alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 362.101 Scope.

This part sets forth the actions the Secretary is taking to respond to the emergency declared in Presidential Proclamation 10414.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 3/15/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-8034

BRUCE GAIL HARBEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

Before EBEL, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Defendant Bruce Harbel appeals from his conviction of using or carrying a firearm

during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, namely distribution of and possession

with intent to distribute methamphetamine. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). On appeal, Harbel

alleges that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence, and that the government

presented insufficient evidence for a jury to find he used a firearm within the meaning of

§ 924(c). While this appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided
2

Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), which held that “using” a firearm within

the meaning of the statute requires “active employment” of the weapon with respect to the

crime. Id. at 509. Based on Bailey, Harbel asserts that the trial court’s jury instruction,

allowing conviction upon a mere showing that the firearm “facilitated” the drug offense,

was erroneous. The parties were permitted supplemental briefing on the application of

Bailey to this case.

Regardless of whether sufficient evidence supports a jury finding that Harbel

“used” a firearm within the meaning of Bailey, the government presented sufficient

evidence that Harbel “carried” a firearm within the meaning of § 924(c)(1). See United

States v. Pigrum, 922 F.2d 249, 253 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 936 (1991) (section

924(c)(1) reads in the disjunctive; the government can prevail by showing that the

defendant engaged in either form of the prohibited conduct). Witnesses testified that

Harbel carried a shotgun on his person or at his feet in a car while engaged in the drug

trafficking offense. This activity constitutes “carrying” a firearm. United States v.

Cardenas, 864 F.2d 1528, 1534-36 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 909 (1989). In his

supplemental response brief, Harbel appears to agree that the government presented

sufficient evidence to satisfy the “carry” prong of § 924(c).

At oral argument, the government conceded that the jury instruction given by the

trial court was erroneous in light of Bailey. It further conceded that the erroneous

instruction was not harmless because evidence was presented suggesting that Harbel may
3

have been found guilty of passively using a firearm in conjunction with distributing

methamphetamine. Because the government acknowledges that the jury may have relied

on the erroneous instruction, we must remand for a new trial. We do not reach the

remaining issues on appeal, insofar as they all involve trial errors. 

Accordingly, we REVERSE the jury verdict and REMAND this case to the district

court.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge
#### Joe B. RITCHEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. William DEMENT; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 01-15276.

D.C. No. CV-00-20103-RMW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Joe B. Ritchey appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his motion for *648remand and dismissing his action without leave to amend. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a motion for remand de novo. *Brennan v. Southwest Airlines Co.,*134 F.3d 1405, 1409 (9th Cir.1998), *amended by*140 F.3d 849 (9th Cir.1998). We also review a dismissal without leave to amend de novo. *Schmier v. U.S.Ct. of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,*279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

Ritchey alleged that the appellees engaged in the spoliation of evidence to defeat his two prior lawsuits against Upjohn Drug Company and others arising from his ingestion of the prescription drug Halcion. This court affirmed the dismissal of those two prior lawsuits on statute of limitations grounds. *See Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co.,*No. 94-15171, 1995 WL 341572 (9th Cir. June 8, 1995) *(“Ritchey*/”); *Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co.,*139 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1998) *{“Ritchey II”).*

The district court properly denied Ritchey’s motion to remand this action to state court because this court has already held that Dr. William Dement was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. *See Ritchey II,*139 F.3d at 1320.

The district court also properly dismissed the current action on res judicata grounds. *See Ritchey I,*1995 WL 341572, at *1; *Ritchey II,*139 F.3d at 1320; *see also Gamble v. Gen. Foods Corp.,*229 Cal. App.3d 893, 280 Cal.Rptr. 457, 460 (1991) (“A single cause of action is based on the harm suffered, rather than the particular legal theory asserted or relief sought by the plaintiff.”). In addition, the district court properly dismissed Ritchey’s spoliation cause of action because California does not recognize that tort. *See Temple Cmty. Hosp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County,*20 Cal.4th 464, 478, 84 Cal. Rptr.2d 852, 976 P.2d 223 (1999) (spoliation by a non-party); *Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County,*18 Cal.4th 1, 17, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 248, 954 P.2d 511 (1998) (spoliation by a party).

Ritchey’s remaining contentions lack merit.

We deny all pending motions.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *648courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>   1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 23,
2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Teligent, Inc.
(on May 21, 2001, Teligent, Inc. filed for protection under the United States
bankruptcy laws) included in Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2000
and the related financial statement schedule included therein, in the
Registration Statement Number 333-45005 on Form S-8, Registration Number
333-93241 on Form S-8, and Registration Number 333-52456 on Form S-8.

