alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000359

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DYLAN RIVER JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 5CPC-20-0000051)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal by Defendant-Appellant Dylan River James ( James ) from the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit's ( circuit court ) March 28, 2022 "Order Denying [James]'s Motion in Limine #1 Paragraph 'F' Filed on December 20, 2021" ( Order Denying MIL ) because the circuit court improperly certified the Order Denying MIL for interlocutory appeal.

Hawaii Revised Statutes ( HRS ) § 641-17 (2016) allows a defendant to assert an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter from the circuit court to this court, "[u]pon application made within the time provided by the rules of court." Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure ( HRAP ) Rule 4(b)(1) provides in relevant part that a "motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal from an order of the circuit court must be filed within 30 days of the court's entry of the order ." (Emphasis added.) Here, the circuit court entered its Order Denying MIL on March 28, 2022, making a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal due by Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-22-0000359 23-JUN-2022 07:51 AM Dkt. 14 ODSLJNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

April 27, 2022. 1However, James did not file his Motion for Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal until April 29, 2022, which was untimely under HRS § 641-17 and HRAP Rule 4(b)(1).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions or stipulations are dismissed as moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, June 23, 2022. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge

1April 27, 2022 was not a holiday, Saturday, or Sunday. See HRAP Rule 26(a).
2
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 67335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31922]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI, ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI]


Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C.; Notice of Reconstitution

    Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.721, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
in the above captioned Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. proceeding is 
hereby reconstituted by appointing a Licensing Board consisting of 
Administrative Judge Michael C. Farrar, Chairman; Administrative Judge 
Jerry R. Kline; and Administrative Judge Peter Lam, which shall have 
jurisdiction over all pending and future matters in this proceeding,\1\ 
with the exception of those matters relating to contention Utah E/
Confederated Tribes F, Financial Assurance, contention Utah S, 
Decommissioning, and/or contention Security-J, Law Enforcement. With 
respect to pending or future matters regarding contention Utah E/
Confederated Tribes F, contention Utah S, and/or contention Security-J, 
the Licensing Board consisting of Administrative Judge G. Paul 
Bollwerk, III, Chairman, and Administrative Judges Kline and Lam will 
retain jurisdiction for all purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ At the request of the Licensing Board chaired by Judge 
Bollwerk, Judge Farrar has been reviewing pending matters in this 
proceeding in conjunction with Judges Kline and Lam. The Licensing 
Board of which Judge Farrar is Chairman anticipates issuing a number 
of rulings on pending matters in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.701, all correspondence, documents, 
and other material relating to any matter in this proceeding should 
continue to be served on Judges Kline and Lam. All correspondence, 
documents and, other material relating to any matter other than 
contention Utah E/Confederated Tribes F, contention Utah S, and/or 
contention Security-J shall be served on Administrative Judge Farrar as 
follows: Administrative Judge Michael C. Farrar, Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    Hereafter, only correspondence, documents, and other material 
relating to any matter concerning contention Utah E/Confederated Tribes 
F, contention Utah S, and/or contention Security-J should continue to 
be served on Administrative Judge Bollwerk.

    Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this nineteenth day of December 
2001.
G. Paul Bollwerk III,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 01-31922 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                                  346
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        346
<PP&E>                                                  650
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          996
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,103,437
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                         (1,102,441)
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            996
<SALES>                                              69,540
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     69,540
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      5,531
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      64,009
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  64,009
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         64,009
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.03



</TABLE>
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Bussen Quarries, Inc.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Bussen Quarries, Inc.

BUSSEN CENT 2015-385 Meeting Notice 3-16-17.pdf

BUSSEN CENT 2015-385 Meeting Notice 3-16-17.htm

secretary-labor-v-bussen-quarries-docket-cent2015-385.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ending December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), I, John F. Brock, Chief Executive 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) to my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company. 

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. and will be retainedby Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
106 A.3d 481

#### IN THE MATTER OF FELIX NIHAMIN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 013071995).

January 23, 2015.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented, it is ORDERED that FELIX NIHAMIN of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1995, and who was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months effective July 17, 2014, by Order of this Court filed June 18, 2014, be restored to the practice of law, effective immediately.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

September 16, 2019

By the Court:

Nos. 18

‐ 1498, 18

‐ 1499, 18

‐ 2170 & 18

‐ 2177

J .K.J. and M.J.J.,

Plaintiffs

‐ Appellees

,

v.

POLK COUNTY and

DARRYL L. CHRISTENSEN.,

Defendants

‐ Appellants

. Appeals from the United States District

Court for the Western District of

Wisconsin.

Nos. 15

‐ cv

‐ 00428

‐ wmc and

15

‐ cv

‐ 00433

‐ wmc

William M. Conley,

J udge

.

O R D E R

The petition for rehearing en banc is GRANTED

. The opinion and judgment

entered by the panel are VACATED

. Oral argument will be heard on a date to be set

by further order.
cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge 

DeAnn Wiesner 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
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

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Request for information about the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, David G. Hunter, at (202) 268-4800.

