alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-19-0000795

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

T HE ESTATE OF KAREN I. STIRLING, whose full name is

KAREN INGALLS STIRLING, DECEASED.

A PPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

(P. NO. 18-1-0109(3))

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISS APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.) Upon consideration of the Stipulation to Dismiss Appeal With Prejudice (Stipulation), filed April 29, 2020, by Petitioner-Appellee Benjamin W. Gale (Gale), Personal Representative of the Estate of Karen I. Stirling, the papers in support, and the record, it appears that:

(1) The appeal has not been docketed; (2) On November 27, 2019, Gale filed a notice indicating that on October 25, 2019, Applicant-Appellant Olga V. Bordenyuk (Bordenyuk) filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Hawai # i, Case No. 19-01368, which apparently the parties and the probate court clerk believed stayed the appeal under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2010) and Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 54(c);

(3) It is not clear that the bankruptcy petition stayed the appeal, because an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 applies to suits against the debtor, not suits by the debtor, see Parker v. Bain, 68 F.3d 1131, 1138 (9th Cir. 1995), and Bordenyuk Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000795 08-MAY-2020 12:01 PMN O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### initiated the underlying case by filing an application for intestate informal appointment of personal representative;

(4) In the instant Stipulation, Gale and Bordenyuk's bankruptcy court trustee agree to dismiss the appeal with prejudice, under HRAP Rule 42(b), as part of a settlement agreement reached in the bankruptcy case, and that the parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs. The Stipulation is dated and signed by counsel for all parties appearing in the appeal. Attached to the Stipulation is a certified copy of the bankruptcy court order approving the settlement agreement, which appears to comply with HRAP Rule 54(c); and

(5) It appears that if there was a bankruptcy stay in effect in this appeal, it has terminated. Because the appeal has not been docketed, dismissal is authorized by HRAP Rule 42(a).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation is approved and the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, May 8, 2020.
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge

2
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Richard Rubin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report of American Biogenetic Sciences,Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the  issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as 4efined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the  issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the  issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the  issuer's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the  issuer's internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the  issuer's most recentfiscal quarter (the  issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the  issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the  issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether r not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the  issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date: April 14, 2010

/s/ Richard RubinCEO, CFO and Chairman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          99,811
<SECURITIES>                                   176,188
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,337
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               203,076
<PP&E>                                          78,973
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,076
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 395,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,111
<BONDS>                                        354,587
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   395,556
<SALES>                                         18,960
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,960
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,474
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,032
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (44,335)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,335)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,335)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Axtive Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 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
            Section 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/ GRAHAM C. BEACHUM II                                     Date:  May 20, 2005
--------------------------
Graham C. Beachum II
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ STEPHEN P. SLAY                                          Date:  May 20, 2005
---------------------
Stephen P. Slay
Corporate Controller (principal financial and accounting officer)
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS**

 

We hereby consent to the use of our name andinformation related to reserves in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A(Amendment 1) of Western Gas Resources, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Company”)for the year ended on December 31, 2004.

 

 
|   | NETHERLAND,  SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                            |
|   |                                            |
|   | By:                                             |      /S/ C.H.  Scott Rees III |   |
|   |                                            | C.H. (Scott)  Rees III |
|   |                                            | President  and Chief Operating Officer |
|        |                                                 |  |  |  |

 

Dallas, Texas

December 15, 2005

 

----
MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 285TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on November 24, 2014, the cause upon appeal to 

revise or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of D. M., A Child, Appellant

V.

No. 04-14-00399-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2012-PA-02386

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the 

trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed 

against Appellant in relation to this appeal because she qualifies as indigent. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of 

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on February 4, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-14-00399-CV

In the Interest of D. M., A Child

v.

(NO. 2012-PA-02386 IN 285TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF 

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and 

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Fourth District of Texas, this February 4, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter
63 of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as an officer of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. (SRI), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SRI on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of SRI.



|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                           
|----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------
|Date: May 8, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Christopher S. Carlton
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Christopher S. Carlton    
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer   
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: May 8, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Wallace D. Ruiz       
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Wallace D. Ruiz           
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-83492) and in the related Prospectus and in the Registration
Statements (Forms S-8 No. 333-108022, No. 333-56106, No. 333-42932, No.
333-64167, No. 333-57781, No. 33-88426, No. 333-27835 and No. 333-27831) of
GTECH Holdings Corporation of our report dated March 29, 2004, except for Note
25, as to which the date is May 5, 2004, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of GTECH Holdings Corporation included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2004.


