for the

following reasons:

1. Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and both the United States and

the defendants desire additional time to negotiate a plea agreement, which would render trialof this matter unnecessary;

2. Defendants have consented to the aforementioned continuance;3. Pursuant to Title 18 ofthe United States Code, Section 3161 (h)(8), the ends

ofjustice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests ofthe public and the

defendants in a speedy trial.
III

-4

‘C

II

a

iiI I

Fl

Ii

.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1210 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and make permanent the exclusion for benefits provided to volunteer firefighters and 

emergency medical responders. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2019 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. ROUNDS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

and make permanent the exclusion for benefits provided 

to volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Volunteer Responder 

5 Incentive Protection Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1210 IS

1 SEC. 2. BENEFITS PROVIDED TO VOLUNTEER FIRE2 FIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL RE3 SPONDERS. 

4 (a) INCREASE IN DOLLAR LIMITATION ON QUALI5 FIED PAYMENTS.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

6 139B(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘$30’’ and inserting ‘‘$50’’. 

8 (b) REIMPLEMENTING AND MAKING PERMANENT

9 BENEFITS.—Section 139B of the Internal Revenue Code 

10 of 1986 is amended by striking subsection (d). 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 December 31, 2019. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 18, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-15988

Non-Argument Calendar

 

D.C. Docket No. 03-00108-CR-WDO-5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LARRY O’NEIL FAULK,

 Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

 

(August 18, 2005)

Before: CARNES, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Brian T. Randall, appointed counsel for Larry O’Neil Faulk in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
2

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit

of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the record reveals no

issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and

Faulk’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Stephen G. Hoffmann and Jonathan J. Wick certify as
follows:

1. They are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Canyon Bancorp.

2. The Form 10-QSB of Canyon Bancorp for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2006 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 the information contained in the report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Canyon Bancorp.



|                      |  |  |  |                                                                              
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen G. Hoffmann                                                      
|                      |  |  |  | Stephen G. Hoffmann                                                          
|                      |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                                        
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Jonathan J. Wick                                                         
|                      |  |  |  | Jonathan J. Wick                                                             
|                      |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-17-00035-CV

IN RE BRAD STEVEN DECKER

Original Habeas Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

On February 7, 2017, the trial court heard evidence and argument of counsel relative to the 

petition of Tamara Michelle Decker (real party in interest) for enforcement by contempt of court 

of temporary orders and of the trial court’s property division in the parties’ decree of divorce. On 

February 8, 2017, the trial court entered an order holding Brad Steven Decker in both criminal and 

civil contempt of court. Decker has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, together with an 

emergency motion to set bond pursuant to Section 22.221(d) of the Texas Government Code and 

Rule 52.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, pending this Court’s resolution of his 

petition. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (West 2014); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). 

It appears to this Court that the motion to set bond should be granted. After considering 

all relevant factors, we order Decker’s release from confinement in the Red River County Jail on 

his payment of a cash bond in the amount of $5,000.00. The bond amount shall be paid over to 

the Red River County District Clerk and is strictly conditioned on Decker’s appearance in the trial 

court as noticed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: March 7, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF

ESTHER SALAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE

50 WALNUT ST.

ROOM 2037

NEWARK, NJ 07101

973-297-4887

April 17, 2012

LETTER ORDER

Re: Ramada Worldwide, Inc. v. Anita Nguyen, LLC, et al. 

Civil Action No. 11-921 (ES) 

Dear Counsel:

Pending before this Court isPlaintiffRamadaWorldwide, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to strike

the answer of defendants Anita Nguyen, LLC and Hong V. Nguyen (the “Defendants”) for violation

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and to enter default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). (the “Motion,” Docket

No. 19). Defendants did not oppose the Motion. On January 10, 2012, Magistrate Judge Cathy

Waldor issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 20) recommending that this Court

grant the Motion. Magistrate Judge Waldor advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file

and serve anyobjections to the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local CivilRule 72.1(c)(2). 

To date, Defendants have not filed any objections. 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s submission in support, as well asJudgeWaldor’s Report

and Recommendation, and for the reasons stated therein,

IT IS on this 11 day of April 2012, th

ORDERED that this Court adopts Judge Waldor’s January 10, 2012 Report and

Recommendation in full, and thus grants Plaintiff’s Motion to strike and enter default; and it is

further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s must file a motion for default judgment within 30 days of the date

of this order; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate Docket Entry Nos. 19 and 20.

Case 2:11-cv-00921-ES-CLW Document 23 Filed 04/17/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 158
SO ORDERED.

s/Esther Salas 

Esther Salas, U.S.D.J

Case 2:11-cv-00921-ES-CLW Document 23 Filed 04/17/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 159
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30218

Summary Calendar

ANGELA DAWN DOWLING

Plaintiff

v.

GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION

Defendant - Third Party Plaintiff -

Appellee

v.

KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT INC

Third Party Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(02-CV-637)

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30218

2

Third-party defendant/ appellant Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. (“KBR”) has

filed an unopposed motion for a determination regarding appellate jurisdiction

prior to the issuance of a briefing schedule. We grant the motion and conclude

that we have appellate jurisdiction over this case.

KBR filed the instant motion out of an abundance of caution because the

order appealed from does not contain a specific dollar amount. Instead, the

district court, upon granting summary judgment in favor of Georgia-Pacific

Corporation (“GP”), ordered KBR to (1) indemnify GP for the full amount of the

settlement proceeds paid to the plaintiff on the underlying claim; and (2)

reimburse GP for all attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this matter. 

We have jurisdiction over appeals from all “final decisions” of the district

courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “A judgment is final when it terminates litigation

on the merits and leaves the court with nothing to do except execute the

judgment.” Zink v. United States, 929 F.2d 1015, 1020 (5th Cir. 1991). However,

a judgmentis notfinal until both liability and damages are determined. Deloach

v. Delchamps, 897 F.2d 815, 826 (5th Cir. 1990). “Although there is no statute

or rule that specifies the essential elements of a final judgment and the Supreme

Court has held that no form of words and no peculiar formal act is necessary to

evince the rendition of a judgment, a final judgment for money must, at least,

determine, or specify the means for determining, the amount of the judgment.”

Zink, 929 F.2d at 1020 (internal citations omitted). 

Here, the district court specifically ordered KBR to indemnify GP for the

full amount of the settlement proceeds paid to the plaintiff on the underlying

claim. The parties agree that the amount is readily available through court

documents. With respect to the issue of attorney’s fees and costs, the Supreme

Court has made clear that “a decision on the merits is a ‘final decision’ for

purposes of § 1291 whether or not there remains for adjudication a request for
No. 08-30218

3

attorney’s fees attributable to the case.” Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,

486 U.S. 196, 202-03 (1988). 

Thus, we have appellate jurisdiction over this case.