alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*

 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

December 9, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 03-21173

_____________________

BOBBY LEE HINES, BILLY FRANK VICKERS,

and KEVIN LEE ZIMMERMAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

 v.

GARY JOHNSON ET AL,

Defendants-Appellees

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

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-03-5594)

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiffs-Appellants, all death row inmates facing imminent

execution, appeal from the district court’s denial of their 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking a permanent injunction to bar the use

of lethal injection as currently constituted. Our review of their

filings and the order of the district court denying their claims

convinces us that the district court ruled correctly.

This matter poses both procedural and substantive questions.
We are keenly aware that the Supreme Court has under consideration

the procedural question whether § 1983 is available as a vehicle

for mounting attacks such as this; but until a different rule is

announced, we continue to follow the procedure described by the

district court. See, e.g., Gomez v. United States District Court

for the Northern District of California, 503 U.S. 653 (1992);

Martinez v. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 292 F.3d 417 (5th Cir.

2002), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1091 (2002). Substantively,

Plaintiffs-Appellants have submitted evidence that appears to be

facially stronger than that which has supported prior complaints of

this nature; but we are not in a posture to deal further with it

under our present precedent.

For essentially the same reasons as expressed by the district

court in its Order of December 8, 2003, we affirm that ruling and

dismiss the Plaintiffs-Appellants’ appeal.

DISMISSED.
#### Edith B. Gallagher, Individually and as Guardian ad Litem of Frank J. Pagliaro, Jr., and Another, Infants, Appellant, v. Frank J. Pagliaro, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
#### § 5511.3-3 Conservation practices.

All free-use timber disposed of under the act shall be severed, or removed in accordance with sound forestry and conservation practices so as to preserve to the maximum extent feasible all scenic, recreational, watershed and other values of the land and resources. In the free-use disposal of timber, cutting and removal shall be accomplished in such a manner as to leave the stand in condition for continuous production.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 96-92 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, June 27, 1996)

NRC TRANSFERS RESPONSIBILITY FOR

SOUTH DAKOTA URANIUM MILL TAILINGS DISPOSAL SITE TO DOE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has terminated the

Tennessee Valley Authority's license for a closed, cleaned-up

uranium mill tailings site in Edgemont, South Dakota, and has

placed the site under the custody and long-term care of the

Department of Energy.

This is the first commercially operated uranium mill site to

be cleaned up satisfactorily by a licensee--in conformance with

NRC requirements--so that the license can be terminated and the

site turned over to DOE under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation

Control Act of 1978.

During operation of the mill from 1956 to 1972, about 2.3

million tons of uranium mill tailings accumulated. TVA bought

the facility in 1974, but never operated it.

TVA conducted cleanup activities at the site from 1984 to

1989, placing about 4.5 million tons of tailings, contaminated

native soil, building equipment and debris in an impoundment

designed and engineered for long-term disposal. The impoundment

area has been fenced to prevent human or animal intrusion.

NRC formally notified DOE on June 27 that its long-term

surveillance plan for the Edgemont site is acceptable. This

action and termination of the TVA license complete all legal

requirements for permanent closure of the site.

####
EXHIBIT 10.r


The following is a written description of the terms of employment of Susan E.
Knight, pursuant to Item 601(b)(10)(iii)(B) of Regulation S-K:


   Title:                  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.

   Base Salary:            $19,166.67 per month.

   Annual Incentive Bonus: Eligible for incentive bonuses under the MTS
                           Management  Variable Compensation ("MVC") Plan. Pro
                           rated for fiscal year 2001. For fiscal year 2002, MVC
                           pay-out to be not less than $100,000.

   Stock Options:          Options to purchase 20,000 shares on start date.
                           Thereafter, eligible for grants under the MTS Stock
                           Option Plan, as approved by the Board.

   Employee Benefits:      Eligible to participate in all employee benefits
                           available to U.S. employees.

   Annual vacation:        Three weeks.

   Other:                  Business allowance of $625 per month.


                                       26
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

Ken Clark (Phone: 404/562-4416, E-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov)

Roger Hannah (Phone 404/562-4417, E-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov)

No: II-99-58

December 30, 1999

NRC REGION II TO MONITOR NUCLEAR PLANTS

IN THE SOUTHEAST DURING Y2K TRANSITION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Region II office in Atlanta will monitor the status of commercial

nuclear power plants in the southeastern United States during the Year 2000, or Y2K rollover, from Dec.

31 through New Year’s Day. The Region II Incident Response Center will be fully staffed and an

inspector will be stationed at each plant site during the transition period.

From 9 p.m. on Dec. 31 through 9 a.m. on Jan. 1, a Region II public affairs officer will be available to

answer news media questions regarding those plants. The contact phone numbers during those hours

are: (404) 562-4468 or (404) 562-4480.

