alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §47. Disqualification of trial judge to hear appeal

No judge shall hear or determine an appeal from the decision of a case or issue tried by him.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 872.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §216, and District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed., §11–205 (Feb. 9, 1893, ch. 74, §6, 27 Stat. 435; July 30, 1894, ch. 172, §2, 28 Stat. 161; Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 854, §225, 31 Stat. 1225; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §120, 36 Stat. 1132).

The provision in section 11–205 of the District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed., that a justice of the district court while on the bench of the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia shall not sit in review of judgment, order, or decree rendered by him below, was consolidated with a similar provision of section 216 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. The consolidation simplifies the language without change of substance.

References in said section 11–205 to the power to prescribe rules, requisites of record on appeal, forms of bills of exception, and procedure on appeal, were omitted as covered by Rules 73, 75, 76, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Said section 11–205 contained a provision that on a divided opinion by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia the decision of the lower court should stand affirmed. This was omitted as unnecessary as merely expressing a well-established rule of law.

Other provisions of said section 11–205 are incorporated in section 48 of this title.

The provision of section 216 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with respect to the competency of justices and judges to sit, was omitted as covered by section 43 of this title.

Specific reference in said section 216 to the Chief Justice of the United States was likewise omitted inasmuch as he sits as a circuit justice.

The provision of said section 216 with respect to assignment of district judges was omitted as covered by section 291 et seq. of this title.

Provision of said section 216 relating to presiding judge was omitted as covered by section 44 of this title.
EX A

Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA Document 4-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 1 of 7
Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA Document 4-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 2 of 7
Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA Document 4-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 3 of 7
Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA Document 4-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 4 of 7
Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA Document 4-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 5 of 7
Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA Document 4-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 6 of 7
Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA Document 4-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 7 of 7
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 372

**Question 372:** When monitoring of internal exposure is required by 10 CFR 20.1502, 10 CFR 20.1204 (a) requires the licensee to take "suitable and timely" measurements. Will NRC define what is suitable and timely to avoid differences of opinion among inspectors?

**Answer:** No. Some general guidance on what is suitable and timely will be included in Regulatory Guide 8.9, Rev. l, "Acceptable Concepts, Models, Equations, and Assumptions for a Bioassay Program." Other than this general guidance, the NRC staff has no plans to provide a definition of what is "suitable and timely." That definition depends on the circumstances of the particular exposure. What is "suitable and timely" under revised Part 20 is (as before, under old Part 20) a matter of professional judgement in a good radiation protection program. NRC management will resolve any "differences of opinion among inspectors" that are called to its attention.

(References: 10 CFR 20.1204, 10 CFR 20.1502)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, November 24, 2017
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report of Jasmine’s Garden on Form 10-KSB for the year endedDecember 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), I, Yi Bo Sun, Chief Executive Officer and a director of Jasmine’sGarden, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                                       Tomy knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany as of and for the period covered by the Report.

 

 
|           |                     |
|----------------|--------------------------|
| April 9,  2004 | /s/ Yi Bo  Sun           |   |
|           | Yi Bo Sun                |
|           | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-22436-DPG

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUST SALAD LLC,

Defendant.

/

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with no responsive pleadings having yet been 

filed by Defendant, Plaintiff Windy Lucius hereby gives notice that she voluntarily dismisses all 

claims against Defendant with prejudice, and requests this Court to terminate the action.

Dated: September 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

FBN: 628166

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, FL 33156

T: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 15, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system.

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-22436-DPG Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2020 Page 1 of 1
#### Abram Swart, Jr., an Infant, by Margaret Swart, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Little Falls Fibre Company, Appellant.

Motion denied.
----

----

|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d), as applicable, 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. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                              |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
| By:    |   | /S/ DAVID G.      DERRICK                         |   |
|   |   | David      G. Derrick                             |   |
|   |   | Chief      Executive OfficerJanuary      13, 2010 |   |

| By:    |   | /S/ MICHAEL G.      ACTON                         |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Michael      G. Acton                             |   |
|   |   | Chief      Financial OfficerJanuary      13, 2010 |   |

----
SCI 001734

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-148 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 2
SCI 001735

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-148 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### Mollie Osinoff, Appellant, v. Max Osinoff, Respondent.

Ho opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45806

STATE OF IDAHO
,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

CHARLES CECIL CARROLL
,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: October 11, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one

- half years, for lewd conduct with a child under sixteen, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth Ann Allred

, Dep uty Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Charles Cecil Carroll pled guilty to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen . Idaho Code

§ 18

- 1508 . The district court sentenced Carroll to a unified term of fifteen years with one and

one

- half years determ inate

. Carroll appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion

by imposing an excessive sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having re viewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Carroll ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-22603-GOODMAN [CONSENT CASE]

ERIC CHAVEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GRILL ENTERPRISES, LLC AND 

RUBEN SIERRA, 

Defendants.

_______________________/

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE

Defendants, Grill Enterprises, LLC and Ruben Sierra, pursuant to the Court’s Paperless 

Order Order [ECF No. 157], notify the Court and all parties of their compliance by filing

Defendants’ Proposed Verdict Form. 

Respectfully submitted this 4th day of May 2023.

/s/Todd W. Shulby, Esq.

Todd W. Shulby, Esq. (068365)

Todd W. Shulby, P.A. 

1792 Bell Tower Lane

Weston, FL 33326

Telephone: (954) 530-2236

E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com

Co-Counsel for Defendants

/s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq. 