David G. Hunter,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-31636  Filed 12-19-01; 2:05 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
#### Randall G. KNOWLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.; Lincoln Financial Group, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-35786.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 7, 2008.

Filed May 16, 2008.

Steven T. Potts, Thompson, Jacobsen & Potts, P.C., Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Stephanie A. Oblander, Esq., Smith Ob-lander & Mora, Great Falls, MT, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: THOMPSON, W. FLETCHER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff-appellant Randall G. Knowles (“Knowles”) appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Lincoln National Life Insurance Company. In this diversity suit, Knowles sought reimbursement and indemnification for expenses he incurred while allegedly employed by Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (“Lincoln”) and Lincoln Financial Group (“LFG”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We conclude that removal from state court was proper because LFG was not required to consent to Lincoln’s notice of removal. Service against LFG was not effectuated, and Knowles did not attempt to reserve LFG or appeal Lincoln’s motion to quash. *See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co.,*846 F.2d 1190, 1193 n. 1 (9th Cir.1988) (The general rule that “all defendants in a state action must join in the petition for removal ... [applies] only to defendants properly joined and served in the action.”) (internal citations omitted). In addition, because LFG is not a party to any contract upon which Knowles could predicate a claim, LFG is a nominal party whose consent for removal was not necessary. *Id.*(“nominal, unknown or fraudulently joined parties” need not join in petition for removal). Accordingly, the district court did not err in failing to remand the case to state court.

On the merits, it is clear that Knowles was an independent contractor rather than an employee, and had no right under his contract to be reimbursed for his expenses. *See Moberly v. Day,*757 N.E.2d 1007, 1013 (Ind.2001) (affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment where significant, undisputed facts indicate independent contractor status). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Lincoln.

Lincoln has filed a motion for damages and costs on appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 38; *Grimes v. Commissioner,*806 F.2d 1451, 1454 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (“Sanctions are appropriate when the re-*433suit of an appeal is obvious and the arguments of error are wholly without merit.”). Although a close call, we deny the motion.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FLOWERS
INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE TWENTY EIGHT WEEKS
ENDED JULY 18, 1998 AND THE FLOWERS INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
AT JULY 18, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   7-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-18-1998
<CASH>                                          78,902
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  247,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,365
<INVENTORY>                                    276,557
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               692,116
<PP&E>                                       1,384,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                 458,280
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,312,973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          645,878
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,489
<OTHER-SE>                                     525,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,312,973
<SALES>                                      1,908,531
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,913,458
<CGS>                                          861,342
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,797,247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,493
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 83,718
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,161
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,495
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 12

Statement Regarding the Computation of Ratios

a.   The percentage ratio of net income to average total assets is calculated by
     dividing  the 1998  and 1997 net  income  of  $8,061,000  and  $10,096,000,
     respectively,   by  the  average   total   assets  for  1998  and  1997  of
     $1,148,886,000 and $974,020,000, respectively.

b.   The  percentage  ratio of net  income to  average  shareholders'  equity is
     calculated  by  dividing  the 1998 and 1997 net  income of  $8,061,000  and
     $10,096,000, respectively, by the average shareholders' equity for 1998 and
     1997 of $91,575,000 and $81,748,000, respectively.

c.   The  percentage  ratio of average  shareholders'  equity to  average  total
     assets is  calculated  by dividing the 1998 and 1997 average  shareholders'
     equity of $91,575,000 and $81,748,000,  respectively,  by the average total
     assets for 1998 and 1997 of $1,148,886,000 and $974,920,000, respectively.

d.   The percentage ratio of cash dividends declared to net income is calculated
     by dividing the 1998 and 1997 cash  dividends  declared of  $4,341,000  and
     $3,462,000, respectively, by the net income for 1998 and 1997 of $8,061,000
     and $10,096,000, respectively.
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     Notice listing applicants for licenses as Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary published October 24, 2001 (66 FR 53795) the reference to Direct Shipping Line is corrected to read: “Direct Shipping Corp.”                 

Dated: December 14, 2001. 

Bryant L. VanBrakle, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 01-31267 Filed 12-18-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

TIME AND DATE:

PLACE:

STATUS:

MATTERS TO BE
CONSIDERED:

CONTACT PERSON
FOR MORE INFO:

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON, DC 20004

April 9, 2014

2:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 23, 2014

The Department of Labor Auditorium, Frances Perkins Building,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210

Open

The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Secretary of
Labor v. McCoy Elkhorn Coal Corporation and Jason Robinson,
Docket Nos. KENT 2008-260, et al. (Issues include whether the
Administrative Law Judge erred in finding high negligence,
unwarrantable failure, a designation of “significant and substantial”
and individual liability with regard to a violation for coal
accumulations.)

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those
needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

Jean Ellen —_ (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay /
1-800-877-8339 for toll free.