In addition, news releases providing status updates on the facilities will be issued and will be posted on the

NRC’s web site at www.nrc.gov/OPA

For details on the entire agency’s Y2K staffing plans, see NRC News Release No. 99-271 at the same web

location.

#
#### § 19.410 Comparable facilities.

A recipient may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-053

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, March 31, 1997)

COMMISSION ENDORSES NRC REGULATION

OF SOME ENERGY DEPARTMENT NUCLEAR FACILITIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has endorsed NRC's taking

responsibility for regulatory oversight of Department of Energy

(DOE) nuclear facilities ˇ as DOE recently proposed ˇ contingent

on adequate funding, staffing resources, and a clear delineation

of the authority NRC would exercise.

The Commission will discuss this matter with DOE officials

at a public meeting at 2:30 p. m. today at NRC's One White Flint

North headquarters building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md.

Heretofore, the Commission has taken no position on the

question of regulation of DOE nuclear facilities. It has now

decided to endorse the concept, based on the Energy Department's

decision to seek such regulatory oversight and on strong public

support shown during the comment period on the DOE proposal.

The Commission has directed the NRC staff to form a high

level task force made up of representatives from major agency

offices to begin work in conjunction with DOE representatives on

identifying key regulatory issues that will need analysis and

resolution. Among issues to be focused on are implementing

legislation, specific DOE facilities involved, and required

financial and personnel resources.

###
#### George H. Salmon, Doing Business under the Name of British American Export Company, Respondent, v. Solomon Berg, Doing Business under the Name of Berg Chemical Company, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
Deloitte & Touche LLP
  3000, 700
  Second Street SW
  Calgary  AB 
  Canada  T2P 0S7Telephone     +1 403-267-1700
  Facsimile        +1
  403-264-2871    EXHIBIT 3  INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT   We consent to
the use in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Baytex Energy Ltd. (the
Company) of our report dated March 3, 2003, (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion, and for U.S. readers had a Canada-U.S. reporting
difference which would require an explanatory paragraph, following the opinion
paragraph, relating to the Companys change of accounting principles), relating
to the consolidated financial statements of the Company as at December 31, 2002
and 2001 and for the years then ended, which report is included in Exhibit 2 to
this annual report.    (Signed)
  /s/ Deloitte
  & Touche LLPChartered
  AccountantsCalgary,
  AlbertaMarch 3,
  2003
§ 115.7 Designation of additional Certifying Authorities. ( a ) The Commissioner may designate as a Certifying Authority any nonprofit firm or association that he finds competent to carry out the functions of §§ 115.8 through 115.14 of this subpart.
( b ) Any designation as Certifying Authority may be terminated by the Commissioner.
462 P.2d 626

#### Sherrill D. TUFT, Father and Natural Guardian of Jeri Dee Tuft, Rodger Neil Tuft, and Jody Louise Tuft, Minors; and his wife, Thelma A. Tuft, Petitioners, v. The Honorable James W. MUSGROVE, Judge of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Division I, Respondent.

No. 8996.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 16, 1970.

MOISE, Chief Justice, and COMPTON, TACKETT, WATSON and SISK, Justices, concurring.

Ordered that petition be and the same is hereby denied.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

801 Warrenville Road

Lisle IL 60532

No. III-00-57 October 12, 2000

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630)829-9663/e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov

Pam Alloway-Mueller (630)829-9662/e-mail: pla@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC WORKSHOP OCTOBER 19 IN PADUCAH, KENTUCKY,

ON THE HANDLING OF DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a workshop October 19 in Paducah,

Kentucky, to review the agency’s handling of complaints by nuclear industry workers who allege their

employer discriminated against them after they raised safety concerns.

The Paducah workshop will begin at 7 p.m. CDT at the Paducah Community College, 4810

Alben Barkely Dr., Crounse Hall. It will be the fifth in a series of public workshops NRC staff

members are holding throughout the country to help evaluate agency policies and develop

recommendations to enhance public protection.

The NRC has formed a Discrimination Task Group to review the way the agency handles

discrimination complaints filed by nuclear industry workers and recommend possible changes to the

agency’s regulations, enforcement policy or other guidelines. The Task Group also will consider

issues raised in a rulemaking petition filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists in October 1999. The

petition asks the Commission to require that nuclear plant operators provide training for their

management on implementing employee protection regulations.

Draft recommendations from the Task Group will be published about the middle of next year

for public comment.

The workshop will not be transcribed, but summaries will be available from the NRC Public

Document Room at (301) 415-4737. The group’s charter and other pertinent documents related to its

activities will be posted periodically at: http://www.nrc.gov/OE on the agency’s web site. Additional

information about upcoming meetings can be obtained by calling Barry Westreich at (301) 415-3456 or

via e-mail: BCW@nrc.gov.

###
#### Max Baum, Appellant, v. Eda M. Baum, Respondent.

Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, ' Deyo and Bergan, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. 20-23179-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN 

MOUNTECH IP LLC, 

Plaintiff 

v. 