                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
May 5, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2578 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2578

  To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the 
       Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 2011

  Mr. Denham (for himself, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Costa, and Mr. McCarthy of 
 California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the 
       Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LOWER MERCED RIVER.

    (a) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.--Section 3(a)(62)(B)(i) of the Wild 
and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(62)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``the normal maximum'' the first place that 
        it appears and all that follows through ``April, 1990.'' and 
        inserting the following: ``the boundary of FERC Project No. 
        2179 as it existed on July 18, 2011, consisting of a point 
        approximately 2,480 feet downstream of the confluence with the 
        North Fork of the Merced River, consisting of approximately 7.4 
        miles.''; and
            (2) by striking ``the normal maximum operating pool water 
        surface level of Lake McClure'' the second time that it occurs 
        and inserting ``the boundary of FERC Project No. 2179 as it 
        existed on July 18, 2011, consisting of a point approximately 
        2,480 feet downstream of the confluence with the North Fork of 
        the Merced River''.
    (b) Exchequer Project.--Section 3 of Public Law 102-432 is amended 
by striking ``Act:'' and all that follows through the period and 
inserting ``Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY

#### Nicoli v. Nicoli

March 9, 2005

Case No. (Chancery) 23770

BY JUDGE THOMAS D. HORNE

The defendant has moved the Court in this divorce proceeding to quash process and to set aside the Final Decree of Divorce entered on July 28,2004. She complains, *inter alia,*that the Decree was entered contrary to the provisions of Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-296(b) and is void.

Service of process of the Bill of Complaint was effected by posting. However, the complainant failed to mail process or to provide the alternative statutory notice prior to the entry of judgment by default. It is axiomatic that the bill may not be taken for confessed in a divorce proceeding. Va. Sup. Ct. R. 2:8. The issue presented is whether the defendant was in default, within the contemplation of Va Code Ann. § 8.01-296(b), so as to trigger the additional notice requirements in cases of posted service.

The Court finds itself in agreement with Judge Wetsel’s reasoning in *Prillaman*v *Prillaman,*26 Va. Cir. 441 (1992), and that the issue presented by the failure to give the additional notice is one that requires an examination of the relief sought within the context of the requirements of constitutional and statutory due process. Thus, the distinction between *in rem*and *in personam*jurisdiction is important to an analysis of the sufficiency of the notice given. *Boyd*v. *Boyd,*2 Va. App. 16 (1986). Such a distinction harmonizes the concepts of a default judgment contained in the statute and the default that has historically been recognized upon a failure to respond. *Bailey*v. *Bailey,*62 Va. (21 Graft.) 43 (1871).

*158The statutory prohibition against the granting of a divorce based upon consent or default traces its origins to the ecclesiastical courts of England. *Id.*at 50. While the Rules of the Supreme Court retain the distinction between default and having the bill taken as confessed in divorce cases, no such distinction is drawn in the statute with respect to notice. Va. Sup. Ct. Rules 2:7, 2:8. Notice sufficient to satisfy due process requirements differs when considering the nature of the underlying proceedings. Thus, if a party was unable to make service by posting, the Court may yet exercise jurisdiction to award a divorce upon notice by publication. Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.01-296(3), 20-104.

Accordingly, so long as notice in the underlying proceedings was properly given, the Court in this case had jurisdiction to determine the matter of the divorce. However, it did not possess *in personam*jurisdiction to adjudicate issues of support, custody, equitable distribution, or counsel fees. Va. Code Ann. § 20-99; *Baker v. Baker,*194 Va. 284 (1952); *Morris*v. *Morris,*4 Va. App. 539 (1987).
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-194981) pertaining to the Share Price-Based Bonus Scheme of Marine Harvest ASA of our report dated April 30, 2014, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Marine Harvest ASA included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2013.

 

 
| /s/ Ernst & Young AS |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   |
| Oslo, Norway                  |   |
| April 30, 2014           |   |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 10.6**
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Juliana Gucu, Deceased. Viorika Anka, Respondent; John Gucu Roberts, Appellant.

Submitted January 22, 2008;

decided March 18, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 on Form 10-Q of Sterling Chemicals, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Richard K. Crump, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/  RICHARD K. CRUMP
-------------------------------------
Richard K. Crump
President and Chief Executive Officer
Date:   February 18, 2003



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Order entered September 21, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00681-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.P., MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-08868

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this appeal has not been filed, although appellant’s docketing 

statement reflects he requested preparation of the reporter’s record on August 2, 2018. 

Accordingly, we ORDER Joe Rivera, Official Court Reporter of the 255th Judicial District 

Court, to file the record no later than October 22, 2018. 

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Rivera and the 

parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE