alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re: Kaveh LAHIJANI, Debtor, *299Kamiar Simantob; et al., Appellants, v. Kaveh Lahijani, Appellee.

No. 04-55253.

D.C. No. CV-03-03296-JFW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 14, 2005.

Decided Nov. 21, 2005.

Gail S. Gilfillan, John R. Fuchs, Fuchs *&*Associates, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, Illyssa I. Fogel, Illyssa I. Fogel, PC & Associates, McDermitt, NV, for Appellants.

J. Scott Bovitz, Bovitz & Spitzer, Los Angeles, CA, Wesley H. Avery, Steven T. Gubner, Ezra, Brutzkus & Gubner, Enci-no, CA, for Appellee.

Before BRIGHT,* B. FLETCHER, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM**

Whereas a district court may review both interlocutory and final orders of the bankruptcy court, *see 28*U.S.C. § 158(a), the circuits courts have jurisdiction to hear only “final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees” entered by a district court or a bankruptcy appellate panel, *see id.*§ 158(d). We dismiss this appeal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because the district court’s decision, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order granting in part appellee’s motion to dismiss, is not a final order. *See In re Pizza of Hawaii, Inc.,*761 F.2d 1374, 1378 (9th Cir.1985) (noting that interlocutory orders are not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)). Although the finality rules in bankruptcy are more “flexible” than those under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we previously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from a bankruptcy court order that dismissed one count of a four-count counterclaim. *In re King City Transit Mix, Inc.,*738 F.2d 1065, 1066 (9th Cir.1984) (“[I]n this case even the unique nature of a bankruptcy proceeding does not warrant a departure from final order jurisprudence developed in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.”). We similarly dismiss the instant appeal, which also stems from a bankruptcy court decision denying one of four overlapping claims.

Moreover, the parties have failed to explain how their rights will be “seriously affect[ed]” if we do not hear this appeal right now. *In re Stone,*6 F.3d 581, 583 n. 1 (9th Cir.1993) (noting that, under Ninth Circuit precedent, finality may exist in the bankruptcy context where an order “resolves and seriously affects substantive rights”). Indeed, appellants concede that their § 523(a) claims operate as an alternative to their revocation of discharge claim — if they are successful on any one of their § 523(a) claims, they could recover all the relief that they seek, which would render the dismissed revocation claim moot.

Because we lack jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal, Appellee’s Request for Judicial Notice is denied as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

**

 This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND THE YEAR TO DATE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD THEN
ENDED.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,644,535
<SECURITIES>                                   983,714
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,006,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                   219,829
<INVENTORY>                                  1,482,899
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,004,391
<PP&E>                                       1,604,043
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,051,117
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,129,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,394,947
<BONDS>                                      3,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                         7,213
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,620,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,129,686
<SALES>                                     18,492,041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,937,918
<CGS>                                       10,313,931
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,538,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               140,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             330,620
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,068,890)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,068,890)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,068,890)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.30)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit      32**

**Certification      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|                                 |                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:                *3/15/07*  | */s/                John C. Helmken II*John                C. Helmken IIPresident                and Chief Executive Officer(Principal                Executive Officer)                      |
|                                 |                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| Date:                *3/15/07*  | */s/* *Robert                B. Briscoe*Robert                B. BriscoeChief                Financial Officer(Principal                Financial and Accounting                Officer) |
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         October 2, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 26, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 363 to Competitive Product List*. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-209, CP2017-317.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-21013 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY

#### Linda H. Kaplan v. Irwin D. Kaplan

July 3, 1980

Case No. 79-C-59 / H-79

By JUDGE L. PAUL BYRNE

The defendant in this cause filed his petition praying that the cause be reinstated on the docket of the Court and that his obligation for support of the minor children of the parties be reduced because of a change of circumstances due to:

(a) a reduction of 20% in his compensation and a reduction in the level of benefits received from his employment; and

(b) that due to a change in the financial circumstances of the plaintiff, she should be required to contribute to the support of said infant children under the provisions of Virginia Code § 20-107, as amended.

The Court heard evidence *ore tenus*and argument of counsel on June 9, 1980.