                                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

McLean, Virginia
May 21, 2001
[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16

- 15705

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:16

- cv

- 14259

- RLR

ROLANDO GUS PAEZ,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

Before MARTIN, TJOFLAT, and TRAXLER

, * Circuit J u dges.

Th e Opinion issued in this matter on July 31, 2019 is VACATED. A

replacement opinion will be forthcoming.

____________________

*The Honorable Will iam B. Traxler, Jr., United States Circuit J udge for the F ourth

C ircuit , sitting by designation.

Case: 16-15705 Date Filed: 12/23/2019 Page: 1 of 1
#### § 18.45 Supervision of exportation.

The provisions of §§ 18.41 through 18.44 do not require the director of the port of actual exportation to verify that merchandise moving under cover of a TIR carnet is loaded on board the exporting carrier.
#### § 162.4 Search for letters.

A Customs officer may search vessels for letters which may be on board or may have been conveyed contrary to law on board any vessel or on any post route, and shall seize such letters and deliver them to the nearest post office or detain them subject to the orders of the postal authorities.

[T.D. 72-211, 37 FR 16488, Aug. 15, 1972]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 9:20-cv-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP,

 INC. d/b/a/ PAR FUNDING, et al.,

Defendants

/

DEFENDANT JOSEPH COLE BARLETA’S UNOPPOSED MOTION 

TO RELEASE CAPITAL SOURCE 2000 FROM THE RECEIVERSHIP

Defendant JOSEPH COLE BARLETA (“Barleta”), by and through their undersigned 

counsel, hereby move the Court for entry of an order to release Capital Source 2000 (“CS 2000”)

from the Receivership, and to address the disposition of certain bank accounts and assets, and 

respectfully state in support as follows:

1. After extensive discussions with counsel for both the Receiver and the SEC, Barleta 

has prepared the enclosed draft order that would accomplish the separation of Capital Source 2000 

and to clarify the release of certain assets and accounts. The substance of the relief is fully 

described in the proposed order submitted herewith and attached hereto as Text of Proposed Order

and will not be repeated herein.

2. Moreover, Barleta has provided a sworn declaration, attached hereto as Exhibits A, 

attesting to the factual matters set forth in the proposed order.

3. It should be known to the Court that Mr. Barleta has 70% ownership, while Mr. 

Bromney has 30% ownership of CS 2000. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1512 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2023 Page 1 of 3
4. On information and belief, Mr. Bromley has been in contact with the Receiver, and 

has some reservations regarding the return of CS 2000. However, it appears that the Receiver, 

through Receiver counsel, has addressed all of the concerns.

5. Regardless, at this point, Mr. Bromley has not signed a proposed declaration like

Mr. Cole has. Mr. Cole’s position is that Mr. Bromley’s aquiescence is immaterial to the return of 

CS 2000 as he is, at best, a minority stakeholder. However, if the Court wishes for something to 

be done regarding this, Cole will comply with all of the Court’s Requirements. 

6. This issue has, likewise, been discussed between Receiver’s counsel and Cole’s 

counsel, who will leave it to the Court to fashion any remedy it sees fit, assuming one is even 

necessary. 

WHEREFORE, Barleta respectfully request that this Court enter the attached order.

Local Rule 7.1 Statement

Pursuant to Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1, undersigned counsel has conferred 

with counsel for both the SEC and the Receiver in a good-faith effort to resolve the issues raised 

in this motion, The Receiver has no objection to the relief sought. The SEC has advised that it 

will not oppose the relief sought herein and takes no position.

Dated: February 27, 2023

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1512 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2023 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 27th day of February 2023, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing was served via the Court’s CM/ECF System upon all counsel of record.

- Andre G. Raikhelson, Esq

- FBN: 123657

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1512 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/27/2023 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Diametrics Medical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David B. Kaysen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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/ David B. KaysenDavid B. Kaysen Chief Executive Officer September 4, 2003
#### § 191.165 No exportation by mail.

Merchandise covered by this subpart shall not be exported by mail.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-23174-CIV-WILLIAMS

JILL THAYER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD., et al., 

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Torres’ Omnibus Report 

& Recommendation (the “Report”). (DE 31). The Report recommends that Defendant 

Destinations North America, LLC’s motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in 

part. The Report also recommends that Defendant NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.’s motion to 

dismiss be denied. No objections to the Report were filed. After a careful review of the 

Report, the record, and applicable case law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Report (DE 31) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Defendant Destinations North America, LLC’s motion to dismiss (DE 14) is 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth in the Report. 

3. Defendant NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.’s motion to dismiss (DE 19) is DENIED. 

4. Counts I–VII of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint shall proceed. Count VIII is 

dismissed. Defendants shall file an answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 

on or before January 11, 2021. 

Case 1:20-cv-23174-KMW Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2020 Page 1 of 2
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 21st day of 

December, 2020. 

Case 1:20-cv-23174-KMW Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2020 Page 2 of 2
### §454. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 454 was editorially reclassified as section 30144 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
<PAGE>
                                                                             1

EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Joseph F. Trungale, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 10-K of The Restaurant Company.

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

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

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: March 23, 2006

                                         BY: /s/ Joseph F. Trungale
                                             ----------------------
                                         Joseph F. Trungale
                                         President and
                                         Chief Executive Officer
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-02-037 July 22, 2002

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC STAFF TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS INSPECTION OF

McGUIRE AND CATAWBA PLANTS’ LICENSE RENEWAL PROGRAMS

Officials of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with Duke Energy management

at 9:00 a.m. Friday, July 26 at the Duke Energy corporate offices, 526 S. Church Street in Charlotte, to

present the results of the NRC’s second inspection of the Duke Energy license renewal programs for

the company’s McGuire plant north of Charlotte and its Catawba plant south of Charlotte near York,

South Carolina.

Duke Energy filed a joint application to renew the operating licenses of the two units at

McGuire and the two units at Catawba in June last year. Duke’s Oconee plant near Seneca, South

Carolina, was the first plant in the southeast to file for license renewal and received a license extension

for its three units from the NRC in May 2000.

NRC officials said a report on the second inspection will be issued approximately 45 days after

the meeting and will be available to the public.

The meeting is between the NRC and Duke but is open to observation by interested members of

the public. NRC officials will also be available prior to its conclusion to answer any questions

observers may have.

###
### §1845. Effect on existing law

(a) All provisions of law inconsistent with sections 1841 to 1846 of this title are hereby superseded to the extent of the inconsistency.

(b) Sections 5504 and 6101(a)(5) of title 5 shall apply to employees of the House and Senate Restaurants who are paid at per annum rates of pay as long as such employees are under the supervision of the Architect of the Capitol as an agent of the House or Senate, respectively, as the case may be.

(Pub. L. 91–510, title IV, §485, Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1197.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 166b–1e of former Title 40, prior to the enactment of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §1, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective immediately prior to noon on Jan. 3, 1971, see section 601(1) of Pub. L. 91–510, set out as an Effective Date of 1970 Amendment note under section 4301 of this title.
#### § 19.49 Entry of containerized merchandise.

Merchandise not entered within the lay order period, or extension thereof, shall be placed in general order. The importing carrier shall issue carrier's certificates for individual shipments in a container. Entries covering merchandise transferred to a container station shall clearly show that the merchandise is at the container station.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-02-009 February 28, 2002

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331

NRC PROPOSES $3,000 FINE AGAINST N.J. FIRM OVER LOSS OF NUCLEAR GAUGE

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $3,000 civil penalty against a New

Jersey company for a violation of NRC requirements associated with the apparent theft of a nuclear

gauge last fall. The gauge, which contains radioactive material, is used for industrial purposes such as

measuring soil density.

 Trap Rock Industries Inc. of Kingston, N.J., reported to the NRC that on the evening of October

24, 2001, the gauge was left unattended by its user for approximately a half-hour at a temporary job

site in Ewing, N.J. When the user returned, the gauge and a cart on which it was resting were missing.

 At the time, the deviceís cesium-137 radioactive source was in the shielded position. As long as

the source is shielded, there is no radiation hazard to gauge users or members of the public. However,

the NRC is concerned about the incident because 1.) the failure to adequately control radioactive

material resulted in the subsequent loss of the source; and 2.) such sources can result in substantial

unintended radiation dose to an individual if the source is removed from the shielded position. The

fine has been proposed because of the companyís failure to secure the gauge from unauthorized

removal or access.

 It should be noted that Trap Rock has taken steps in response to the loss, including immediately

contacting the state police and conducting a search for the device; advertising the loss of the gauge in

local newspapers and offering a reward for its return; counseling and taking disciplinary action against

the gauge user; and providing refresher training to all gauge users.

 The company is required to provide the NRC with a written reply to the violation within 30

days.

###