Brian H. Pollock, Esq. (174742)

FairLaw Firm

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Telephone: (305) 230-4884

E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com

Co-Counsel for Defendants

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2023 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-41048

ALLEGIANCE BANK TEXAS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

MARK CALDWELL, as guarantor, in personam; ASHLEY RYANN 

CALDWELL, as guarantor, in personam, 

 Defendants - Appellants

v.

BRISTOL 2000 MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED; SHANNON HOLLAR, 

 Interested Parties - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CV-00002

Before JOLLY, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6. 

 

* 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

August 30, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-41048 Document: 00514623752 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2018
### §5603. Penalty relating to records, returns, and reports

#### (a) Fraudulent noncompliance

Any person required by this chapter (other than subchapters F and G) or regulations issued pursuant thereto to keep or file any record, return, report, summary, transcript, or other document, who, with intent to defraud the United States, shall—

(1) fail to keep any such document or to make required entries therein; or

(2) make any false entry in such document; or

(3) cancel, alter, or obliterate any part of such document or any entry therein, or destroy any part of such document or any entry therein; or

(4) hinder or obstruct any internal revenue officer from inspecting any such document or taking any abstracts therefrom; or

(5) fail or refuse to preserve or produce any such document, as required by this chapter or regulations issued pursuant thereto;

or who shall, with intent to defraud the United States, cause or procure the same to be done, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, for each such offense.

#### (b) Failure to comply

Any person required by this chapter (other than subchapters F and G) or regulations issued pursuant thereto to keep or file any record, return, report, summary, transcript, or other document, who, otherwise than with intent to defraud the United States, shall—

(1) fail to keep any such document or to make required entries therein; or

(2) make any false entry in such document; or

(3) cancel, alter, or obliterate any part of such document or any entry therein, or destroy any part of such document, or any entry therein, except as provided by this title or regulations issued pursuant thereto; or

(4) hinder or obstruct any internal revenue officer from inspecting any such document or taking any abstracts therefrom; or

(5) fail to refuse to preserve or produce any such document, as required by this chapter or regulations issued pursuant thereto;

or who shall, otherwise than with intent to defraud the United States, cause or procure the same to be done, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, for each such offense.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1400; amended Pub. L. 115–141, div. U, title IV, §401(a)(249), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1196.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5603, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 684, related to penalty for failure or refusal of distiller or rectifier to give notice of intention to engage in such business, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859. See section 5601(a)(2), (3) of this title.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior sections 5610, 5611, 5620, 5621, 5692, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 685 to 687, 703, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–141 inserted comma after "returns" in section catchline.
Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020   Page 1 of 3

Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020   Page 2 of 3

Case 0:20-cv-61208-RKA   Document 5   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020   Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.1



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



In connection with the Annual Report of Flight Safety Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Samuel A. Kovnat, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company.





|August 19, 2003 | By: | /s/ Samuel A. Kovnat                        
|--------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------
|                |     |                                             
|                |     | Samuel A. Kovnat
Its Chief Executive Officer
### §1604. Immunity of a foreign state from jurisdiction

Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 94–583, §4(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2892.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The time of enactment of this Act, referred to in text, probably means the time of enactment of Pub. L. 94–583, which was approved Oct. 21, 1976.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Oct. 21, 1976, see section 8 of Pub. L. 94–583, set out as a note under section 1602 of this title.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 2**  **41 7** 

JOHN PAUL TURNER,

P etitioner

- Appell ant ,

v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA , Respondent

- Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Samuel G. Wilson , District Judge. ( 7 : 1 0

- c v - 00 555

- sgw - mfu )

Submitted : February 10 , 2011 Decided: March 9 , 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
John Paul Turner appeals the district court ’s order dismissing this action petitioning for a writ of coram nobis.
We have reviewed the recor d and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons s tated by the district

court. Turner v. Virginia , No. 7:10

- cv - 00555

- sgw - mfu (W.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequ ately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10051.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10051.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
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. 08-30744

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WILLIE L COOKS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:07-CR-50116-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Willie L. Cooks has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Cooks has filed a response. The record is insufficiently

developed to allow consideration at this time of Cooks’s claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal

when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity

existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30744

2

Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and

Cooks’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.
**Exhibit 99.1**

          I, Richard E. Stoddard,Chief Executive Officer of Kaiser Ventures LLC, certify that:

          1.          The Form10-K Report of Kaiser Ventures LLC for the year ended December 31, 2002, 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 Form 10-K Report of Kaiser Ventures LLC for the year ended December 31,2002, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer. 

| Date:  | March 25, 2003 |                                                                                              | /s/ RICHARD E. STODDARD |
|--------|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|   |           |                                                                                              |                         |
|   |           | **Richard E. Stoddard, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Managers** |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner

v.

BRADLEY ADAM WINNICK,

Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2723 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 69 DB 2020

Attorney Registration No. 78413

(Dauphin County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2021, upon consideration of the 

Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board, the Joint Petition 

in Support of Discipline on Consent is granted, and Bradley Adam Winnick is suspended 

on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day, 

retroactive to May 22, 2020. Respondent shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 

217 and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board. See Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Molecular Genetics A Study Section, October 21, 2004, 8 a.m. to October 22, 2004, 4 p.m., Four Points by Sheraton Bethesda, 8400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 20, 2004, 69 FR 56236-56238.                

The meeting is cancelled due to lack of a quorum.

Dated: October 5, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-23000 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M