The Court has now had an opportunity to review the evidence and the numerous exhibits submitted by the parties and is of the opinion that there has been a significant change in circumstances of both parties since this cause was settled by a Consent Order entered on August 7, 1979. It is apparent that the defendant’s business has declined because of the current economic conditions and the lessening of demand for its products in the clothing market. In addition, *8the evidence discloses that the company can no longer pay his life insurance premiums tax-free to him. This fact, when considered with his reduction in base salary of 20%, indicates a decline in income of approximaiely 25%.

It is apparent, also, that the plaintiff, a highly trained technician in the field of dentistry, is not actively pursuing her profession even though there is no evidence to indicate that she is physically unable to do so. In fact, the evidence before the Court is that she could earn from $75.00 to $100.00 per day if she would actively seek employment in her field. The plaintiff admits that if she worked every day she could earn as much as $18,575.00 annually. This amount, coupled with her admitted income from savings and investments of $3300.00 per year, indicates a potential annual gross income of $21,875.00, which is exclusive of the alimony payments the is now receiving from the defendant of $24,000.00 per year.

Upon consideration of all the evidence, the Court is of the opinion that, under § 20-107 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, the plaintiff must share some of the responsibility for the support of the children of the parties and, further, that the defendant, because of the decline in income due to the current economic conditions faced by his business, is entitled to some relief.

Accordingly, it is the judgment of this Court that the defendant shall pay $450.00 per month per child for the support and maintenance of the children of the parties, effective July 1, 1980. In addition, the defendant shall pay Matthew N. Ott, Jr., plaintiff’s attorney, the sum of $500.00 on account of counsel fees for services rendered on behalf of the plaintiff. In all other respects, the provisions of the Order of this Court dated August 7, 1979, shall remain in full force and effect.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**


**Pursuant
      to 18 United States Code Section 1350**





The
      undersigned hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the
      year ended December 31, 2004 of Nanobac Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated (the
      "Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such
      report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of the Company.








/s/
      John
      D Stanton





John
      D
      Stanton


Chief
      Executive Officer


August
      4 ,
      2005





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







27
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                              AUSPEX SYSTEMS, INC.

                              (As of June 30, 1999)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Date of
           Name                         Incorporation   Place of Incorporation
---------------------------------       -------------   ------------------------
<S>                                     <C>             <C>
Auspex Systems, Inc.                     05/18/93       Delaware, USA

Auspex International, Inc.               07/19/93       California, USA

Systems Auspex, Inc.                     07/02/93       Quebec, Canada

Auspex Systems Limited                   08/23/93       Reading, United Kingdom

Auspex Systems GmbH                      09/24/93       Munich, Germany

Auspex Systems S.A.                      12/23/93       Paris, France

Auspex Foreign Sales Corporation         08/23/92       Barbados

Alphatronix, Inc.                        08/24/87       North Carolina, USA

Auspex Kabushiki Kaisha (K.K.)           07/02/98       Tokyo, Japan
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman JUAN M. PESINA

United States Air Force

ACM S32196

17 July 2014

Sentence adjudged 9 October 2013 by SPCM convened at Nellis Air Force 

Base, Nevada. Military Judge: Christopher M. Schumann.

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge and confinement for 5 months.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Major Nicholas Carter and Major 

Jennifer J. Raab.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Don M. Christensen.

Before

ALLRED, MITCHELL, and WEBER

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release.

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Article 66(c), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). 

 

 The Court notes that the Court-Martial Order (CMO), dated 16 December 2013 is incorrect in that it fails to 

indicate pleas and findings for the specifications. The Court orders the promulgation of a corrected CMO.
2 ACM S32196

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
#### Peter Bock, Appellant, v Loumarita Realty Corporation, Also Known as Lou Maria Realty Corp., et al., Respondents.

[988 NYS2d 156]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered August 27, 2013, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 27, 2014, which, to the extent appeal-able, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew the prior motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment based upon plaintiffs testimony that he fell on a sidewalk that was slippery when wet, during a period of *541heavy rain, defendants’ lack of prior notice of a dangerous condition, and an expert opinion that there was no defect in the area of the fall. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see e.g. Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

The mere fact that a sidewalk is “inherently slippery” by reason of its smoothness or becomes more slippery when wet does not constitute an actionable defect *(see Waiters v Northern Trust Co. of N.Y.,*29 AD3d 325 [1st Dept 2006]; *Wasserstrom v New York City Tr. Auth.,*267 AD2d 36 [1st Dept 1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 761 [2000]; *Phillips v 630 McKinley Sq. Corp.,*285 App Div 18 [1st Dept 1954]). Plaintiffs expert’s finding lacked probative force and failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of a defective or dangerous condition in the absence of any assertion of a violation of a specific, applicable industry standard which contributed to the accident *(see Scivoletti v New York Mercantile Exch., Inc.,*38 AD3d 326 [1st Dept 2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 802 [2007]).

Plaintiffs conclusory claim that a violation of 6 RCNY 2-55 (a)’s provision, concerning the maximum height for removable railings separating unenclosed sidewalk cafés contributed to his injuries fails to raise a triable issue of fact *(cf. D’Amico v Archdiocese of N.Y.,*95 AD3d 601 [1st Dept 2012]). Likewise, plaintiff’s claim, even if preserved, that the condition of the sidewalk violated Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-152 (a), is unavailing. He failed to establish a causal relationship between the condition of the concrete patchwork, adjacent to the location of the fall, and the accident, and his claim that granite constituted an “unapproved non-concrete material” is unsupported.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,592
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,052
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,582
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,930
<PP&E>                                          68,303
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,769
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,462
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,609
<BONDS>                                         44,859
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           19,529
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       (23,042)
<OTHER-SE>                                        (948)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,462
<SALES>                                        380,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               380,627
<CGS>                                          369,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  369,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,438
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,643)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        86 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,557)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,557)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.04)

</TABLE>
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OFTEXAS

- P,0:.BOX:l23p^^^C^TAJ4pNt^^TBJ;^XAS2«7II " ~ *" ""'' ' ~" aStSPOsj. 

### OFFICIALBUSINESS

- -- raWJHFJgw: <T > STATS <n\!S Tr-EVA© .' °« SrSS^e1^^ Af/frf^s==5sffi'-^^^^^^ 3 ^T^* s„ „^r H'g P1TNEVBOWES 

### PENALTY FOR * : o-. ^ps^E^ 6 am <**6 

# 2/24/2015 PRIVATEUSE ' : gl-.'^^ffi 000S557458 MAR022015 FEIST, HERBERTHERMAN Tr:tC^Nd?Sil2^p67,8A,LEDFROM2"WK)-S27375-24 On this day, the original application for writ of mandamus has been received arte " presented to the Court. . .' : Abel Acosta, Clerk HERBERT HERMAN FEIST JEFFERSON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY ; 18805 - P. O. BOX 26007 utf i
. 

### BEAUMONT, TX 77720 -1.

ft'nEBHSB ='y~2G 

# iMii'HHil'1'liiH]'l,iii'liii,i'lil'i''i,'!rlili,1i'll1u 

# A
#### THE DELAWARE. THORNE v. WINNETT et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 16, 1895.)

Appeal from tlie District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.

•T. Parker Kirlin, for appellant.

Harrington Putnam, for appellees.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.

No opinion. Certified to the supreme court of the United States as to the ei'fect of che act of congress of February 13, 1893, and, if decided adversely by that court, tlie order is to be aflirnied.
EXHIBIT 12.1



RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



|                                   |  | Fiscal Year
|---------------------------------- |  | -----------
|                                   |  | 1998       
|Earnings:                          |  |            
|Income before income taxes         |  | $          
|Interest expense                   |  |            
|Amortization of debt costs         |  |            
|Interest portion of rental expense |  |            
|                                   |  |            
|Total earnings                     |  | $          
|                                   |  |            
|                                  
|Fixed charge:                      |  |            
|Interest expense                   |  | $          
|Amortization of debt costs         |  |            
|Interest portion of rental expense |  |            
|                                   |  |            
|Total fixed charges                |  | $          
|                                   |  |            
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |  |            
|                                   |  |