HMD AMERICA, INC., 

Defendant. 

________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S AGREED MOTION FOR 60 DAY 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Agreed Motion for 60 Day 

Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint, [ECF No. ___], filed August 25, 2020. 

The Court, having reviewed the Motion and being fully advised in the premises, 

hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows: 

Defendant’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is now November 2, 2020. 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Miami, Florida, this __ day of August, 2020. 

____________________________________ 

MARCIA G. COOKE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies furnished to: 

Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Counsel of record
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.938 Default. ( a ) Upon occurrence of an event of default specified in the 504 note which requires automatic acceleration, the note becomes due and payable. Upon occurrence of an event of default which does not require automatic acceleration, SBA may forbear acceleration of the note and attempt to resolve the default. If the default is not cured subsequently, the note shall be accelerated. In either case, upon acceleration of the note, the Debenture which funded it is also due immediately, and SBA must honor its guarantee of the Debenture. SBA shall not reimburse the investor for any premium paid.
( b ) If a CDC defaults on a Debenture, SBA generally shall limit its recovery to the payments made by the small business to the CDC on the loan made from the Debenture proceeds, and the collateral securing the defaulted loan. However, SBA will look to the CDC for the entire amount of the Debenture in the case of fraud, negligence, or misrepresentation by the CDC.
§ 123.31 Merchandise in transit. ( a ) *From one contiguous country to another.* Merchandise may be transported in transit across the United States between Canada and Mexico under the procedures set forth in part 18 of this chapter for merchandise entered for transportation and exportation.
( b ) *From one point in a contiguous country to another through the United States.* Merchandise may be transported from point to point in Canada or in Mexico through the United States in bond in accordance with the procedures set forth in §§ 18.1 and 18.20 through 18.24 of this chapter except where those procedures are modified by this subpart or subparts E for trucks transiting the United States, F for commercial traveler's samples, or G for baggage.
[T.D. 70-121, 35 FR 8215, May 26, 1970, as amended by CBP Dec. 17-13, 82 FR 45405, Sept. 28, 2017]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EASTERN
AMERICAN NATURAL GAS TRUST'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,903
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,794,989
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,794,989
<PP&E>                                      93,162,180
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,648,427
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              74,310,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,796,892
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  71,513,753
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                74,310,645
<SALES>                                      8,980,861
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,980,861
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  953,792
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               367,192
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,665,098
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,665,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,665,098
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.299
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.299
        

</TABLE>
[No. 7028.

Decided February 27, 1908.]

#### W. E. Larson, *Appellant,*v. J. B. Lorer, *Respondent.**1*

Appeal — Review—Verdict. A general verdict for a defendant, in an action on a contract, will not be set aside upon appeal where there was a direct conflict of evidence upon an afiirmative defense as to a mutual rescission of the contract.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Asotin county, Miller, J., entered May 14, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the defendant, in an action for a broiler’s commissions for the sale of real estate.

Affirmed.

*Sturdevant*& *Bailey*and *I. N. Smith,*for appellant.

*Elmer E. Halsey*and *Ben F. Tweedy,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 94 Pac. 109.

Mount, J.

The appellant, a real estate broker, brought this action to recover commissions for an alleged sale of certain farm lands for the respondent. The complaint alleged a written contract for commissions between appellant and respondent, a sale of the respondent’s land, and a refusal on the part of the respondent to pay the commission. The answer admitted the making of the contract, but denied all the other allegations of the complaint. As a further defense, the answer alleged that appellant and respondent mutually rescinded the written contract, and that subsequently respondent exchanged his farm land for another farm without the aid of appellant. The affirmative allegations of the answer were denied. Upon these- issues, and others not necessary to mention, the case was tried to the court and a jury. The result was a verdict for respondent. The plaintiff appeals.

The appeal is based upon the contention that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict. The appellant makes no claim that there was any error in the admission or rejection of evidence, or that any error was committed by the trial *552court in instructing the jury. .From an examination of the evidence brought here, we find that there was a direct conflict in the evidence as to whether a mutual rescission of the contract for commissions had taken place between appellant and respondent before the sale or exchange of the property by the respondent. If there was such rescission, of course there could be no recovery upon the contract. This question under the evidence was exclusively for the jury, which might well have found, and which we think did find, in favor of the defendant that there was such rescission. In the absence of a negative finding upon this question, we cannot assume that the jury considered other questions, for if there was a rescission, as alleged, it was not necessary for the jury to consider the other questions in the case. The question of rescission being a question of fact, and properly presented to the jury, controls the case. The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

Hadley, C. J., Crow, Root, and Fullerton, JJ., concur.
##### 



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 This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the Form 10-Q) of
Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer). I, Michael J. Ross, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer,
certify that:  (i)
    
    The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer. Dated: May 10, 2004 /s / Michael J. Ross
Michael J. Ross
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Dearborn Bancorp, Inc.